Tag Archive for: gender diversity

Women in L&D Leadership: Why Aren’t There More?

, ,

women in l&dLearning and development (L&D) is an industry where women are considered to thrive, but that reputation is shockingly more substantiated by the abundant representation of women entering the field than the slimmer percentages in leadership roles. 

As leveraging L&D expertise becomes more critical to propelling women into senior roles amidst reskilling/upskilling demands across industries, can the L&D field address its own gender ratio flip at the leadership level?

Female-inclined Field, Same Leadership Gender Gaps

By the disproportionate numbers entering into the field, women are clearly drawn to leading on education. A recent survey showed that both education and human resources were among the top five areas for job satisfaction for women. Gallup research has previously found that women slightly outrank men on accepting and empathizing with others as well as being able to recognize and develop people’s potential, natural matches for the L&D field.

Training Industry research has also shown that women in traditionally “female” fields (such as L&D) are more likely to have access to training in strategy and negotiation, key leadership skills, relative to fields like tech or government—which makes what happens at the leadership level more astounding.

L&D is often housed in human resources, where women comprise over 70% of managers, but that’s an inaccurate reflection of L&D senior leadership composition.

As called out by #womeninlearning, a movement began by Sharon Claffey Kaliouby and co-founded with Kate Graham to amplify the voices of women in the L&D sector, research by Donald H Taylor revealed that the more senior you go in the US and UK, the more absent women are in L&D roles.

While support and entry level positions were 67% female and 33% male, this ratio flips entirely at the senior level—where leadership positions are 69% male and 31% female.

The gender advantage toward women already dissipates at mid-authority roles (51% male, 49% female) and practitioner roles (53% male, 47% female), where the split is equal but men become overrepresented versus entry level numbers.

Additionally, Namely found that women entering human resources made nearly 11% less than male counterparts, the gap widening around age 45. In organizational and industrial psychology, the gap was 17.7%. A salary and compensation report from the eLearning Guild in 2018 found that women beginning e-learning roles in their 20s start with a 6% pay gap, which increases to 20 percent at 60+ years. Men also received double the average bonus given to women, .5% higher raises, and 16% more average total compensation, despite women in the sample having higher education levels.

One survey of L&D professionals by Training Journal showed that one in four respondents felt outright discriminated against because of gender, many feeling penalized for being a working mother. Greater were the race disparities. Chief Learning Officer data has shown that only 9% of learning managers are Latino, 5.6% are black, and 2.2% are Asian.

Looking to L&D To Advance Women Across the Board

While the L&D industry’s reputation as a women-oriented field conceals its own perplexing gender leadership gap, the industry is itself being heralded to lead the way on recovering lost ground on gender equality and making advances.

Amidst the vast and disproportional hit that Covid-19 pandemic response measures have had on displacing and exasperating disadvantage for women in the workforce, online learning is being championed as a primary ally in returning opportunity to and empowering women in professional roles.

“It is only when they have access to quality information and ways to decipher it that women can march ahead towards leadership roles in organisations,” writes Dr. S.K Nigam in HERSTORY. “And sectors like Corporate Learning and Development have a huge role to play in this.”

Training Zone in the UK observed that from the beginning of the first lockdown in March 2020, “the number of women enrolling in online courses tripled, with a 250% year-on-year increase in female enrollments across our business and management courses.”

Training Zone also found that since the pandemic, 75% of US employers are more likely to hire people with online education.

In addition to “seeing more women taking the initiative in using online learning to combat the impacts of the pandemic on their careers,” the organization emphasize that organizations need to assume this responsibility too.

A D2L survey reported an awareness gap around training resources: only 48 percent of women reported having access to online learning platforms at their company. But according to Nigam, an international survey indicated that among a sample of 300 companies, 59% reported they ran women-specific learning and development programs, the number going up to 79% among large enterprises.

Upskilling/Reskilling Demands are Elevating L&D’s Profile

Writing in Chief Learning Officer, Amy Borsetti, senior director at LinkedIn Learning Solutions, points to the LinkedIn Learning’s “2021 Workplace Learning Report” to affirm that “L&D is well-positioned to have a long-term, elevated role within organizations today, from promoting internal mobility to actively creating a more inclusive and equitable workforce.”

“One thing this year has made clear is that skills are the new currency in the workplace,” write Borsetti, later continuing, “From an organizational standpoint, creating a culture of continuous learning is a competitive advantage. Those organizations that seize the moment, and get this right, have a higher likelihood to outpace their competitors. It’s not just about learning itself — it’s about the outcomes.”

Whereas being seated in HR has arguably distanced L&D from the core business value and strategy discussions, Borsetti argues that the C-Suite has never been more actively engaged than it is right now. The LinkedIn Learning report found that over half of the 1,260 L&D professionals surveyed felt that L&D is evolving in prioritization from a “nice to have” to a “need to have.” And 63% of L&D professionals reported having a seat at the C-Suite table, a 27% lift within one year.

As Borsetti puts it in Chief Learning Officer, “The reality is, the shelf life of learning programs is shortening at the same or faster clip than the shelf life of jobs.”

The acceleration of pandemic response-correlated disruption, such as displacement and job creation from automation and the more autonomous work-from-home office, has made ongoing reskilling/upskilling both individual and organizational agendas. Meanwhile, attaining microcredentials and refining essential soft skills are on the rise too.

The report found upskilling/reskilling were the top priorities for L&D professionals in 2021, especially internal mobility: “The conditions have never been more right to prioritize skill development as the new corporate currency, level the playing field, create a more equitable workplace and achieve business results that wouldn’t be possible otherwise,” notes Borsetti.

But the question is not only what is needed, but how it should be done. What is garnering attention is exactly how L&D structure, content and approaches evolve to meet the current context in which education must engage, much of which was not considered amidst the whiplash reactivity to online education brought on by the pandemic.

Dr. Rumeet Billan, Chief Learning Architect at Viewpoint Leadership Inc, observes: “We continued to perpetuate our traditional understanding of what L&D is supposed to look like, instead of what learning is supposed to feel like.”

L&D professionals are speaking to how learning is evolving towards being more accessible and customized, self-driven and on-demand, context-relevant, bite-sized, blended, flexible, on-going and more akin in interaction to everyday work activities.

“Transformative learning is an art. Designing a training session is choreography – it’s a sequence that makes the learner reflect, feel, and draw connections that are applicable and practical to them. It’s an experience,” says Billan, who also adds: “The future of learning should look and feel different. We should be intentionally redefining the traditional notion of L&D, how we design and deliver content, and how a learner experiences training and development.”

Can L&D Lead its own Gender Equality Change?

“…I do believe what we’re doing here is opening people’s eyes. Once you see the imbalance, it becomes almost impossible to unsee it,” notes Kate Graham, co-founder of #womeninlearning. “Just look at the speaker line-up of any conference and you can instantly see if that organisation is paying any heed to gender balance and the voices of women.”

So as L&D rises in position in the C-Suite’s vision agenda and increasingly focuses on the learner experience to shape the design and delivery of learning, what kind of experience will be created for the women aspiring to rise to leadership in this very field?

By: Aimee Hansen

/by

Spotlight on Asia: What Does Gender Diversity in Asia Look Like in 2021?

,

Gender Diversity in AsiaDuring the month of August, The Glass Hammer looks to the state of gender diversity in business and among leaders in Asia. The region is ahead globally in some facets, behind in others, and facing opportunity gaps where more women are needed.

Here’s a brief overview of the key themes we see happening across Asia now:

Gains in Women Executives in ASEAN Region

According to a Grant Thornton report 2020, the greater Asian region was split when it comes to women in executive leadership.

The global average is 29% (on par with North America).

While ASEAN (Association of South East Asia Nations) tied with Eastern Europe at 35% to rank second highest in women in senior management roles globally, after Africa (38%), APAC (Asia-Pacific) had the world’s lowest representation (27%).

The ASEAN region showed very impressive growth from 28% in 2019 to 35% in 2020, thanks to a range of initiatives around diversity.

In 2018, prior to COVID-19, McKinsey estimated that advancing women’s equality in Asia-Pacific could boost the collective regional GDP by 12% by 2025 to $4.5 trillion.

Still A “1 Woman” Boardroom in Asia

A significant gap exists between women’s representation in senior management and their presence in the board room in Asia, where Asia lags behind.

According to the Egon Zehnder 2020 Global Board Diversity Tracker, only 73% of boards in Asia had at least one woman (89% globally). Only 33% had at least two women (70% globally) and 12% had at least 3 (49% globally).

The data shows only 12% of Asia board seats are held by women (23% globally), and only 16% of new appointments in 2020 were women (compared to 30% globally).

In China, women hold 12% of seats too, though only 29% of boards have at least two women and only 10% had 3 or more. In India, women fair much better – holding 17% of seats. 60% of boards have at least two women and 23% have at least three.

Arguing the financial case for diversity, the Board Gender Diversity in ASEAN report found companies with over 30% women representation had significantly greater financial performance (3.8% ROA) relative to boards with no women (2.4% ROA). Even one woman helped, according to the authors, but the financial performance difference increased with representation, especially at over 30% women.

Women in Tech Relatively Strong in ASEAN But More Are Needed

The global demand for digital talent outpaces the supply, including in Asia-Pacific. BCG reports that in the first quarter of 2020, 5% of technology roles went unfilled in Singapore.

Women’ participation in tech in Southeast Asia (32%) outpaces the global average (28%), and mature markets like the UK and Australia, being on par with the US. But despite the relatively high numbers, BCG says a significant tech gap remains. Across countries, women’s representation in tech in ASEAN lags relative to other industries.

The key “moments of truth” that must be supported in a women’s journey into a long-term career in the technology sector, according to the consultancy group’s research, include: their choice of major at college, selection of first job and decision to stay with a technology career once they’ve started.

As the dynamic is different in each country across these key truth points, the interventions to encourage and foster diversity must be tailored to each country’s context. In Thailand, women are 48% of tech graduates but only 42% of tech jobs (the highest % across ASEAN countries). Whereas in Singapore, women make up only 29% of tech graduates but comprise 41% of the tech workforce ,due to demand.

The vast majority of women in tech feel they have benefitted from diversity programs and 65% feel tech does better than most industries in tailoring programs to women, yet BCG argues more tailored efforts are needed at the “moments of truth” points.

Opportunity Gaps for Women in Asia Pacific

Per the LinkedIn Opportunity Index 2020, developing markets – including in Asia Pacific – are generally more confident about having access to opportunities: India (121), Indonesia (117) and China (116) top their list, while Japan comes in last (80).

But LinkedIn, according to Feon Ang, Managing Director, APAC, also found that women felt they had less opportunities than men, and COVID-19 not only disproportionally affected women but also their outlook on the future. One in three women in APAC felt that gender was a significant barrier to opportunity.

The research showed that 41% of women in APAC felt they had fewer career development opportunities than men, with that sentiment being strongest in China (44%), Malaysia (45%), Japan (47%) and Singapore (49%). Whereas in India, 4 of every 5 women felt they’d missed offers or opportunities due to gender.

The challenges facing women vary as well. Ang cites that “lack of time” is the main barrier to opportunities for women in countries such as India, Philippines and Singapore. Whereas “lack of professional skills” is the primary barrier for women in Japan. And in China and India, women feel they have a “lack of guidance through networks and connections.”

Less than a fourth of working professionals in APAC feel that their organizations are prioritizing gender diversity. Managing familial responsibilities comes up as a challenge to career development for many APAC women (45%) especially in India (71%).

Where are the Women Executives in Japan?

In Japan, women hold only 15% of management roles according to McKinsey, only halfway to the country’s 30% target. In 2019, Japan was ranked at 121 out of 153 in the World Economic Forum’s gender-equality index, the lowest among developed nations.

In research, McKinsey identified a gap in career-advancement goals. Japanese women are less likely to indicate they want a promotion than men (15 points lower), yet also more likely to feel gender is in the way and less confident. Overall men and women in Japan have the same hesitations towards promotion, but more women feared they would not be able to manage work/life balance.

When it came to what motivates aspirations for promotion, Japanese women tended to cite external recognition of their talent and strengths and the personal growth opportunity. Japanese men cite financial benefits, social status and rewards more.

Whereas the financial and status incentives are enough to motivate men, organizations like IBM are learning that women in Japan are more compelled when both witnessed for their personal skills and talents, and engaged individually on how advancing would particularly impact their own development.

Regional Diversity & Inclusion

LinkedIn’s Ang cites conversations on diversity and inclusion that include male allies; more women in leadership roles; family-friendly and flexible working policies; stronger mentoring and networking; and investment in learning and development as key measures for organizations to help close the opportunity gaps for women in Asia.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

OP-Ed: Going Back to “Normal” or Creating A “New Normal”?

,

Kate IslerI, for one, don’t want to go back to normal. We have an opportunity this month, during Women’s History Month, to assess the current state of women’s equality around the world and make the appropriate and overdue changes to create a new normal. As I look around today, there is no question that the global pandemic has had a disproportionate effect on women and that the gains made over the past three decades have been all but wiped out in the past 12 months.

Women, and especially mothers, are leaving the workforce at unprecedented rates to shoulder most of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities caused by the pandemic, resulting in unemployment numbers that set us back to the 1980s. But almost more alarming are the “getting back to normal” discussions I hear every day. The normal that so many are talking about nostalgically were not equitable or profitable for women, especially women of color.

Policy matters. Changes being debated on the state and federal level matter. One recent example, in particular, stands out: The Idaho state legislature voted down a bill that would have given the state access to $6 million in funding (approved by the Trump administration) for early childhood education. The opposition to the funding included comments from Idaho Representative Charlie Shepherd (GOP) who stated during the debate, “I don’t think anybody does a better job than mothers in the home, and any bill that makes it easier or more convenient for mothers to come out of the home and let others raise their child, I don’t think that’s a good direction for us to be going.” Mr. Shepherd later apologized for his remarks, but his words still ring heavy and hard. Until state and federal policy makers see, accept, and support the fact that most families have two incomes, and that women desire to live fully realized lives, we are going to continue to fight this shift back to the undesired “normal.”

We are at a historic inflection point. We have an opportunity to create a new normal. Women comprise over 50% of the population and are responsible for 85% of the consumer purchasing decisions. Plus, research has proven time and time again that increased diversity has a direct correlation to increased profitability for businesses.

The way forward is not backwards.

Women working together can seize this opportunity to create new work environments that allow the other half of the population to thrive and flourish. The way forward includes:

  1. Women supporting women. This doesn’t mean that we always need to agree, but we need to support one another. Purchase from women-owned businesses. Mentor a younger woman colleague. Talk explicitly about barriers and successes so other women don’t think they are alone in this work.
  2. Dispelling the myth that there is only room for a few women leaders. There is always room to increase the numbers, whether that is in the boardroom or at the table. Bring your own chair if there isn’t one. And always bring a spare chair with you to meetings, in case your colleague forgets hers.
  3. Be explicit about what you need to be successful in a work environment. For far too long women have kept quiet about what they need and been made to feel singled out and isolated. You are NOT the only one.
  4. Realize that you have power and even more power with a team. So often women feel that they are powerless based on circumstances outside of their control. Gender equity is a team sport. Build or find your team and work together to achieve your vision. There is power in numbers.

Don’t settle for going back to “NORMAL.” This is a once-in-a-hundred-years opportunity to reset the table. Let’s build on the work that has been done by countless women and men to take a major step forward in cultural evolution.

 

Kate Isler is the Co-Founder of TheWMarketplace, an economic engine for women, as well as the Co-Founder of Be Bold Now, a non-profit focused on accelerating gender parity. With over 20 years of international executive leadership experience gained working for Fortune 100 companies, Kate’s journey of leadership, challenging the status quo, overcoming adversity and breaking gender stereotypes motivates and inspires. She shares her incredible story and insights in her memoir, Breaking Borders (HarperCollins Leadership), available everywhere books are sold.

/by

Mariella Greco: Gender and International Development Advisor

,

Mariella Greco “In difficult moments in the development world, I draw on what I learned from the intensity of the trading room,” says Mariella Greco, a global leader in gender, development and finance. “The motivators are different, but those same skills make me a better leader in the not-for-profit sector.”

Heeding the Call

Having majored in international relations in university, Greco was magnetized to international development.

But after a short assignment at Canada’s Permanent Mission to the UN in 1990, she put her call to international service on hold and accepted a domestic position with the Royal Bank of Canada back in Windsor, Ontario, her hometown, staying near her mother during her parent’s difficult divorce.

When family matters settled, she left Windsor to pivot back to international affairs, but in banking. She succeeded in a tough dealer training program that she landed as the only woman on the Canada desk. Nicknamed “Stella”—and with the occasional “what-a-guy” pat on the back—she learned to hold her own as one of very few women dealers in the bank’s main trading room.

But Greco still felt the pull to international development and began volunteering for Plan International in Canada.

When she began at the Royal Bank, she promised herself (in writing, along with other life goals she recorded in a book) that she would revisit her path in time: within 5 years, she would either try international development or stay the course in finance.

“My head was like don’t be stupid,” recalls Greco, “but my heart was still feeling this call.”

Giving up a hard-won position in the global headquarters of Canada’s biggest bank for an NGO job with a 50% pay cut was both risky and daunting.

“So for a year I went home everyday and asked myself, ’Is this a day where I feel I want to go, stay or am I neutral?’ I literally logged it,” she explains. “Like the markets, my feelings about taking the leap had highs and lows. I tried to find balance with a daily risk-reward analysis about what I wanted in life. At the end of the year, I added it all up, and bottom line—there were more days where my gut said GO.”

Greco heeded the math and left for a “planned” two year break from banking that became two decades working in international development, while living in five countries, traveling to 50 countries and gaining proficiency in several languages, before returning to Canada with her family in 2018.

Transferable Leadership Lessons

Calm Under Fire

On the trading floor, Greco learned that as important as being a good winner was, so was being a good loser.

The EVP who interviewed her for the dealer job asked her, “Can you speak your mind to your boss, and give your opinion knowing his is different, even if he is yelling because of market volatility? Can you speak up then, too?” She said yes, and she did because it was the expectation.

“They wanted to know if you can stand the heat and carry on, even when stress is overwhelming and you’re losing money,” says Greco. “Loyalty to the team meant sharing differing opinions, and it also meant closing ranks when final decisions were taken.”

This insight and learning to stand the heat helped her to be a strong leader in many challenging situations, and to do so while also caring for her team’s wellbeing (physical, mental and socio-emotional), such as in humanitarian crises.

“The most rewarding experiences are sometimes the hardest ones,” says Greco, such as the Category 5 hurricane response she led in Nicaragua (earning her one of her official Medals of Honor).

Also, ensuring child safeguarding and gender equality were part of each and every Plan staff member’s performance objectives was rewarding too, because it positively impacted both the quality of their work and the personal lives of her team.

Speaking Truth to Power and Holding Midterm Vision

Honed in the trading room, several bosses have told Greco that her strong voice is her “superpower”.

When pregnant with her first daughter, Greco learned that expatriate women in her organization didn’t receive maternity leave, even as she was unexpectedly promoted shortly after giving birth. As her contract was subject to U.S. labor laws, she was limited to six weeks of “disability leave” after birth, because maternity leave might be interpreted as discriminatory against men, creating liability risk for the organization.

“I was shocked that giving birth was deemed a disability in an organization dedicated to children and gender,” shares Greco.

Not only did that seem wrong, but also that it was only 6 weeks of leave, especially when compared to the year that mothers may take off in Canada.

Greco began a five year internal campaign that gave birth to a maternity leave policy that was more coherent with the organization’s mandate. In doing so, she helped remove barriers for younger women aspiring to both leadership and motherhood.

“Some things you can take a short-term view on, but for other things you need to play the long game, even if you can’t see around the corner,” Greco reflects. “Be willing to also sow seeds and nurture change for positive impacts that may only blossom after you are long gone.”

Greco values learning to speak truth to power early in life. Reflecting on a “Me Too” incident she had early in her career, Greco recalls the unconditional support of her male bosses when she reported being harassed by a senior executive, who was also way over their heads.

“I had stood my ground with him and let my bosses know the next day, but I also asked them to refrain from intervening unless he bothered me again,” remembers Greco. “They were so outraged that instead of doing what I asked, they made it known to their leadership that they had my back.”

When the “Me Too” movement gained prominence, she realized how rare their reactions were. So she wrote her ex-bosses and asked them to sit their daughters down and tell them that story “so they know how stand-up their dads were and so they know the standard of support they should expect if it happens to them.”

“That whole experience (good and bad),” reflects Greco, “helped me better support others who faced this.”

Multidirectional Career Moves

Greco made yet another non-traditional career move in 2019, pivoting towards government this time.

“People too often think their path must be up, up, up, like that’s the only direction worth going” she observes. “Had I been hostage to that mentality, I would have missed an amazing journey. I feel the same way about the journey ahead”.

She likens working in government to learning about a whole new world: “It is a bit like being paid to attend a university program, continuing to work and add value, but influencing for change more subtly.”

Empowering Girls to Lead

Greco credits her successes—whether as a trainee or as a Country Director—to both fortune and her willingness to try.

In Plan, Greco was steadfast in her efforts to advance gender equality and promote the leadership potential of girls. Ahead of Plan’s #GirlsTakeover on International Day of the Girl on October 11th, Paraguayan colleagues warned that national leaders would never cede their positions to girls, given entrenched gender attitudes and the political environment.

Greco decided she would try, anyway, at least with one Minister. When she phoned him, he quickly agreed. So she called another, and then another, planning to stop when one Minister said ‘no’. None did.

That year, Paraguay’s Cabinet, Senate, Congress, Supreme Court and even the Central Bank were led by girls. It catalyzed the President to create a Council of Girl Minsters, inspired Paraguayan girls to dream bigger dreams and it helped chip away at arthritic gender stereotypes. The next year, ministers were asking her to be involved.

“Without that risk tolerance built into me, whether inherent or strengthened in the trading room, I probably wouldn’t have asked” says Greco. “Don’t squander your opportunities out of fear of a ‘no’. Try. ”

Which Organizations Will Dare?

Greco discusses gender and COVID-19 impacts with her daughters, even the 140,000 U.S. job losses in December 2020, in which women netted 156,000 losses vs. the 16,000 net jobs gained among men.

Women fill so many jobs deemed “essential”—yet are disproportionately bearing the economic brunt of the pandemic, whether in job losses, being underpaid or exiting the workforce for unpaid family responsibilities. Paying wages commensurate with essential work and implementing measures that close the wage gap could slow the loss of women from the labor force, but Greco feels the solution space of gender impacts needs more innovate thinking for systemic change.

“Incremental change is safe but too slow,” observes Greco. “Taking some risks to accelerate long term gains is long overdue.”

Basics like paid maternity leave and flexible arrangements for family responsibilities (the brunt of which continue to fall to women) are critical, but additional measures that fast-track women back onto their career should help them regain momentum too.

When faced with women exiting the workforce (be it a result of the pandemic, family responsibilities or wage gap disincentives), do employers just lament and accept it, or do they step up and flex what’s possible to keep their talent? Can organizational playbooks and rules historically written by men be modernized through a more balanced lens?

Greco looks to organizations with deep pockets to pilot such changes that matter, lean into some risks and help pave the way for others.

The True Pipeline

After witnessing so many empowered girls inspiringly take to leadership, and the impact on their personal sense of agency, Greco reframes the pipeline when it comes to future change.

“Younger people are more powerful, engaging and influential early on,” she says. “It’s not only about a line of new and energetic ‘replacement’ candidates to fulfill status quo positions, but rather an idea stream with young and unencumbered perspectives that will evolve our vision and how we do things.”

“Avoid the typical training that ‘indoctrinates’ young talent in how things are done, because if we listen better, we just might realize that they have the most forward looking solutions,” she advises. “Consider stewarding and facilitating emerging talent and ideas. That’s what’s going to tip it, for those willing to ask—to listen to differing opinions and to courageously take calculated risks.”

By Aimee Hansen

/by

Women in Tech: Seven Hurdles to Overcoming the Gender Gap

women in techMore women in tech leadership would catalyze innovation, increase revenue and enhance profitability for tech firms. It would challenge the default male world and address the economic liability that the absence creates.

So why is tech still so male-dominated? Research shows gender diversity training programs are not altering the leadership composition in tech.

Perhaps it’s because the gender gap is truly a series of interconnected hurdles that run along the tech trajectory.

Attraction Deficit

Women have been disinvited from tech over the decades, often even steered away by their teachers. Both tech stereotypes and a lack of visible role models are discouraging.

Back in the 1980s, women made up 37% of computer science (CS) graduates. Nationally, women earning CS degrees decreased from only 27% percent in 1997 to 19% in 2016.

Meanwhile, Accenture found there are more jobs in the field than graduates to fill them.

Yet focusing only on attracting female students – who are inclined to be more proficient in engineering and tech tasks at the eighth grade level – is highly oversimplifying.

Fewer Women In Tech Roles

As of 2015, women made up only 25% of computing roles nationally. In the UK, only 17% of the digital workforce is women for a decade now.

“A diverse mix of voices leads to better discussions, decisions, and outcomes for everyone,” says Google CEO Sundar Pichai. But the tech profile does not reflect gender diversity.

As of 2020, women comprise only 20% of Microsoft tech jobs, and 23% of tech jobs at Facebook, Google and Apple.

“Bro Culture”

A stereotype-ridden “bro culture” that is laden with microaggressions creates a sense of women not belonging in tech.

“Diversity in the workplace has a lot to do with psychological safety and a comfortable welcoming environment in the workplace,” writes Kamilika Some in Analytics Insight. “As long as workplaces don’t become women-friendly, they would not feel comfortable enough to speak up and contribute to the team constructively.”

Pew research in 2017 showed that 74% of women in computer jobs felt gender discrimination. In a male-dominated workplace, 79% of women felt they had to prove themselves all the time.

An Ivanti study showed that more than 60% of women in the tech sector felt that long-standing stereotypes still favored men in leadership roles in tech and that women are judged by different criteria. 53% of women felt they weren’t taken seriously in the workplace.

Forbes council member Tendu Yogurtcu writes that increasing women in leadership requires meaningful cultural changes and “happened (at her company) because we focused on creating a fair, inclusive environment where everyone feels empowered to share ideas.”

Less Pay

Pew Research reports that women in computing on average earn 87% of what a man earns, with greater gaps for Black women.

A 2019 IDC report showed that, contrary to stereotype, women (52%) in tech were more concerned about compensation and pay than men (33%). Further, only 42% of women felt their employer paid equitably, while a whopping 75% of men felt they did.

The Ivanti research revealed that 64% of women would see equality in pay and benefits as a main factor in attracting them to a new role.

Low Retention

National Science Foundation data shows that only 38% of women who majored in computer science are actually working in the field (compared to 53% of men).

Previous research showed that US women working in tech, science, or engineering were 45% more likely than male colleagues to quit their job in the first year.

With lower pay, unwelcoming culture and less likelihood of leadership, it’s not surprising.

Missing in Leadership

The Ivanti women survey found that women perceiving a glass ceiling in tech (31%) rose in 2019 (from 24% in 2018).

An IDC report indicated that women in tech senior leadership increased from 21% in 2018 to 24% in 2019. 54% of men felt they were likely to be employed to executive management in their company, whereas only 25% of women felt the same – noting lack of support, self-confidence and sponsorship.

Deloitte found that women who have sponsorship within STEM are 22% more likely to be satisfied with their rate of promotion, 37% more likely to ask for a raise, 70% more likely to have their ideas endorsed, 119% more likely to have their ideas developed and 200% more likely to have their ideas developed.

According to Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), only 41% of new US tech startups have a woman in the C-Suite and 37% have one on the board of directors. Only 4.8% of S&P 500 CEOs are women.

Women make up only 25% of Microsoft leadership, 26% at Google, 27% at Amazon, 29% at Apple and 33% at Facebook.

IDC research shows that at companies where at least half of the senior leadership positions are held by women, the chances of equal pay for women, higher retention and job satisfaction are better.

Yet only a third of start-ups have programs focused on increasing women in leadership and 17% have goals to increase C-Suite representation, according to SVB.

Few Women Founders

The gender of the founder or founding team of startups has a huge impact on gender diversity in leadership, according to SVB.

Only 14% of total startups have a women CEO. But among startups with a woman on the founding team, 46% have a woman CEO. Among startups with only male founders, only 2% have a female CEO.

Yet less than 4% of total startup funding goes to women founders, and Pitchbook reports 77% of US Venture Capital funding in 2019 went to all male founding teams.

When it comes to venture firms who channel the capital, 65% have no female partners. Only 7% of partners at global top 100 venture firms are women.

All in all, tech is currently better at keeping women out than encouraging them in. If the industry wants to catch up, it’s not only one gap that must be addressed, but all of the hurdles at which women drop out.

by Aimee Hansen

/by

The Business Case for Gender Diversity: Necessary But Not Sufficient

,
diversity

Image via Shutterstock

Guest contributed by Lisa Levey

The business case or economic justification for gender diversity is front and center in any discussion of the subject.

Yet as a veteran diversity consultant, I don’t see the business case is getting the job done. It’s not that the business case is unimportant. Clearly, it’s critical but while the business case is necessary, it’s not sufficient.

There has long been evidence of the links between gender diversity and positive business outcomes – enhanced financial performance, greater creativity and innovation, and less risk among others. In 2008 the U.S. and the world fell into an economic downturn of epic proportions. Yet as late as the spring of 2007, the International Monetary Fund or IMF was messaging continued optimism for the global financial markets.

How could the IMF – explicitly tasked with monitoring the health of global financial markets – have missed the signs? An independent study found that ‘groupthink’ fueled by lack of diversity in perspective was to blame and gender diversity is a powerful means to bring that diversity of perspective to the table.

In June 2011 Christine LaGarde became the first female leader of the IMF replacing her predecessor Dominique Strauss-Kahn who was at the helm in the run-up to the global financial crisis. In 2016 LaGarde was unanimously voted for another 5 year term.  

The IMF example powerfully illustrates the limitations of the business-case only bias characterizing our current approach to justifying a focus on gender diversity. If bringing the world’s economies to their knees does not provide sufficient evidence of the business case for diversity – and the economic hazards of homogeneity – it’s clear the business case must only be a piece of a bigger puzzle.

Most white men approach gender diversity, all diversity truth be told, with trepidation. They experience the topic as harmful, fraught with conflict and risky. For some men, the very idea of enhanced gender diversity elicits anger. They perceive women’s initiatives as reverse discrimination and see support for greater gender diversity as undermining their professional security and status. Gender diversity makes many men feel awkward, confused and guilty; they keep their distance thinking, ‘I’m not one of those guys. I’m a good guy. I’m not doing anything wrong.’ But of all men’s problems with gender diversity, the biggest barrier to their involvement is indifference and apathy. In their mind’s, gender diversity is a women’s issue.

But that is where they would be completely mistaken!

Diversity is about evolving work cultures so that men can be the far more engaged fathers they long to be. Diversity is about men being able to take paternity leave – without career penalty – so they can experience the profound bonding with their child in his or her earliest days. Diversity is about men’s wives and partners being paid equitably, so she can contribute more financially, and he can feel less financial pressure. Diversity is about men’s mothers being able to reenter the workforce after divorce so that she can support herself and rebuild her self-esteem, in many cases. Diversity is about men’s sisters who want to leave unfaithful or violent husbands but don’t feel financially able to do so.

Diversity is about men’s daughters having the same professional opportunities as their sons and their sons having the same opportunities to be involved parents as their daughters. Diversity is about men’s daughters not having to deal with the sexually inappropriate norms that are pervasive in the workplace. Diversity is about men’s female bosses, many incredible mentors, not getting the opportunities they deserve because they’re deemed too nice – or not nice enough – to be a senior leader.

Diversity is about men recognizing that many of their seemingly harmless behaviors – assuming a new mother is not up for the challenge of a new job or stretch assignment without even asking her, making sexual jokes that demean, talking over women in meetings, paying the women you manage less than the men because you can – don’t just affect those other women. They affect his women [and girls] too by normalizing and perpetuating the status quo.   

While gender diversity is the smart thing to do in a business sense, it is also the right thing to do in so many ways. We shouldn’t be so reluctant in the business world to say that aloud! Helping men realize the connections between gender diversity at work – and in their lives outside of work – has been an enormous missing link. Gender diversity is not just about men helping women to thrive at work. It is about men being full partners in driving change because they know just how much gender diversity at work is connected to so many parts of their lives and has repercussions far beyond their workplaces.   

My vision is for white men to be an important voice at the diversity table, listening, sharing, and working to co-create new norms. Gender diversity is not a zero-sum game. It’s about evolving the work world for the 21st century in ways that improve the lives of women and men.

When we talk about gender diversity, in addition to articulating the economic case, let’s also talk about how it deeply affects men – the people they care about, the values they hold, the lives they want to lead, and the world they want to create for themselves and their children.   

Contributor Bio

Lisa Levey is a veteran diversity consultant, having worked with leading organizations for more than two decades to assist them in realizing the underutilized leadership potential of women. Her current work focuses on engaging men as allies and partners. She led the design and development of the Forte Foundation’s Male Ally signature resource platform for engaging men in diversity work and architected a pilot program to launch corporate male ally groups. She blogs for the Huffington Post and the Good Men Project on gender norms at work and at home. In the spring of 2018 partnering with her husband Bryan, Lisa is launching Genderworks, a coaching practice for dual-career professional parents to support them in navigating the obstacles to gender equality at work and at home. Lisa earned an MBA with highest honors from the Simmons School of Management and a BS with distinction from Cornell University in applied economics.

Disclaimer: The opinions and views of guest contributors are not necessarily those of theglasshammer.com

/by

Women in Corporate America Continue to Feel Like a Square Peg in a Round Hole

,

women stressed

Guest contributed by Lisa Levey

Gender diversity is on the radar in corporate America after more than 10 years of research highlighting the economic benefits of women in leadership roles.

Companies have invested in gender initiatives that aim to support women’s advancement and diversify the leadership pipeline. Some companies have been at it for multiple decades. Yet, the results seem to be much ado about nothing.

McKinsey and LeanIn’s 2017 annual Women in the Workplace report on the state of women’s advancement recounts the sad tale – women fall behind early in their careers and the gender gaps widen at each step along the career ladder. And year after year the changes are marginally positive at best.

So what is going on? Why despite much effort on the part of organizations does the big picture of women’s place in corporate America look eerily similar to 10, 20, or more years ago?

The truth is that despite much effort, corporate work environments – developed by and for men – continue to be defined by masculine rules of engagement. In multiple ways, so many women at work continue to feel like a square peg in a round hole.

Masculine and Feminine Behavioral Norms Diverge

To understand the disconnect, let’s begin with the well-researched premise that masculine behavioral norms are deeply linked to hierarchy. Men think in terms of competition and increasing their relative positioning, aka power and status. Dominance behaviors often define their approach.

Translated into the workplace, this looks like men bragging about their accomplishments – accomplishments that often are inflated. This looks like talking over others and mansplaining – talking without interruption – to control the floor or from lack of self-awareness. This looks like posturing and talking a big game to get the upper hand in a negotiation. This looks like sexualizing women – perhaps unintentionally – or intentionally with the goal of marginalizing them by seeking to ‘keep them in their place.’

Women have been socialized to equalize, rather than to differentiate, resulting in a predisposition to share rather than to concentrate power. Stephen Lukes, a sociologist who has written extensively about power, contrasts the approach of getting an individual to do something they may, or may not, want to do with a far more sophisticated and cooperative alternative in which both those who do – and do not – benefit from the status quo have agency to influence the system. Women tend toward the latter.

Translated into the workplace, this looks like sharing credit, even in situations where others played a small role. It translates into women being more soft-spoken and less likely to put someone on the spot. It translates into women focusing on shared goals, rather than power differentials, in negotiations.

The Rockefeller Foundation commissioned Korn Ferry to study women CEOs to learn how more women can make it to the top. What they found was, in comparison to their male counterparts, women CEOs demonstrated far more humility, were more likely to credit others as playing a central role in their shared success, and were significantly less likely to self promote.

Leadership = Men, Masculine Norms Prevail

Not surprisingly, leadership in the business world has been defined through the gender lens of masculinity, rendering women lacking. How many times has it been said, “she lacks gravitas” or “she doesn’t have enough executive presence to be a leader.”

Studies show that women are deeply drawn to a sense of purpose and meaning, often connected to helping others and to women’s vision of making the world a better place. A longitudinal study of more than 700 engineering students at premier universities found that a central reason so many women leave the engineering field was a disconnect between their drive to solve problems that make a difference in people’s lives and their workplace experience of corporate proclamations rather than demonstrated commitment to improving society. Similarly the Korn Ferry study reported women leaders were driven by a strong sense of purpose, perceiving their companies as positively impacting the world.

Research by the OECD [an organization focused on promoting policies that improve the economic and social well-being of people worldwide] and UNWomen show that when women have greater access to economic resources, they spend those dollars on things like health care and education, bettering not only themselves and their families but also their communities in the process. Yet in the business world, where cold, hard analytical thinking is king, male leaders denigrate women’s emotions, marginalizing women by characterizing them as ‘not tough enough to make the hard decisions’ or ‘lacking business acumen.’ Why then are men, driven by emotion as they make risky trades on the stock market and pursue questionable acquisitions, [most of which provide NO economic benefit to shareholders,], praised for their gutsy decisions and held blameless for failures rationalized as the cost of doing business?

For most professional women, advancement is very important but, it is not their only goal. Thus, they are more likely to forgo an opportunity that does not fit into the big picture of their life at that time. Commitment and hard work are not an issue for women but the all-in, all-the-time definition of leadership that prevails is.[i] How many women start their long workdays having already fed their children, thrown in a load of laundry, answered some emails, made lunches and maybe even started dinner? Yet women receive messaging that they aren’t committed enough!
Bain & Company’s 2014 US gender partity research found that while women start out with as much, or more, career ambition than their male peers, after two short years on the job, their career aspirations decline precipitously while men’s remain constant.

Why the big drop? Women continually encounter the masculine leadership norm of the ideal worker who is singularly focused because they have a partner who deals with all the rest. What if we stopped telling women they aren’t committed enough at work? And what if we start telling men that they and their loved-ones are paying the emotional price for their no limits, masculine leadership model?

To make matters worse, it seems that no matter how women behave, they just can’t seem to get it right. Women who meet stereotypical gender expectations of being nurturing and accommodating – are deemed likable but “not leadership material” – while women who are assertive get kudos for possessing leadership potential but also judged as lacking interpersonal skills. Leadership or likeability – it seems women can only pick one.

The Problematic Value Proposition for Aspiring Women Leaders

When women in the pipeline look up, they see struggle because of their gender, little support to figure it out, and the need to combat even greater – not less – gender bias with each step up the corporate ladder. Feminine behavioral norms are devalued and even when women behave like men, they’re still judged lacking. Why then are we surprised when women don’t say, “Please sign me up for more of that?”

McKinsey and LeanIn’s 2017 Women in the Workplace report captures the struggle. Women progress at a slower rate than their male colleagues, despite asking for promotions at comparable rates and being no more likely to leave their companies. In fact, men report they are more likely to receive raises and promotions without even having to ask. Women in the study were nearly 5 times as likely as men to report gender played a role in their chance for a promotion or raise. Is it any wonder why women lose optimism in their career potential?

While men are doing more at home than their father’s generation, women continue to disproportionately shoulder the load at home, in many cases enabling their partner’s singular work focus. And the cycle continues!

Meanwhile many men can’t even see that the playing field is tipped, essentially invalidating the lived experience of their women co-workers. It makes me think of the many women’s voices that have been twisted and silenced for so long when calling out sexual harassment. Finally in this Harvey Weinstein epoch, women are being heard.

Contributor Bio

Lisa Levey is a veteran diversity consultant, having worked with leading organizations for more than two decades to assist them in realizing the underutilized leadership potential of women. Her current work focuses on engaging men as allies and partners. She led the design and development of the Forte Foundation’s Male Ally signature resource platform for engaging men in diversity work and architected a pilot program to launch corporate male ally groups. She blogs for the Huffington Post and the Good Men Project on gender norms at work and at home. In the spring of 2018 partnering with her husband Bryan, Lisa is launching Genderworks, a coaching practice for dual-career professional parents to support them in navigating the obstacles to gender equality at work and at home. Lisa earned an MBA with highest honors from the Simmons School of Management and a BS with distinction from Cornell University in applied economics.

Disclaimer: The opinions and views of guest contributors are not necessarily those of theglasshammer.com

/by

Gender diversity – lessons from the UK boardroom for 2016

,

BoardRoomBy Nneka Orji

A mere five years ago in early 2011, few of us would have looked to the UK Public Limited Company’s boardrooms as beacons of gender diversity. Female representation in FTSE 100 boardrooms was just 12.5% and although many leaders in business and politics acknowledged that something had to be done, it was not clear what or how. Five years on now in 2016 women now fill 26% of FTSE 100 board roles – just over double their representation when the Davies Review (Women on boards) was launched. If we didn’t know before, we certainly now have a better idea about what it takes to turn the dial on this opportunity.

The Davies Review proved a successful catalyst for gender diversity in UK boardrooms; with a clear target and public commitment from senior leaders to achieve at least 25% representation over the course of five years, board directors were incentivised to proactively address unconscious bias in board selection and nomination processes among a number of other obstacles female leaders face on their journey to the boardroom.

Yes there has been progress – which we should be proud of – but it’s by no means time to congratulate ourselves. While a number of organisations now have female representation of 25% or more on their boards, some industries have a way to go. As identified by the New Financial’s most recent report, UK-regulated financial services companies have more work to do – both in the boardroom where women fill 23% of roles and in executive committees where they fill only 14% of leadership roles.

The Davies review focused on listed organisations, with the aim for other non-listed organisations to adopt the recommendations, so it is no surprise that more progress has been made by UK-listed companies. Unlike the boards of listed companies, only 14% of board positions of privately held financial services companies are filled by female board directors. For those still not convinced by the widely discussed benefits by advocates of gender diversity, why not consider what board directors have experienced as a result of enhanced diversity?

Chairs and board members say this isn’t just a nice-to-have; they continue to see the value of more diverse boards in the richness of board discussions particularly when it comes to making critical decisions, and they are less likely to be hit by scandals. In the current business landscape with increasing scrutiny of boards and greater focus on the importance of business’ role in society, surely this is welcome news? From a commercial perspective it also makes sense; research conducted by the index provider MCSI found that companies with more women “delivered a 36% better return on equity since 2010 than those groups lacking board diversity”.

The US may also do well to consider some of the progress achieved in the UK. According to the recently published “2015 Catalyst Census: Women and Men Board Directors”, female representation across S&P 500 stands at just 19.9%. Of even greater concern is that the glacial pace of change is likely to continue given new directorship appointments, of which 73% were held by men and 27% by women. Deborah Gillis, CEO’s President and CEO, stated; “Our new Census shows little progress has been made at the board level, and even less progress has been made in the pipeline for women officers and directors—suggesting women are nowhere near the path to parity with men. Men continue to be overrepresented, holding more than their fair share of board seats and, in some cases, all the board seats.”

The New Financial’s report also points to exemplary countries which others should aspire to – including countries in the Nordic region, France and Germany where female representation is 34%, 29% and 27% respectively.

These reports and others point to the merits of diversity and encourage leaders – both in business and government – to take bold action. What does bold action look like?

In the UK, the government commissioned the Ghadia Review which sought to make specific recommendations for UK financial services organisations to address gender diversity at both board and executive level. The Review recommended clear targets and enhanced transparency (including the disclosure of diversity data), increased accountability across all leadership levels within organisations, and the linking of remuneration to progress against gender diversity targets. New Financial found that only 26% of the financial services organisations included in the research sample disclosed gender diversity targets – and of these only 10% disclosed gender representation at board level, and 24% setting targets with deadlines.

It’s not enough to talk about gender diversity – it’s a case of committing to specific goals and maintaining the focus required to deliver against the goals. While aspirational targets show some level of acknowledgment of the need to address gender diversity, being specific and time-bound is more likely to have the desired impact. The Ghadia Review recommends 12 data points, including gender ratio of employees promoted and the percentage of maternity, paternity and shared parental leave returnees.

Just as importantly, targets need to be stretching. One of the five recommendations in the “Davies Review Five Year Summary” was around increasing the female representation target for FTSE 350 Boards to 33% – continuing with the voluntary approach. Incremental progress will only result in the next generation having the same debates we are having today. We owe them more.

To build on the progress made to date, we must look to the next generation of aspiring board directors, the behaviours we advocate and development opportunities we provide to both women and men. According to New Financial, women are better represented (36%) in support roles, but continue to be very under-represented in the roles that serve as springboards to board positions – CEO (6%), other C-suite roles (10%), and budget owners (9%). Without losing momentum on progress being achieved in the boardroom, there is a clear need to focus on female representation at the executive level.

This doesn’t just apply to Financial Services – although particularly acute in Fintech. According to a recent Deloitte report including participants across the globe, boards of financial services organisations in the UK lead manufacturing, and energy and resources industries.

Despite what many would deem as slow progress by boards in terms of gender diversity, it turns out that we have some positive lessons to learn from boards if we are to turn the dial on female representation at executive level: specific targets, enhanced transparency, public commitment, and role modelling desired behaviours.

Save

Save

Save

/by

Why Women Can’t Stand Alone as Gender Diversity Champions

,

female leaderIt’s not just because women hold less formal power at the top (only 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women and 1% in finance) that they can’t shoulder gender diversity alone. Even when they arrive at executive level, disadvantages in informal power and legitimacy are at odds against women’s efficacy in gender championship.

According to qualitative research on champions of gender equality by Jennifer Anne de Vries, University of Melbourne, one thing remains unavoidable: “Executive level champions are part of the organizational gendering processes they seek to change.”

De Vries’ qualitative research on gender diversity champions in a university and a police force highlights that the champion role is intertwined with sex, gender, and (gendered) power, all at play within a (gendered) organization. Women are inherently disadvantaged as champions of gender diversity in a male-dominated culture. Even at equal rank, a male and female executive stand on a “very different launching pad for their champion behavior.”

Consider this conundrum: Is it possible that when it comes to leading corporate change initiatives correlated with strong business advantages, anything a male leader can do a female leader could do too – except lead the game change on gender diversity?

Women are Outsiders to the Culture, Insiders to the Cause

A woman that holds a position of senior power in a highly male-dominated management culture becomes a symbol of gender diversity by default. Her journey was likely different to her male counterparts. She holds the potential (and pressure) to be a role model as a woman leader within the organization.

But in the champion role (which she’s likely expected to take up), that same dynamic of being an outsider in a male-dominated management culture, but perceived as an insider to gender-equality, spells out lower informal power and lower legitimacy.

De Vries found that senior male executives expressed women can be accused of “self-serving” when championing gender diversity – “looking after the sisterhood – women looking after women.”

And research out of the University of Colorado studying 362 senior executives demonstrated that diversity efforts on behalf of women (and minority) leaders can be negatively viewed as self-serving their own social group. “Nonwhite and women leaders who engage in diversity-increasing behaviors in the highest organizational ranks are systematically penalized with lower performance ratings for doing so,” the researchers wrote.

Specifically, women, held to higher standards of warmth than men, who engage in diversity-increasing behavior “will tend to be viewed as less warm and receive lower performance ratings than their equally diversity-valuing male leader counterparts.”

In fact, diversity-valuing behavior negatively impacted evaluations only for female and minority leaders – “leaders who are thought to have the greatest potential to dismantle the glass ceiling.”

Co-author Hekman noted, “executives who are women or ethnic minorities are penalized every day for doing what everyone says they ought to be doing – helping other members of their groups fulfill their management potential. It is a revealing sign that the supposed death of longstanding biases has been greatly exaggerated.”

In regards to informal power, De Vries research also noted that women in highly masculine contexts may also not have the same security in relationships at a senior level, are likely under more scrutiny in “proving” themselves as a leader (highly engaged in “gender work” of their own), and may not be taken seriously when they “position gender equity as a strategic issue.”

In other words, while their leadership challenges the status quo, senior executive women may not be as well positioned to overtly drive a mindset change among men in the organization.

Men are Insiders to the Culture, Outsiders to the Cause

Men are in the opposite position. Being an insider to the male-dominated management culture but perceived as an outsider to the gender-equality cause, gives male champions more informal power and more legitimacy.

De Vries notes, “Men’s power to challenge the status quo derives from their membership of, and acceptance within, the male establishment.”

Men in a senior executive role don’t have to do “gender work” as leaders (they represent the default stereotype in their environment), likely have more secure relationships as part of the insider club, and are more legitimate in championing gender diversity as a strategic issue because there’s no perceived component of self-interest – although they can actually benefit from it.

The University of Colorado researchers found that when it came to senior white male executives, “valuing diversity gave a significant boost to ratings for warmth and performance” by their bosses. De Vries also found that it led to strong appreciation within the company. And Bainhas found that (mostly male) CEO led gender diversity-increasing action and behaviors converts more employees to company “promoters”.

Indeed, not all male champions are equally effective. De Vries found a male champion is powerful when he’s perceived as really choosing to practice and visibly and consistently embody the role through his actions, not just preach. And resistant, low visibility CEO male championing can actually be ultimately damaging.

Another gender advantage is that a top executive male perceived as having chosen to personally own the gender equality initiative can give it a sense of importance, gravitas, and credibility. Whereas with a female executive, expectations seem to diminish the bonus points in credibility.

Championship – Can We Get More Men to Step Up?

There may be no escaping what De Vries calls a “clearly gendered nature of leadership when championing a gender cause.”

Despite the strong business case for gender equality as a corporate initiative, senior women are too often expected to carry the torch on gender diversity (often predominantly), marginalizing the issue and absolving senior men from being highly involved despite the importance of their power and agency.

We need more men actively onboard at the top senior levels genuinely daring to challenge the system that has benefited them. Should women leaders bow out and just let men take the reins? No. Men and women have the potential to complement each other in bringing change forward. Gender equity requires bravery and business sense on behalf of both men and women in senior executive roles.

Maybe it’s time we saw that there’s more than one way for a woman to be a role model for gender diversity. And equally, it’s about time we saw more top male leaders displaying bravery, rather than delegating it to women, when it comes to leading the charge on making gender diversity change a corporate priority.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

Op-Ed: Ana Botin got promoted on merit not nepotism.

,

In September 2014, Ana Botin succeeded her father Emilio Botin at Santander and has been named the top female banker in Europe by Bloomberg.

This appointment makes Ana the first woman to chair a global bank. She has worked hard to win this position and has positive endorsements from Citi’s ex chief Sanford “Sandy” Weill.

Read more

/by