Catalyst Blog

Strike up the band! ForbesWoman called Catalyzing “an insightful blog,” and named it and the Catalyst website to its roster of the top 100 websites for women. Toronto hosted an inaugural G(irls) 20 Summit. Australia swore in its first female Prime Minister. Good news galore in this edition, but alas that isn’t the whole story. Read on for the not-so-good developments!

———————————

Best of the Best

We’re five months old and going strong. ForbesWoman rounded up the best 100 websites for working women, and Catalyzing and the Catalyst website made the cut. “We looked for compelling and decidedly female-oriented content, outstanding design, an active community and frequent updates,” wrote ForbesWoman. A big thank you to the magazine and to readers like you!

READ: “Top 100 Websites for Women,” by Meghan Casserly and Jenna Goudreau, ForbesWoman, 6/23/10

Diversity Down Under

Australia swore in its first female Prime Minister, but gender equality still has a long way to go. “Just look at the upper echelons of business, the military, the churches and the federal public service, and you will see that women are as rare in these arenas as female prime ministers once were,” writes Anne Summers. “Now this barrier is broken, perhaps it is time to address the others.”

READ: “Historic Moment, but Barriers Remain for Half the Population,” by Anne Summers, The Age, 6/25/10

Girls Speak Up

Twenty-one girls representing each of the G20 nations and one from the African Union gathered in Toronto to discuss ways to fulfill United Nations goals that impact women and girls. “I would ask the leaders of the G20 nations to reduce the arms expenditures and instead use it for education,” said Aiki Segawa, the representative from Japan. Will the G20 leaders listen?

READ: “Girls Talk–Are G20 Leaders Listening?” by Craig and Marc Kielburger, Toronto Star, 6/21/10

Work and Life

Is it really about balance? For Judith Timson, the issue is the “separation” between work and the rest of life. “And here,” she writes, “no matter what stage we’re at, we’re failing.”

READ: “Work-life Balance? Can that Cliché,” by Judith Timson, Globe and Mail, 6/17/10

Tuning Out Women

According to American University’s Women & Politics Institute, female lawmakers have comprised 13.5% of the Sunday news show appearances by representatives and senators in 2010. Does the overrepresentation of men on the shows contribute to a tendency to “think-leader-think-male”?

READ: “Women Scarce on Sunday Shows,” by Erika Lovley, Politico, 6/13/10

Bridging the Gap

Long live the gender pay gap! “When the Equal Pay Act passed, women earned, on average, 60 cents for every dollar earned by men,” writes Linda Meric, Executive Director of 9to5 National Association of Working Women. “In the 47 years that have passed, the pay gap has closed by less than less than 20 cents.”

READ: “On 47th Anniversary, the Equal Pay Act Must Finally Live Up to its Name,” by Linda Meric, Huffington Post, 6/10/10

Equal Pay Day has come and gone, but not the pay gap.  Nor the work to get it closed.

Last week, a New York City Council hearing was held on closing the gender wage gap. It was organized by the New York Women’s Agenda (NYWA) and the Equal Pay Coalition of New York City. Both groups are fighting hard to end pay discrimination against New York women and minorities. They advocate for wide-ranging pay equity policies modeled on those put into place in 2009 by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson—efforts I support.

The hearing featured an array of leading researchers, legal experts, and community leaders. Among those on hand was Beverly Neufeld, Vice President of NYWA and Director of Equal Pay Coalition NYC. She made a salient point about the deep impact women have on our economy through investment and spending.

“The hand that rocks the cradle rocks the economy as well,” she said.

Her comments mirrored something I read recently while browsing through books from our office collection. “Men and women in all walks of life must reassess their attitudes towards women as workers, and recognize the economic waste caused and injustices suffered to this point in time,” wrote J.E. Buckley in the book, Equal Pay for Women: Progress and Problems in Seven Countries.

Those words date back to 1975 when the U.S. wage gap was 59%. Today it’s 77%. More than 30 years later, we still have a long way to go—and a lot more to tell others—about how much the pay inequity hurts women, families and our economy. Too much is at stake—it’s time to get to work!

“He doesn’t like me because I’m a woman,” my friend said recently about her boss. “And he hates me because I’m a lesbian.”

My friend is a “double outsider”—she battles two sets of stereotypes every day. One is based on gender, the other on sexual orientation.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people represent up to 21% of the general population while up to 70% of straight people know someone who is LGBT. But despite recent milestones in acceptance, LGBT employees still suffer from subtle and outright discrimination at work.

Many argue that broad federal legislation is the solution. Currently, there are 29 states in the U.S. where it is still legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and 38 states that permit discrimination based on gender identity or expression. My friend lives in one of them.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed US law that would prohibit discrimination against workers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for civilian nonreligious employers with 15 or more employees.

Right now, the Act appears stalled. But even if it does pass this year, I think laws only go so far.

In Canada, laws ensure sexual orientation is not grounds for dismissal from a job. But our 2009 study, Building LGBT-Inclusive Workplaces, revealed discrimination in Canadian workplaces against LGBT employees—especially LGBT women.

Female LGBTs reported less friendly workplaces than LGBT men. For example, 70 percent of LGBT women reported that their manager evaluated performance fairly versus 80 percent of LGBT men. And 76 percent of LGBT women, versus 85 percent of all others, reported that their manager was comfortable interacting with them.

Unsurprisingly, LGBT women were “out” to only 50 percent of their workgroup—versus 72 percent of LGBT men.

“Double outsider” status prevents LGBT women from being who they want to be at work. But when people bring their whole self to work—and do not expend energy on hiding who they are—everyone wins.

LGBT employees working in inclusive environments indicated better workplace relationships, increased career satisfaction and greater commitment to the job. In the long run, this can translate to greater productivity and less staff turnover.

So don’t wait for laws to end discrimination. Legislate for yourself—lead by action.

In this edition, myths about working mothers are busted, the importance of engaging women on climate change is explored, and Australia’s “blokey,” or chauvinistic, culture is analyzed. Author Susan Douglas takes on “a new, subtle form of sexism,” and we look at disturbing information about the wealth gap for black and Hispanic women in America.

—————————————————

 Gap, What Gap?

Startling new data on the wealth gap for single black and hispanic women only garnered one national television news mention, one NPR news story, two opinion pieces and one newspaper report. What did everyone miss? The fact that “single black women have a median wealth of $100 and Hispanic women $120—dramatically lower than white men ($43,800), white women ($41,500) or black men ($7,900),” according to the report.

READ: “Wealth Gap Yawns—and So Do Media,” by Julie Hollar, Extra!, June 2010

 Women in a Warming World

“Women need to be protected, engaged, and empowered for climate solutions to truly succeed,” writes  Kari Manlove of the Center for American Progress. Involving women at high-level climate negotiations is one place to start.

READ: “Women’s Role in a Warming World,” by Kari Manlove, Center for American Progress, 5/26/10

 Inequity Down Under

Last year, the Australia Securities Exchange (ASX) announced a proposal to expand corporate governance principles to include a mandatory gender diversity policy. In a country where a “blokey” culture rules, what effect will this have upon Australian corporate culture?

READ: “Not So Wizard in Oz,” by Cleo, The Gender Blog, 5/26/10

 Myth Busting

The Washington Post tackles  myths about working mothers. Did you know, for example, that working women (and men, for that matter) today spend more time with their children than ever before? Or that the more education a woman receives the less likely she is to “op-out” of her career? Consider these myths busted.

READ: “Five myths about working mothers,” by Naomi Cahn and June Carbone, The Washington Post, 5/30/10

 An Insidious Bias

What is “enlightened sexism?” According to author Susan Douglas, this new, subtle form of sexism “insists that full equality for women has been achieved … so it’s OK to resurrect retrograde, sexist images of women in the media, all with a wink and a laugh.” I agree with Douglas— how else to explain the sexist imagery and language that still pervades our media?

READ: “The New Sexism,” by Laura Fitzpatrick, Time, 3/16/10

Guest blog by Morten Huse, Professor of Organization and Management, BI Norwegian School of Management and President of the European Academy of Management

—————————————————

In Norway, 40% of the board members of publicly traded companies are women. That’s because they must be—by law.

Norway’s approach is considered progressive. Indeed, many call the country’s initiative the boldest move anywhere to address an issue that one author has flagged as “one of the most durable barriers to gender equality.” Not surprisingly, other countries are thinking about following in Norway’s footsteps. However, business leaders, politicians and women in these countries are first asking whether or not the legislative solution has in fact made a difference in Norway.

Several studies, including one that I recently undertook with co-author Sabina Nielsen, have been conducted to explore the following factors:

- The societal impact of power balance, democracy and culture

- The business impact relating to diversity, competence and critical mass

- The individual impact focusing on the glass ceiling, careers and tokenism

Simple answers about the law’s effectiveness are not yet possible.  Before drawing conclusions, we need to understand and define aspects of value creation, including the tasks boards are to perform, plus the identities and behaviors of women board members compared with those of men board members. We also need to understand the effect of board processes, working styles and leadership.

In our study—based on responses to a questionnaire from 392 board members in 120 firms—my co-author and I did not find differences between women’s and men’s responses. We found that women directors may impact board involvement in strategic decision-making, but that the degree of impact depended upon the diverse values and professional experiences the women brought to board service as well as the perception of equality among the women and men board directors. Furthermore, we found that the degree of impact depended upon how the women used their knowledge and skills in the boardroom. Knowledge and diversity matter only if they are used, and many boards do not have processes or a leadership style that encourage the use of knowledge and skills.

That said, our study did show that the Norwegian law mandating a quota for women on boards has had a significant effect on how boards achieve their objectives. Members and their leaders have started to pay attention, not only to board composition, but also to the inner workings of boards. Moreover, we found that tokenism did not seem to be important for newly elected women who feel they are as influential as their male counterparts and considered as equals.

Finally, our research revealed the importance of critical mass on decision-making. As we noted in our study, “If women with similar (traditional) professional experiences but different values are selected, they may be able to enrich board decision-making.” The impact was considerably greater on boards with at least three women.

—————————————————

Morten Huse is Professor of Organization and Management at BI Norwegian School of Management and President of the European Academy of Management. He has written, edited or co-authored more than one hundred scientific articles and 15 books, including Boards, Governance and Value Creation: The Human Side of Corporate Governance (Cambridge 2007) and The Value Creating Board (Routledge 2009).

Last year, an interview with Elle Group Senior Vice President Carol Smith made waves online when Smith fired off a list of gender stereotypes. She was asked if women made better managers. “Hands down, women are better. There’s no contest,” she said. “In my experience, female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers. Men love to hear themselves talk.”

Critics called Smith’s comments everything from refreshing to sexist. When The New York Times later had six experts consider this question, more than 500 readers left passionate responses.

My take is that it’s a dumb question. Research shows that women and men in executive positions are more similar than different. It is individuals who are different from one another.

One big similarity, however, is that women and men both stereotype—and they stereotype women and men in largely the same ways. Why? Because using shortcuts like these can help us size up a situation quickly, based on what we think we already know. It’s human nature to feel smart and efficient when we apply shortcuts like these to new situations.

But what we’re actually doing when we rely on stereotypes is blinding ourselves to what’s really there—and that’s when we lose out. Applying superficial assumptions based on gender doesn’t just hurt the person who is unfairly labeled, it hurts the person or organization doing the labeling by limiting his or her thinking and potentially access to talent.

Why would anyone assume that a woman wouldn’t relocate to advance her career? Or that she wouldn’t want to join her male colleagues at a baseball game? The same goes for men. Why would you assume that a man wouldn’t care if he missed his child’s soccer game? Or made it home in time for a family dinner?

Given the tough business climate today and the fact that choosing the right people to fill jobs can literally mean the difference between success and failure, we must stop making assumptions about people based on gender alone. The next time you catch yourself stereotyping, challenge yourself to step back. Women are individuals—not a monolithic group. The expression “all women are…” needs to go.