Catalyst Blog

The number of women in Congress has gone down in 2010 for the first time in 30 years despite a record number of women who ran for the House and Senate. Gender stereotyping is behind the decline.

“It’s always been tougher for women to get elected in a tough economy because voters tend to think women aren’t as good on the economy,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “They don’t want to take risks in a bad economy, and they perceive women as being riskier.”

Catalyst has found that gender stereotyping is rampant in corporate America, too, where women are deemed “too soft, too tough and never just right.” We call it the “double bind.”  As I discussed in Monday’s post, when women act in ways consistent with gender stereotypes, they are viewed as incompetent. When they behave in ways that aren’t consistent with stereotypes, they are considered unfeminine. It’s a lose-lose situation.

It shouldn’t be. The first female Congresswoman served in 1922—it’s hard to believe that nearly 90 years later we are still maligned based on gender when seeking, or serving in, public office.

But when you combine the “double-bind” with media that is hostile to female candidates, it’s no surprise that in America men are nearly twice as likely as women to seriously consider running for state-level office and 65 percent more likely than women to assess themselves as “very qualified” to run. Sexist attacks reinforce negative stereotypes and can contribute to a climate that keeps women from entering politics.

A Catalyzing reader asked me how we can change the toxic conversation into something more productive. A recent study found that gender-based attacks damage women candidates in the polls, but the damage could be lessened by addressing sexism head-on.  The same is true at work. To escape the “double bind,” Catalyst advises women to talk openly about the issue—whether it is an inappropriate comment or a statement that unfairly generalizes about women’s abilities.

What helps is to bring stereotyping out in the open—expose it when you see it.

Gender is at the core of workplace inequity.

But you wouldn’t know this from reading The New York Times.

Citing a University of Chicago study, the Times reported this week that women who had no children and never took time off had careers that “resembled those of men.” This is misleading—here’s why.

The Chicago study found that men earn roughly $15,000 more than women upon receipt of an M.B.A. Nine years later, men earn about $150,000 more. Women who had children or took time off suffered a greater penalty over time than women without children. This is not surprising—workplaces still penalize women for dialing down or temporarily leaving a traditional career track. But, remaining childless does not level the playing field for women.

Our report, Pipeline’s Broken Promise, found that men who left a corporate job for a nontraditional assignment and then returned experienced no penalty in either position or compensation, but women did. The report also found that post-M.B.A. women start behind men in job level and salary—and they never catch up. These findings hold true regardless of previous work experience, industry, geography, aspirations and parenthood status.

What to make of the fact that the last three women nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court were unmarried and had no children? The Times article implies that not having children allowed these women to focus on their careers. But what of the many female leaders who have children?

In Women and Men in U.S. Corporate Leadership, Catalyst surveyed nearly 1,000 senior-level women and men, most within two levels of the CEO. We found that 81% of the women were married or living with a partner, compared with 97% of the men. And there was less discrepancy around whether they had children living with them:  51% of the women did, compared with 57% of the men.

The most powerful businesswomen in America are mothers, too. There are currently 14 female Fortune 500 CEOs. At least 12 of them have kids.

Blaming inequity on factors like motherhood obscures a simple truth: entrenched biases and sexist stereotypes impact all women. Misrepresenting this reality doesn’t solve the problem. It distracts all of us—including employers who lose out on great talent—from addressing core inequity.

“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.

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.