Catalyst Blog

“You have in you the power to change this world for the better,” said CCH Champion Michael Bach, Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, KPMG. “Be it a small change, or a large one, I challenge you to do something to effect that change.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

You don’t have to work at Catalyst to be a catalyst for change. As we turn the page on 2011, I call on you—a Catalyst supporter—to make an impact in 2012. Catalyzing offers one clear path:

Seek sponsorship and sponsor others, especially talented women. Do something about sexist media. Support political candidates who support you. And if you don’t think you have meaningful institutional support or clout to make an impact, think again. Here are tips on how to rock the boat without falling out and make change in an unsupportive environment.

Catalyst has strived to make workplaces more equal for the past 50 years. And along the way, we’ve learned that champions come in many forms. What unites them? A champion is committed to change—and acts on that commitment.

Happy New Year—may 2012 be a year of real action, for the benefit of all.

Let’s talk about sexism.

Now I know the word “sexism” carries baggage. But no matter what you call it—gender bias, systemic inequity, inequality, or discrimination—the belief that a woman is not as capable as a man simply because she is a woman is at the root of many challenges we face.

Spectacular examples of sexism and harassment get front and center attention—Anthony Weiner is merely the latest in a long line. But insidious day-to-day sexism often goes unchecked, unnamed, and tolerated.

I’m talking about sexual harassment from men on the street in the form of “hey baby” or “sweetie,” scantily clad models who give out product samples in public spaces, or advertisements that pander to the lowest stereotypes around homemaker wives or dumb, oafish dads.

When broadcast messages or the language we use everyday reinforce sweeping generalizations about women, it’s hard to make real progress in the workplace or across society. Sexism reinforces a notion that women are valued less.

And this has a real impact.

In industrialized countries, women working full-time earn, on average, 82 cents to every dollar earned by men working full-time. In turn, paying women less reduces GDP in the United States by 9%, in the Euro-zone by 13%, and in Japan by 16%.

Exposing sexist messages and images for what they are—inaccurate falsehoods that perpetuate bias—can help end this vicious cycle. What do you see? What don’t you see? (Remember, the absence of women is sexism too!)

Only by saying something—and doing something—can we stop sexism at the source.

A 2010 New York Times headline posed the question: “Why take our children to work?”

Amid criticism of Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day’s purpose and a decline in participation among some school districts, many parents have no doubt asked themselves the same thing as Thursday, April 28, nears in the U.S. But, the day’s importance has never been greater.

Women lag men in the workplace in pay and promotions—and remain a minority in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. But by taking our children to work, we can inspire them to achieve anything, regardless of gender. It’s all about boys seeing women at work in all types of roles—not just stereotypic women’s positions—and for girls to see role models they can aspire to become.

The program was initially called “Take Our Daughters to Work Day” in 1993—a time when women were given even fewer chances to advance in business—but was expanded to include “our sons” in 2003. Girls today are still bombarded by images that narrow their vision of what they should and should not do when they grow up. This is why the program is still so valuable and why many companies participate.

Last year, for example, GE hosted an official event to mark the day where 176 children learned about nanotechnology, slow-motion photography, glass blowing, sign engraving, and even firefighting! This video, filmed by a parent whose daughter participated, sums up the power of the day to shape and influence young minds.

Bringing your child to work can spark new thoughts about their future. This can impact the choices they make at school and later in life as they enter the business world. Along the way, it can influence the choices of the people around them.

You are a powerful role model for the next generation of girls and boys. This Thursday, show them that they can be anything they want to be. The future is theirs—but it starts with you.

Our latest Census of women in leadership among top Canadian companies was released last week—and the media took note. Below is Deborah Gillis’s frank response to one topic that kept cropping up in interviews. See if you agree!

———–

Maybe it was the proximity to International Women’s Day. Or maybe it’s an issue whose time has come. But last week’s release of the 2010 Catalyst Census: Financial Post 500 Women Senior Officers and Top Earners has caused waves in the media across the country. In my five years with Catalyst, I don’t remember such strong media response to our work. The recognition of the quality and significance of Catalyst’s work is gratifying.

But neither do I recall being so frustrated by the level of understanding of the barriers that still block career advancement for many Canadian women. In almost every interview I did, I was asked questions like: “Are women not reaching the top because they ‘opt out’ to raise families?”

True, those questions aren’t answered by the Census, which is intended to be a snapshot and a check on the progress in Canada’s leading companies. Other research, such as Pipeline’s Broken Promise, provides some of the answers.

That study demonstrates that smart, educated women start their careers at lower levels and earn about $4,600 less than their male counterparts. And the gap never closes, even for women who remain single and childless. No opting out. No family before career. Just a glass ceiling and a sticky floor.

If anyone doubts that we have to keep gathering the statistics and telling the stories, a quick skim through the comments on any of the media coverage of the Census will quickly convince them. There you’ll find the folks who think that women have it made or that women gain at the expense of men. Some even declared victory, as Margaret Wente did in her Globe and Mail International Women’s Day column, where she stated “The war for women’s rights is over. And we won.”

Pointing to advances women have made is good—it’s the encouragement we all need to keep going. But we can’t ignore the lack of equity at the top. The confusion of the past week shows that we have to keep challenging pat assumptions that women have made it—or risk being lulled by complacency and a clever headline.

You can’t be what you can’t see.

That’s the takeaway message of a new documentary, Miss Representation, which premiered on Saturday in New York City. Featuring interviews with an array of female leaders—including Condoleezza Rice, Katie Couric, Rachel Maddow, and Jane Fonda, among others—the film explores how one-dimensional, hypersexualized images of women in mainstream media reinforce negative gender stereotypes and deprive girls of inspiring role models.

Media is all-pervasive in the lives of young people. In the United States, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes to entertainment media across a typical day. That’s more than 53 hours a week!

This stat got me thinking about how depictions of female business leaders in movies and television shows can impact young minds. The stereotypical female boss is manipulative and cold—a sexist caricature that doesn’t reflect reality. If women were portrayed as the smart, creative and visionary leaders they really are, I think more girls would aspire toward leadership and fewer men would fear women in their ranks.

So how do we get there?

Skip sexist content and support the films, television programs, magazines and websites that project positive images of women. See the change you want to see.

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.

I’m a mother, but being a mom doesn’t mean I have some magical skills non-mothers lack. Yet the “motherhood debate” rages on—especially during the election cycle.

“I think my experience is one of the things that sets me apart as a candidate for Governor. First of all, being a mother, having children, raising a family,” Mary Fallin said recently, who is running against Jari Askins for Oklahoma governor. Askins, who does not have children, responded: “You know, in Oklahoma, all of our governors have been men. So none of them have been mothers. I think most of them have done a pretty good job—so I don’t think that’s a criteria.”

Are male candidates discussing their fatherhood status? Nope. For men, it’s a non-issue. Yet women are held to a different standard in both politics and business. As this cartoon illustrates, we just can’t win.

Our research shows that when women act in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes, they are viewed as less competent leaders. And when women act in ways that are inconsistent with such stereotypes, they are considered unfeminine. I call this the Goldilocks syndrome: “Too tough, too soft, but never just right.”

The reality is, no one experience or characteristic defines us or gives us the edge. And no gender has a corner on anything. Women aspire to success just as much as men do, and define it similarly.

Following a report on the so-called “motherhood debate” in Oklahoma, Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts asked viewers: “Where do you stand on this debate—should it even be a debate?”

It shouldn’t. Don’t fall into the motherhood debate trap.

Earlier today, I testified before the Joint Economic Committee in Congress. No, Stephen Colbert was not there right along with me!

The hearing, titled “New Evidence on the Gender Pay Gap for Women and Mothers in Management,” examined, among other topics, new findings by Catalyst on pay and corporate leadership gaps. These gaps persist across most industries—and have closed at a glacial pace.

The latest Catalyst data on women in Fortune 500 companies is alarming. Although women are 46.4% of total Fortune 500 employees, they are 13.5% of Executive Officers, hold 15.2% of board seats, and are 2.6% of CEOs. If inequities persist in America’s most powerful and influential companies, they are present in smaller businesses too.

On the issue of the pay gap, I testified how in 2009, women made up only 6.3% of top-earning Executive Officers within the F500 and discussed how our “best and brightest” women—M.B.A. grads—still earn less than equally qualified men, regardless of parenthood status. On average, women earn $4,600 less in their first post-M.B.A. job. And this pay gap widens over time.

To help explain to Congress why these gaps exist—and have remained largely steady over time—I recounted a simple test I often perform during lectures. I ask audiences to close their eyes and picture a business leader. How often do they imagine a woman or someone ethnically or racially diverse? Not very.

I doubt many lawmakers attending the hearing did either.

And this is the problem. The notion that women are less strong and less committed—and that trusting their judgment to lead is risky—remains entrenched. Too many people—women and men alike—think of a male when asked to think of a leader. It’s engrained in our conscious and reinforced by media and the images we see everyday. But it needs to change.

By shining a light on pay and leadership gaps, I hope my testimony will inspire the change-makers in Washington to rise to the challenge. Holding a hearing on these issues was a great step forward.

Here we go again. Sometimes news—even good news—gets blown out of proportion. That’s what’s happening now with the gender wage gap.

Recent headlines like “What gender pay gap? Young single women making MORE money than their male peers in America’s cities,” and “Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top,” imply the gender pay gap has closed for all women. But it hasn’t. The gap is alive and well.

These stories were pegged on recent market research that found that single, childless women aged 22 to 30 earn, on average, 8% more than their male counterparts in select U.S. cities. This important finding—largely reflective of increased rates of higher education among young childless women who work in cities with a knowledge-based economy—is good news. But the catchy headlines do not reflect the whole story.

The market study compared young women and men with different educational backgrounds. But what happens when you compare the salaries of women and men side-by-side with the same degree?

In Catalyst’s Pipeline’s Broken Promise, we found that women with M.B.A.s start behind, and stay behind, men with the same degree. In fact, women earn $4,600 less than equally skilled men in their first job out of business school—and this pay gap increases over time. And according to the latest U.S. Census figures, the median salary for women with Master’s degrees is actually lower than the median for men with only a Bachelor’s.

Does this seem fair to you?

I welcome research indicating that some young women in some cities are more than holding their own with wages. But for most women, it’s not yet time to break out the champagne.

Like the “mancession” stories that proclaimed new opportunities for women to advance in the absence of men, a lot of the recent pay gap coverage overstates the facts and does not take into account all the nuances of the data.

Context is king. Don’t lose sight of the larger picture and what still needs to be fixed.

Read the research—the numbers tell the whole story.

A lot of ink has been spilled over a recent New York Times article which argued that childless women had careers that tracked men’s. “Women do almost as well as men today, as long as they don’t have children,” a Columbia University professor told the Times.

The article hinged on a recent study of M.B.A. grads from the University of Chicago that probed “women’s underperformance in the corporate and financial sectors.” But what did this report really show?

The authors found a vast wage gap exists between women and men. According to the report, women earn $115,000 on average at graduation and $250,000 nine years out, while men earn $130,000 and $400,000, respectively. “Mean earnings by sex are comparable directly following M.B.A. receipt,” they wrote, “but they soon diverge.”

How’s that for an understatement? Their “comparable” earnings are a $15,000 difference. I’m not sure about you, but I’d be pretty ticked at making $15k less just because I’m a woman.

Was this dramatic finding headline news? Nope.

Instead, media coverage fixated on a detail buried deep into the report. On page 243, the authors’ state:

“Limiting the sample further to women without children, and with no career interruptions by 10 years out, makes the career paths of the women in the sample similar to those of men. For that comparison, the gender earning gap starts out slightly larger than for all women, but grows less rapidly.”

This suggests that for women without children, there’s still a gap at the start of their career after business school, and the gap still grows over time—albeit less quickly than it does for women with kids or who have taken time off.

Not really breaking news, is it? Catalyst actually reached a similar conclusion in Pipeline’s Broken Promise, which found that even among women and men without children, women still started behind men and the gap still grew over time.

The original New York Times article is accurate in saying there’s a bigger penalty for women who have kids and/or take time off (which isn’t surprising), but was misleading in suggesting to the reader that women without kids will face a level playing field with equal pay. The numbers are clear: Women are paid less than their male colleagues. They don’t call it a gender wage gap for nothing.