Catalyst Blog

Do women lack ambition? Not on your life.

Women want to succeed, yet even when they do “all the right things” Catalyst has found that they earn less and progress more slowly than men. The fact that some women adjust their career advancement strategies after crashing into institutional barriers is a rational response to inhospitable workplaces. It is not an example of a lack of ambition.

Catalyst has been studying women’s ambition for nearly a decade. Our 2004 report, Women and Men in U.S. Corporate Leadership, surveyed nearly 1000 senior-level employees who shared similar backgrounds and characteristics. We found that women aspired to be CEO in equal proportions as men. But the women—to a much greater extent than men—ran up against barriers, namely exclusion from informal networks, stereotyping, and a lack of role models. Likewise, our report, Leaders in a Global Economy, found that women and men have similar work values. The problem is this: men find workplaces more aligned with their values, women don’t.

What’s changed since 2004? Not much—women remain ambitious, but barriers still block their paths. And with few exceptions, women’s leadership is stalled in corporate America.

The Myth of the Ideal Worker, the latest report in our series on high potential employees, examined the career advancement strategies of thousands of MBA graduates from top schools around the world and the impact of these strategies on their careers. Women and men were equally represented in the two most proactive groups, indicating that ambition ran high among both genders. But being proactive paid off more in promotions and pay for the men.

In Pipeline’s Broken Promise, we found that among MBA grads who aspired to be CEO or senior executives, women progressed more slowly than men. And parenthood, industry, and previous experience didn’t explain the gender gap. The leadership and pay gaps balloon over time, suggesting that the problem lies with the system, not the women.

So what is the problem? Cascading Gender Biases, Compounding Effects revealed how gender biases are unintentionally embedded in talent management systems—biases that exclude those who don’t fit the male leadership model. Addressing these biases and rooting them out at the source are better ways to tackle inequality than blaming the women. Smart organizations are proactively addressing the barriers women face and are reaping the rewards.

Our research has pointed to one more powerful solution: sponsorship. Sponsors advocate for you from behind closed doors and ensure you’re visible when opportunities arise. The problem is that many women are over-mentored and under-sponsored. Some companies are recognizing this and are instituting formal sponsorship programs for women. At the same time, individuals are taking the lead on this front without waiting for a formal program to kick in by actively seeking sponsorship and being a sponsor to others, especially talented women who deserve it. This is one proven way to help narrow gender gaps.

The misguided assumption that women are less ambitious than men puts companies at risk of inadvertently underutilizing talented women and overlooking, or outright dismissing them, for key roles. This is a real loss for companies. Organizations need to step up and clear a path for women’s success.

Women are ambitious. But systemic barriers in the workplace mean that ambition, even when coupled with talent, isn’t always enough.

Girls ages 8 to 18 are exposed to about eight hours of media per day. What are these girls reading and watching? As Catalyst’s Senior Associate Librarian Cheryl Yanek explains, when it comes to news coverage of women, superficiality reigns supreme. This devalues women and our accomplishments.

—-

Women are more than their dresses—but you wouldn’t know this by the way women are covered in mainstream press.

The second paragraph of a recent New Yorker profile of New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson dug straight into the superficial: “Abramson, who is fifty-seven, wore a white dress and a black cardigan with white flowers and red trim. Her usually pale complexion glowed from summer sun, but there were deep, dark lines under her eyes.”

You get the idea.

Time and time again, newspapers and magazines start with the details of a woman’s outfit, her hair, and her physical appearance. When women are valued only for their looks—not their contributions—it reinforces stereotypes.  And when stereotypes are reinforced, it’s harder for women to move past barriers in the workplace and across society.

Examples of superficial coverage of women cut across industries, professions and even continents.

A recent article focusing on the lack of women in America’s corporate suites announced, “Bad Hair Day for Girls at the Top.” A stock photo used in an article about new mandatory quotas for women in leadership in Germany featured only women’s legs and black high heels. Pakistan’s new foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, is a “definite fashionista” and “a rare combination of beauty and brains” according to the Hindustan Times. And don’t get me started on the skewed coverage of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential campaign—or current coverage of Michele Bachmann’s French manicures!

An emphasis on style over substance is nothing new. In the 1920s, Kentucky Democrat Katherine Langley was accused of interfering with House business by a Capitol Hill reporter—due to her flashy attire. In the 1960s, Illinois Republican Charlotte Reid made headlines not for her speech in support of the ERA, but for her black wool bell-bottoms. Even Nellie Davis Taylor Ross, the first woman governor, observed, “Writers describe my appearance from the cast of my features to the shape of my foot.”

Stated simply, men are described by their actions and potential, while women by their appearance. Our media should reflect the reality of smart, powerful women and in the process, give girls positive, inspiring role models. Fortunately, we have a voice that can help shift the coverage.

If you see something sexist, don’t simply change the channel or flip the page—do something about it:

- Fight back with your pen. Write a letter to the editor or to the director of a news station, carefully explaining why you won’t support them with your readership or viewership. The Girls, Women + Media Project offers great tips on how to write an effective letter.

- Educate yourself through workshops and resources by the Women in Media and News.

- Familiarize yourself with research from Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. For instance, did you know that women are almost four times as likely as men to be shown in sexy attire in family entertainment?

Take a stand against news coverage that devalues women and their accomplishments. Women are a lot more than what we wear.

—-

Cheryl Yanek, Senior Associate Librarian, leads the Catalyst Global Issue Specialty Team and the Twitter Team. She has an MLS in Library and Information Science from Queens College and an MFA in Writing and Poetics from Naropa University. Cheryl is a sponsored athlete on Team Odwalla for her ultramarathon running.

Some people consider transgender issues provocative or uncomfortable—at Catalyst we consider them squarely in the domain of women and work.

In recognition of LGBT Pride Month, on June 14, Catalyst hosted a webinar to examine the challenges transgender people face in the workplace. As a group within the LGBT community, transgender women face unique barriers, and they’re part of a group that’s typically left out of the conversation.

But only by discussing—and exposing—the stereotypes that transgender women face, can we educate and mitigate the barriers. So we took this opportunity to shine a light on this topic.

An umbrella term, the word “transgender”—or “trans,” for short—refers to people who identify with the characteristics, roles, behaviors, or desires of a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth. Transgender people helped spark the 1969 Stonewall Riots in Greenwich Village, a watershed moment in the history of the LGBT-rights movement. But more than 40 years later, transgender people continue to seek acceptance in society and the workplace.

According to a recent survey of transgender people by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality:

90% reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment, or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.

47% experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired, or denied a promotion.

26% reported that they had lost a job due to being trans or gender non-conforming.

Participants in the recent Catalyst webinar addressed some of these inequities.

“When I was male, I was headhunted constantly. When I transitioned, job opportunities for me evaporated,” said Maggie Stumpp, Chief Investment Officer at Quantitative Management Associates. Maggie blamed the drop-off in calls from headhunters on a pervasive anti-trans stereotype that trans people act out, overact gender roles, and are thus too risky to put into direct contact with clients.

“Some companies are afraid of exposing trans people to customers,” she said. Her company is not one of them. Maggie interacts with many customers face-to-face as she manages equity portfolios for institutional investors and large mutual fund clients. “The biggest myth is that somehow trans will embarrass the firm. And I challenge that.”

Despite 40-plus years of advocacy, transgender people are still not afforded the same legal rights as others. In Canada, a long-overdue federal trans-rights bill is snaking its way through Parliament, and in the United States protection is piecemeal and on a state-by-state basis. But while the law slowly evolves to protect the rights of trans individuals, a cultural shift is needed too.

According to webinar participant Brent Chamberlain, Executive Director at Pride at Work Canada and recent guest-blogger at Catalyst CanCon, a workplace advocate or champion for trans employees makes a difference. “They can be a role model and can be someone trans people can talk to, and other people can ask questions,” said Brent.

Asking questions and engaging in a conversation is one key to breaking down barriers between trans employees and their colleagues. “I wish people asked me more questions at work,” said Tamsyn Waterhouse, a software engineer at Google who also participated in the webinar. Employers, she added, should “give people the opportunity to ask questions.”

“Identifying as trans is part of who I am, but first I am a human, then a woman, then trans, then a software engineer,” said Tamsyn.

A few minutes of conversation can open a window of understanding and mutual respect. Start now—take pride in your actions.

Commencement addresses are often peppered with inspiring quotes, stories of perseverance, and warm anecdotes intended to uplift and inspire the next generation. But in a recent piece for the Washington Post geared for college grads, I opted to get straight to point about the challenges ahead. The fact is that a level playing field does not exist for women in the business world.

Gender-based stereotypes have a real impact on the careers of young women today. But there is one way to ensure the first step from college is the right one. Companies with high percentages of women and minorities at the top indicate that women and minorities are valued and enmeshed in the corporate culture. Such companies have invested in women. They are where you’ll have a career, not merely a job.

Below is my advice for the Class of 2011. If you know any graduates who are at this critical point in their lives, please share it:

——

The Mad Men days of open, unabashed sexism in the workplace are largely gone—at least in the United States. But just because you can’t see sexism doesn’t mean it’s not there.

For all the future leaders in this audience, a word of caution: Unintentional biases—assumptions about how a business leader should look or act—still exist in the business world. Women, on average, earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Even today, Catalyst research shows that women often start at lower positions than equally skilled men. And very few women occupy top positions in our most powerful companies. In fact, only 12 Fortune 500 CEOs are women.

How do you navigate this uneven playing field? Your first step can be critical. When considering where to work after graduation, look at the top of an organization. If you don’t see women included and leading on the highest levels, keep on walking. And men, keep your eyes open too. Here’s why.

Companies with more women leaders correlate with better financial performance and signal an environment where everyone is valued and rewarded, a place where advancement is not dictated by sexist stereotypes. Diversity on top also indicates a broader and deeper talent pool throughout the organization. This is crucial as these are the role models, women and men alike, who can mentor, sponsor and nurture your career.

So when you look for your first job, check the org charts along with the job description—and do this throughout your professional life, too. Value the companies that value women. Ask yourself, what do the leaders look like? Are there some that look like you? And if you don’t see women as part of the organizational leadership, let your feet do the talking.

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.

Inspiration can come from unexpected places. In a recent op-ed for CNN, Nancy M. Carter, Vice President, Research, described how her grandchildren added urgency to her career-long fight to end gender inequity. “I want my four pre-school-aged granddaughters to have every opportunity to succeed as they grow older,” she wrote. Also in C This, the latest news on how gender stereotypes can harm your chances of landing a job, the failed Paycheck Fairness Act, and an important UN treaty designed to end discrimination against women.

Busting Barriers for the Next Generation

In this CNN exclusive, Nancy M. Carter outlines the challenges for women in the business world and some solutions to closing gender pay and leadership gaps. “Women should seek out mentors and sponsors who will teach them the ‘unwritten rules’ that can supercharge a career,” she wrote.

READ: “How to Close the Gender Pay Gap,” Nancy M. Carter, CNN, 11/26/10

Fair Pay? Not Today

“Our battle is not over,” said fair-pay advocate Lilly Ledbetter following blockage of the Paycheck Fairness Act in Congress. The Act would have helped close the gender wage gap by prohibiting retaliation against workers who ask bosses about pay disparity. Women earn only 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man. “It is upsetting to me that something that would benefit everyone got caught up in politics,” Ledbetter said.

READ: “Lilly Ledbetter’s fight for equal pay goes on,” Roy L. Williams, The Birmingham News, 11/21/10

With Friends Like These…

The United States joins Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Nauru, Palau, and Tonga in steadfast refusal to support CEDAW, or the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty in 1980, but Congress has yet to ratify it. “Our ratification will send a powerful and unequivocal message about our commitment to equality for women across the globe,” said U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer at a recent hearing on the important treaty.

READ: “U.S. Ratification of Women’s Treaty Subject of Senate Hearing,” womenspolicy.org, 11/19/10

An Unkind Cut

Can a positive recommendation letter spoil your chances for a job? Yes—if stereotypical terms are used. Rice University researchers reviewed 624 letters for 194 applicants for faculty positions at a U.S. university. “Communal” terms such as “helpful,” “kind,” and “sympathetic” were commonly used to describe women, while men were often labeled “confident,” “aggressive,” and “outspoken.” The more the communal terms were used, the less favorably the candidate was viewed.

READ: “Are Recommendation Letters Biased Against Women?” Paula Szuchman, The Wall Street Journal, 11/15/10

Generations at Work

Businesses that ignore generational differences in the workplace can pay a serious price. “It impacts the bottom line,” said Adwoa Buahene, a Toronto-based talent management consultant. In Canada, a growing number of companies have tailored schedules and benefit packages to suit the needs of different age groups. “If you do not have engaged employees, you have higher turnover which costs money and results in lower customer engagement,” said Bauhene.

READ: “Best companies bridge the generation gap,” Tracy Tjaden, The Globe and Mail, 11/22/10

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.

I was never a fan of scary movies because there are enough real scary things already out there! Below is a list of the Top Ten that my colleagues and I are scared about this Halloween. Freddy Krueger’s got nothing on these.

The Catalyst Top Ten Halloween Fears:

#10. That “zombie boards,” homogenous boards of directors that lead to group think and less innovation, will live on.

#9. That the “old guard” who thinks that the system works well and all workplaces are already meritocracies will never retire.

#8. That being captain of the football team will continue to evidence leadership capability for men, while any job that women have held outside of work—being president of their hockey team or founder of a nonprofit—will be seen as less-than-leadership.

#7. That the strong female leader/“wicked witch” stereotype will never go away.

#6. That myths and falsehoods, such as “women are more than half the labor force” or “women get paid more than men,” will continue to spread.

#5. That “analysis paralysis,” the belief that more data are needed before real workplace change can begin, will retain its lock on the workplace.

#4. That the gender pay gap widens and, like in a nightmare, no one will seem to notice or care.

#3. That organizations will continue to promote men based on their potential for leadership, while insisting that women show proof of performance before being considered.

#2. That silly and misleading phrases such as “mancession,” “mengagement” and “woman up!” will continue to poison our lexicon.

#1: That the mantra, “We’ve already got one woman,” will haunt boards, C-suites and executive ranks for decades.

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.