Catalyst Blog

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.

Last week, I wrote about Catalystos—guys who are not afraid to stand up against gender inequity. These men are active role models and partners in our challenge to stamp out sexist stereotypes, ingrained biases and the barriers holding women back from leadership.

With a view to amplifying their voices, I asked some of the men of Catalyst to tell me why they support our mission. Some appeared in my previous post; here are more. These men are part of the solution. Please help me spread their inspiring message far and wide.

————

Josh, Member Relations:

I have seen the effects that a glass ceiling can have on a woman’s career and even her own self-confidence. This was the case with my mother, and the story of my “a-ha” moment. My mother has had, in my eyes, a very successful career in the financial industry, yet she doesn’t think so. The company she worked for (which will remain unnamed) passed her over for promotions into the executive level time and time again, despite her obtaining an M.B.A. and consistently excellent performance reviews.

Her company, for some reason, gave her a job level that was rarely used between the most senior directorship and VP, but would not give her what she coveted – that VP title. It is upon reflecting back at her struggle that I realize it wasn’t an issue of her not being qualified, and to be fair, I don’t think it was outright discrimination. I think as a working mother, she never joined “the boys” at the bar or on the golf course. She came home to spend time with her family. It wasn’t that she didn’t do a good job, it was that she had far fewer opportunities to connect with the right people.

The experience my mother went through in the corporate world, as well as my own awareness of discrimination as a gay man, led to my studies in gender and sexual diversity and the development of a real sense of social justice and a drive to fight for equality. I decided long ago that I needed to contribute to something positive and feel as though I am making a difference.

Thomas, Member Services:

I’ve been interested in the topic of gender since sociology courses in undergrad—it wasn’t just the classes that affected me, though. My time at college coincided with eye-opening experiences involving race, life, gender and sexuality. Things I wasn’t prepared for coming from a corn-fed, Midwestern background. Anyway, I remember when we first began talking about the global implications of patriarchy in class—in patriarchy, no one wins, not even men. Understanding the shades of inequity helped me understand that while the system we live in may benefit some, it comes at a cost to everyone.

When it comes to women in business, it seems as if the workplace is one of the most important places to deconstruct patriarchy. When women have increased economic power, many of the other realms of patriarchy can come crashing down, too.

Brian, Marketing:

I care about opportunities for women and work because my mom was actually fired from her job teaching in the early 1970s in Boston for getting pregnant! That’s right, the policy in the Dorchester School District at the time was that pregnant women were not allowed to teach. After my parents were married and my mother was pregnant with my older sister, she tried to hide it from the school principal. But after five months, it was obvious she was pregnant, and the principal pulled her aside—and fired her on the spot. She never worked in education again. I hope to prevent discrimination along these lines for others.

On a bigger level, I really believe in the concept that if you invest in women, you invest in a better world. A woman with an education can teach her children important skills. And she can open a business. That business can bring in more money for her family, and it can improve everyone’s health. The growing business can hire more people and help them financially, too. In turn, this improves a local economy, and the wider economy as well. The more visible women become in business, the more others will follow. And the more everyone’s life can improve.

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.

In the early 1970s, I was among a handful of women in Harvard’s M.B.A. program. One day in class, we were assigned a case study on marketing floor wax. I’ll never forget it: all of my male classmates looked to me for advice!

The assumption was that because I was a woman, I would know something about waxing a floor. They were surprised when I said I didn’t. Was this a harmless case of stereotyping? Maybe. But I was offended.

More than 30 years later, I am still upset by blatant stereotyping—especially in the media. While men perform more housework today than ever before, some newspapers and magazines continue to portray women as mere risk-averse cleaner-uppers.

Last month, for instance, Jullia Gillard became Australia’s first female Prime Minister, replacing Kevin Rudd as head of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). Sexist headlines followed. “Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Messy ALP Clean Up,” charged the Daily Telegraph.  “Gillard Must Mop Up Swan’s Mess,” wrote the Business Spectator, referring to Treasurer Wayne Swan.

In 2008, Iceland’s appointment of two women to rebuild the country’s shattered banking system garnered similar headlines. “Iceland Appoints Women to Clean Up ‘Male Mess,’” said the Financial Times. The Guardian proffered: “Women Clean Up the Bankers’ Mess.”

American media also stereotype. In May, Time magazine featured on its cover three stern-faced women in business suits with the text: “The New Sheriffs of Wall Street: The women charged with cleaning up the mess.”  While the article is well-written, the cover seems to imply that FDIC chair Sheila Bair, SEC chair Mary Schapiro and TARP chair Elizabeth Warren are humorless cleaners. And last year ForbesWoman ran an article about financial oversight headlined, “Cleaning Crew: The Women Who are Fixing the Financial Mess.” It featured a picture of a woman in business attire and rubber gloves cleaning up a chalkboard with a watery sponge.

These images reminded me of sexist advertisements from the 1960s. But it’s 2010, people—let’s act like it!

It’s easy to fall back on old stereotypes, but if you take a minute to engage your brain, you’ll find that less offensive and more accurate terms for female leaders exist. To do otherwise is just plain sexist. Is “cleaning up” a leadership trait? I don’t think so.

Is hair twirling responsible for gender inequity?

The 1982 book, Women at Work: A Psychologist’s Secrets to Getting Ahead in Business, instructs readers that “attitudes of male-oriented management” are not to blame for the barriers women face at work. Rather, women’s passive, risk-averse, “ladylike” qualities are the problem.

According to the authors: “Women’s speech tends to be more polite and more emotional in quality”; “Men’s speech is more direct, more informative”; and “Women make their voices go up in a questioning tone, as if they’re asking for approval.”

The book’s bottom line: women must change their behaviors to get ahead.

I wish I could dismiss this book as a vestige of a bygone era, a time where fixing the women was more important than fixing the workplace. But nearly 30 years later, women are still told how to act to get ahead.

Take this recent article in ForbesWoman. “Women are the champions in the warmth and empathy arena but lose out with power and authority cues,” writes Carol Kinsey Goman, Ph.D. Her solution: stop “acting girlish,” including “twirling hair, playing with jewelry or biting a finger.” And she observes: “Women’s voices often rise at the ends of sentences as if they’re asking a question or asking for approval.”

Sound familiar?

Speech and body language are important—a female or male employee who wears short shorts to work or leads a meeting in undecipherable whispers is unlikely to get a promotion (or a job, for that matter). But the reality is, many women do not do these things and still can’t get ahead in business.

The playing field is not level. Ingrained biases, unfair hiring practices, unequal pay, and sexist stereotypes are rife. These barriers are rooted in social and cultural norms that are hard to change, but businesses and leaders are addressing them. And the solutions have nothing to do with hair twirling.

“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.

Monica Palacios, the famous comic and writer, has navigated various labels over the course of her career. On stage, Palacios riffs:  “When I was born, I was of Mexican-American persuasion. Then I became Chicana. Then I was Latina. Then I was Hispanic. Then I was a Third World member (my mom loved that). Then I was a woman of color. Now I’m just an Amway dealer. And my life is happening.”

Her comments are in jest but the underlying meaning rings true: unique identities are blurred when society puts a label on an entire group. But a person’s gender, race and sexual orientation are part of his or her identity—part of what makes a person valuable to an employer.

“For whatever reason, people assume I am black, but I am also Latina,” a bi-racial friend told me recently.  “When a Latina group was forming at my company, no one even asked me if I wanted to join it!”

Recognizing the fact that broad labels can unintentionally exclude some individuals, Catalyst recently renamed one of our main research areas. The areas formerly called Women of Color in the U.S. and Visible Minorities in Canada are now called Diverse Women & Inclusion. Deeper layers of identity among women—especially in global contexts—can involve class, sexual orientation, caste, disability, nationality, and immigrant status. The new term Diverse Women & Inclusion was intended to cover all of these particular factors in a more sensitive and inclusive way.

And that’s what it’s all about.

Careless labels can engender blatant stereotyping. More than a decade ago, Catalyst released a groundbreaking report on the way managers perceive women from diverse backgrounds. Latinas reported being stereotyped as lazy or too focused on family, citing managers who consistently underestimated their talents and capabilities because they spoke English with an accent.  Black women reported facing stereotypes about being too direct. They described having to worry about whether the braids in their hair contributed to a perception that they were too radical or too bold. Asian women reported being stereotyped as passive “China dolls.”

In more recent Catalyst research, LGBT women discussed various dimensions of discrimination in Canada. “As a lesbian woman, I have sometimes had to fend off occasional stereotypes of lesbian women as all butch and muscular and ungainly—I’m none of these,” said one employee. Roughly a quarter of the LGBT women reported that their manager was not comfortable interacting with them.

These attitudes may explain why diverse women are so poorly represented at the top in Fortune 500 companies. In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available diverse women held 1.7% of corporate officer positions and only 1.0% of top earner positions. I’ve talked a lot about the glass ceiling, but for diverse women the ceiling is concrete. To fix this, workplaces need to embrace, develop and leverage their diverse workforce.

Catalyst is committed to representing the full spectrum of women worldwide. To do so, we’ve updated our own labels. The question is: are you working to change yours?

Clicking through the news last night on my laptop I was struck again by the obvious. Despite the gains women have made over the past 50 years, I realized it still looks very much like a man’s world.

One need look no further than images of captains of finance testifying on Capitol Hill, senators sparring over the health care bill, world leaders at G20, front page photos from our nation’s (remaining) daily papers and the many company spokespeople and “talking heads” that fill our airwaves.

What’s wrong with these pictures? They’re mostly guys!

These powerful images reinforce the perception that men rule the world— that it’s the natural state of things. Here’s a quick test: close your eyes and picture the image of a leader? Who do you see: a male or female? For Alan Murray of The Wall Street Journal, only men come to mind. Have countless images of men in power created a self-fulfilling prophecy by making it seem normal— to both women and men— that only men should lead?

In 2010, of course, that’s no longer true. Today, women comprise close to 50% of the US labor force and control or influence over 70% of the consumer purchasing decisions in America. That includes choices about spending on cars, financial services, health care and so on. Clearly, women rule in the marketplace. So why shouldn’t they rule in companies that produce the goods and services they buy?

Frankly, pictures with no (or very few) women should strike us as just as out of step with the times as the linebacker shoulder pads worn by Melanie Griffith and Sigourney Weaver in the 80′s classic, Working Girl. Or floppy bow ties. Or floppy disks.

One time I spoke at a technology conference in Beijing where I was the only woman of 13 speakers. The majority of the audience—several hundred—were male.  I opened my speech with a famous quote from Mao’s Little Red Book, “Women hold up half the sky!” Then I asked, “What’s wrong with this picture?”

The audience laughed. But they got it. And I guess that’s the point. There are men who get it— in part, because we show them— but real progress is when they see it unprompted.

Only 15% of board seats and 3% of CEOs in Fortune 500 companies are women. And women make up only 17% of the House and Senate. Perhaps more diverse imagery online, on TV and in our nation’s newspapers could lead to more diverse workplaces, boardrooms, and even governments. After all, if you don’t see diversity— if you don’t see women included and leading, too— what do you really see?