Back in 2005, I received a flurry of interview requests concerning Laura Bush’s selection of Cristeta Comerford as White House executive chef—a first for a woman.

Yes, it’s an achievement, I noted, but I was not surprised she got the job. I was amazed that it had taken more than 200 years for a woman to land this top culinary position!

And what’s worse, the buzz surrounding Comerford’s appointment as head chef eclipsed news about George W. Bush’s plan to replace Sandra Day O’Connor with a male Supreme Court Justice. “Out of the courtroom and into the kitchen,” I thought at the time.

Kathryn Bigelow’s best director Oscar for The Hurt Locker reminded me of the Comerford episode. Bigelow rightfully earned a spot in the annals of female firsts for her gripping film about men at war. (Another irony, perhaps?) But it’s 2010. We shouldn’t be surprised that a woman has actually won the top honor in this category. We should be shocked that it has taken 82 years for it to happen!

Let’s not get distracted by the narrative of female firsts. After all, firsts only go so far.

In 1917, Kate Gleason became the first woman president of a national bank, 50 years later Muriel Siebert became the first woman to own a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, and in 1972 Katherine Graham became the first woman CEO of a Fortune 500 company. These are all important firsts—but women are still nowhere near half of Fortune 500 CEOs, executive officers, or board members in the United States today.

The same is true for women in the film industry. The Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film produces a wealth of information about the so-called celluloid ceiling. Its latest report found that in 2009:

- Women comprised 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films, a decline of 3 percentage points from 2001 and a figure unchanged from 2008.

- Women accounted for 7% of directors, a decrease of 2 percentage points from 2008 and a figure even with the rate in 1987.

This data reminds me that an overemphasis on the importance of “being first” can distract us from what’s really important. In the case of women and work, it can obscure the deep inequities that still exist.

Canadian and American women dominate the ice— but not the boardroom.

Our new Canadian Census reveals that women make up 47% of the labor force in Canada, but only 14% of board directors in FP500 companies. In the United States, the numbers are also low. Women comprise 47% of the U.S. labor force, but occupy just 15% of the board seats. What’s worse, these numbers have remained virtually unchanged the last few years.

You may think board directors are so high in the org-chart stratosphere that they couldn’t possibly affect you or your job path. But they do. That’s why it’s important to look for diversity when deciding where to work.

The boardroom sets the tone for the organization. The more women on a corporate board, the higher the percentage— five years later— of women in senior positions, especially senior line positions.

Companies with more women board directors, on average, financially outperform those with the fewest. In fact, the more women on board, the better the performance. And companies with three or more women on their boards, on average, perform even better! Chances are that these more successful companies afford women greater opportunity for advancement and development.

So when you are looking for a job, first check that annual report. Skip the pretty pictures, and head for the board listing. If it doesn’t include at least one woman— and preferably three or more—your odds of developing a satisfying career and rising to leadership have just taken a serious hit.

Choose an organization that invests in women. Vote with your feet.

If a woman lands a job, does a man lose one?  Online commentary about our latest report, Pipeline’s Broken Promise, suggests that many people still believe this.

The study revealed that women MBAs from top business schools begin their careers, on average, in lower-level positions, are paid less, and receive fewer promotions than their male counterparts— regardless of global region, industry, and whether or not they have children, among other factors. I was disheartened by the findings, as were the CEOs quoted in the report. James S. Turley, Chairman and CEO of Ernst & Young, called them “surprising and disappointing.” Janice L. Fields, President and CEO of McDonalds USA, used the word “deflating.”

But online voices took a markedly different tone.

The majority of comments on the stories by ABC News and The Globe and Mail about the report expressed skepticism toward the findings. Some harbored a sexist point of view. At their core, I think the comments rested on a single fear: more women at work hurts men.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our report, Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know, revealed that men have much to gain, including better psychological and physical health and more rewarding relationships with their families. Not to mention the money angle.  Think about it like this: if your wife lands a great job or gets a raise, your whole family benefits— not just your wife. So does the economy, as women control the majority of consumer spending. More cash in hand… more money to contribute.

Companies benefit as well. Catalyst research shows that companies with more women in leadership have, on average, better financial outcomes than those with fewer women in those roles. So not only are your wife, daughter— even your mother— given a fair shake in the workplace, your company gets a potential boost as well.

Diversity is not a zero-sum game. The notion that “women are taking over” at the expense of men sounds like a plot from a cheesy 1950s sci-fi flick. It’s a myth, and it’s outdated, so much so that it was recently lampooned by the Daily Show. It must be laid to rest.

Recent headlines such as “Schools Close the Gender Gap,” “Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces” and “We Did It!” give the impression that women have finally hit parity with men. Change has come. Women and men are equal. Hurray!

Not so fast.

Not only is the glass ceiling firmly in place— it is a lot lower than we think. As Catalyst’s Pipeline’s Broken Promise details, a woman’s first job largely seals her fate in the business world. Female MBA grads start at lower positions than men, get fewer promotions, and are paid less. Not surprisingly, they are also less satisfied with their careers.

The report surveyed 4,143 women and men who earned their MBA degrees between 1996 and 2007 at 26 leading business schools in Asia, Canada, Europe, and the United States. The results accounted for, among other factors, industry, global region, prior experience, career aspirations, time elapsed since earning the MBA and parenthood status. All these being equal, the survey found:

- Men on average began their careers in jobs that were at higher levels than those for women.

- Women were paid on average $4,600 less than men in their first post-MBA job.

- Men’s salary growth outpaced that of women, regardless of differences in starting salary.

- Even if both women and men started at the entry level, men progressed more quickly than women.

- Women were treated differently than men by their first managers— 25% of women versus 16% of men cited a “difficult manager” as the reason for quitting their first job out of business school.

- Men reported greater career satisfaction than women— 37% of men said they were “very satisfied” with their overall advancement versus 30% of women.

What does this mean for you and your company?

Read the rest of this entry »

A CEO on Catalyst’s Board of Directors recently told me, “The business world is 24/7/365—people are not.”  In managing her employees, she works from that mindset. She places more value on their levels of engagement and productivity and less emphasis on the hours they log at their desks.

Why is it that so many people consider this an issue of “work-life balance?” I don’t like to use the word “balance” because it infers that equilibrium is the norm and puts the onus of achieving that equilibrium squarely on the shoulders of the individual. I am not alone—many others have abandoned the untenable concept of “balance.” As noted by working dad and blogger, Paul Nyhan, in an online chat last year:

“The word I think is needed is rhythm. I have said work-life balance is a crock, and what I aspire to is a sense of rhythm, there will be crazy busy times and quieter times, but having the tools and flexibility to gain a rhythm to balancing work and family.”

Over the years, Catalyst has developed a workforce approach we call WLE, short for “work-life effectiveness.” Our reports on WLE—Making Change—Beyond Flexibility I, Making Change—Beyond Flexibility II, and Making Change: Building a Flexible Workplace—outline a team-based approach that shifts the traditional request for flexibility from “me” to an organizational tool for “us.” At its core, WLE recognizes that people who work have lives outside of work. Pretty cutting edge, no?

Read the rest of this entry »

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?