The Downtown Women's Club womensDISH blog

The Visibility Problem for Female CEOs

Just read an interesting article about the problem of visibility and female CEOs.  The Harvard Business Review blog brought up some good points, some of which counter what I thought was conventional wisdom, i.e. that women are only asked to lead companies that are already in trouble. The authors found this not to be the case.

On the other hand, they found a trend that most female CEOs come from outside the company and that stock prices dropped after announcements of new female CEOs but not after announcing a new male CEO.  While the article didn't make a direct connection to the root cause of these issues, they did allude to the fact that the media could be playing a part in it:

Nancy McKinstry, CEO of Wolters Kluwer, a Dutch publishing and information company, recalled holding a strategy meeting in which the press in Holland wrote that she wore a suit that was the same color as the KLM flight attendants'. As she told the New York Times recently, "Here we were talking about the plans for the business and that's what they focused on."

When you add that to the recent Forbes commentary about how women need to stop dressing sexy, it makes you wonder whether the subtle bias/influence of the media might have more of an impact than one would think on our perception of leadership. 

The Evolving Manager Stereotype: Do More Women Managers Make For Less Stereotypes?

A study in an upcoming issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ) looks at how men and women leaders are evaluated differently based on the the gender-typing of the industry in which they work.  The results show that expectations are higher for team performance when led by a someone of the same gender as the gender typing of that industry.  However, the expectations for the leader do not change regardless of gender in relation to the industry.

From these results, the journal implies that as more women enter leadership roles, stereotypes will fail.  The press release asserts:

as more women move into management positions within a handful of industries, these industries are becoming more gender-neutral and stereotypes of leaders as men may be changing. . . The study shows that as more women assume leadership roles in the workforce, the management stereotype will in turn evolve, resulting in changes in the relative expectations for performance by men and women in management positions. The notion that male leaders will outperform women leaders is no longer applicable in all situations since this is largely linked to the current gender typing environment at a given firm.

But is it a stretch to say that more women managers in putatively female based careers such as teaching or nursing makes those professions gender neutral?  Wouldn't gender neutrality result from the addition of male leaders in those fields? 

Perhaps the more appropriate conclusion is that as the definition of gender typed industries expand, more women will be accepted as leaders. What do you think?

Speak up or others will speak for you

I was buried yesterday doing some volunteer work for a local politician.  Why take the time out of an already busy schedule?  Because if I don't speak up, I can't sit back and expect others to do it for me.  Add to that, I generally like people who work on campaigns - they're energized, opinionated and driven. 

Because I was swamped I didn't follow the breaking news of Maria Shriver's A Woman's Nation report.  I finally got a chance to look at it today.  Not to take anything away from the groundbreaking event and it's sheer scope, but I did kind of feel like I was reading a special edition of Redbook or Family Circle magazine.  Most of the focus (and I confess to not getting through all of it) was on traditional families (Male/female/2.5 kids).  This may be why I tuned out after a while.

Sure, as a remarried mom with a blended family I appreciated the "family" focus to some extent, but I've only recently joined this "traditional" club.  I far more relate to being single, and noted that there wasn't much in the report for the majority of my friends: single without kids, single parents, empty nesters, DINKs (double-income no kids), same-sex partnerships, etc.  It sort of felt like a large part of the population was missing from the conversation which focused on working moms and dads. 

So far, the most vocal about this has been Melanie Notkin, Founder, SavvyAuntie.com.  In an Editor's Letter on her site, she writes how PANK's (Professional Aunts No Kids) were left out of the conversation.

I agree that drastic changes need to be made as women account for 50% of the US workforce. And I applaud Maria Shriver, the Center for American Progress, and NBCU - the media platform that will be sharing the findings with the nation this week - for finally bringing to light the new face of the American economy.

And I agree that the American family has changed and support all efforts that enable moms and dads to work and raise their children without having to sacrifice as much as they do today.

But when speaking of the nation's women and the economy, women without children who love, nurture and support the children in their lives should be part of the conversation. The women who have discretionary income and time that they spend in our economy should have a voice.

Otherwise, we really haven't come a long way, have we?

I'd go one further - women without children, even those who can't stand children and prefer dogs, cats or houseplants should have a voice.

Kudos for Maria Shriver for starting the conversation in a big way, and also to Melanie for speaking up for a segment of the population that was left out.

What do you think?  Have you read the report?  Let us know!  It's your chance to speak up before someone else speaks for you.

Diane K. Danielson, founder, DowntownWomensClub.com and author The Downtown Women's Club Beginner's Guide to Facebook.

p.s. My favorite part of the report is that it brought up conversations about the ridiculous school schedule and how it was created at the turn of the century to have the kids help in the fields. This was a topic we covered back in 2007 when we wrote about aligning school days with work. 

Opting out of the Choice Myth

Last week, Judith Warner's column "The Choice Myth," presented one of the best overviews of the issue of women opting out that I've read since the famous Lisa Belkin 2003 NYTimes "opt out" article first introduced the concept.

In the column, Warner brings up the following points dispelling some of the "myths" about women who choose to opt out:

1.  A recent study showed that most women who "opt out" are not over-privileged, but instead low income, uneducated, foreign and for whom the cost of child care makes it impossible for them to work.

2.  In 2005, the Motherhood Project at the Institute for American Values surveyed more than 2,000 women and published a report that said most mothers, given free choice in an ideal world, would choose to be employed — provided their employment didn’t impinge excessively on their time with their kids. In other words, the more choices mothers have, the more likely they are to work.

3.  Other than the lowest-income women, the only other group opting out are the very richest.  While this is true, Warner puts this in a different perspective:

In 2007, the sociologists David Cotter, Paula England and Joan Hermsen looked carefully at four decades of employment data and found that women with choices — those with college educations — were overwhelmingly choosing to stay in the work force. The only women “opting out” in any significant numbers were the very richest — those with husbands earning more than $125,000 a year — and the very poorest — those with husbands earning less than $23,400 a year.

You might say that the movement of the richest women out of the workforce proves that women will, in the best of all possible worlds, go home. But these women often have husbands who, in order to earn those top salaries, work 70 or 80 hours a week and travel extensively; someone has to be home. Many left high-powered careers that made similar demands on their time. They are privileged, it’s true, but very often they have also been cornered by the all-or-nothing non-choices of our workplaces.

These are all great points. But, there's another twist I'd like to add to the last one:

The problem with uber-employees 

Women (and some men) who opt out for child or elder care have consequently created a species of "uber-employees."   Uber-employees can fly around the world on a company's whim, never miss a day of work for a sick child or a plumber, and entertain clients any night of the week.  How can an employee who actually has to deal with these "inconveniences" brought on by both child and elder care compete with an uber-employee? To be honest, even a single person without child/elderly care responsibilities can't always compete with an uber-employee who has someone to take his or her car to the shop or even wait for a plumber.  This may be why all those studies show that married men with a stay at home spouse have the biggest advantage at work (and are the happiest) - they have no responsibilities other than to show up and work. 

Unfortunately, there's no easy solution. Two uber-employee parents with outsourced childcare?  That doesn't sound too good for the kids.  And what about single parents?  Many of them, esp. the single by choice mothers, don't have an "other" to even have the "who should be flexible" discussion.  

How about taking turns being the uber-employee?  I've always thought it was progress that young couples were now discussing "who's career goes first?"  This sounds like a great idea on paper, ... unless the husband goes first.  In pre-recession days, husbands usually ended up on the fast-track as an uber-employee so that when it came time to make a switch, it was difficult to step off and let the wife have her turn because that usually means a steep cut in the family's income.

What can we do?

It seems that the perfect formula would be flexible employment for all + affordable childcare.  Unfortunately, these are not choices available to most people; and it's a choice that's in the hands of corporations and the government.

Nevertheless, there is hope - by 2012, some experts claim that more people will be working from home than in an office.  This, combined with a recession where some of the uber-employees have been phased out of the workforce (possibly for good), could mean some changes are in store.  At least I'd like to think so.  But, wouldn't it be great if all moms and dads (working out of the home or not) got together and solved the child care/flexible employment issue that the corporations and governments couldn't?!  Perhaps when more people are working from home, they can help create their own "village" for their children.  

In the meantime, I'll leave you with the closing paragraph of Warner's column.

When mothers can choose, they choose self-empowerment. Because they know that there is no true difference between their advancement and the advancement of their children. Why do we so enduringly deny them the dignity of choice?

Click here to read Warner's entire column.

New Study: women build own glass ceiling

First women cause problems on boards by being "too tough" (yesterday's post), and now we create our own glass ceilings because we underestimate ourselves.  At least that's what a new gender study says. Click here to read about it on Chris Flett's blog.

A new study shows female managers are more than three times as likely as their male counterparts to underrate their bosses’ opinions of their job performance.

The discrepancy increases with women older than 50, the study states.

“Women have imposed their own glass ceiling, and the question is why,” said Scott Taylor, an assistant professor at the University of New Mexico Anderson School of Management who conducted the study.

*  *  *

“Younger women tended not to be as off-base in their predictions than middle-aged or senior women,” Taylor said.

Taylor said managers may need to learn better ways to communicate to female employees that they are valued. Women may need to learn how to better seek positive and critical feedback, he said.

Taylor says the findings could indicate why many women don’t rise to head companies or why there is a wage disparity between men and women.

I'm not so sure I agree that women underestimating what their bosses think of their performance = glass ceiling.  I do think it may be a contributing factor. But, the part I found most interesting was the generation gap here. For years I've been listening to the Boomers' complaints about Generation Y being "entitled."  My response has always been "That's not such a bad thing. Especially if it means that they feel entitled to be treated just like their male peers."

I think it would be more interesting to track the younger respondents to see if they change their views over the years, or if not ... what effect this new attitude will have on the future of business.

It's clear that change is not coming from the top, so this may be one of our first signs that change is coming up from the bottom.

Meddling women bad for bottom line?

Just watching friend of the Downtown Women's Club, Karen Salmansohn on Fox TV to challenge a recent study from the Journal of Financial Economics that says having women on boards hurts companies.

The study claims that:

1. Women "meddle" when they are on a board.
2. Women fire non-performing male chief executives more.
3. Women force more oversight of finances, etc.
4. However, this has lead to less profits at some companies, and could affect the performance of companies who are doing well without anyone meddling.

I haven't read the actual study, but it's probably the same reasoning as to why women CEOs on fortune 500 companies often fail quicker than males: because they only get to be CEOs at already struggling companies.  My guess is that what is going on here is the same thing.  Only companies already in a death spiral are willing to try anything like taking on women directors.

Here's some quotes from the author of the study:

Daniel Ferreira, of the London School of Economics, who compiled the research with Renee Adams of the University of Queensland, said: 'This is a complicated picture.

'Our research shows that women directors are doing their jobs very well.

'But a tough board, with more monitoring, may not always be a good thing.

'Women behave more like independent directors - they are less likely to move in the same social circles as the chief executive or play golf together and so they are going to be tougher.

'Having women on the board makes the board tougher on monitoring chief executives, but that doesn't necessarily translate into better profitability and stock market performance.

'Indeed, we see that increased monitoring can be counter-productive in well-governed companies.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205014/Why-meddling-women-boardroom-wreck-companys-performance.html#ixzz0NnAZgFP3

I know companies are judged on profits/financial performance, but did the study look at how employees fared at these companies?  Did they get family leave? Did they get more benefits?  Could that be where the money was going?

Of course, to ask those questions might mean that I'm "meddling".  But, all I could think of is that this could be yet another Scooby-Doo ending... The old guys annoyed by those gosh darn meddling kids. 

"I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids." - Scooby Doo Villain

Well, meddling may have hurt some companies' profits according to this one single study, but it sets the stage for better long-term governance. And, to that I just have one thing to say:

"Scooby Doobie Doooo!" - Scooby Doo

More about women bosses

The New York Times followed up its interview of Elle SVP, Carol Smith, with further discussion of her assertion that women make better managers.  In this weekend's Room for Debate, six others gave their opinions.  Here are a few highlights: 

Alice Eagly, chairman of the department of social psychology at Northwestern University.

So, are women better managers than men? In terms of their day-to-day actions, women managers should have advantages. But the answer is really not so simple because managers do well only if people accept their authority.

Leora Tanenbaum, author of “Catfight: Rivalries Among Women: From Diets to Dating, From the Boardroom to the Delivery Room.”

The best managers, female or male, are those who admit that the corporate structure favors men and who recognize their responsibility to help others follow in their footsteps.

Joanna Barsh is a director in the New York office of McKinsey and Company and co-author of “How Remarkable Women Lead,” to be published in September.\

One area where women can improve is to stop (yes) multitasking when our full attention is required. When you attempt to facilitate a phone conference while doing email, your brain switches between tasks, and you lose focus and energy.

Susan Pinker is a psychologist and columnist for the Globe and Mail in Canada. She is the author of “The Sexual Paradox,” about the roots of sex differences in the classroom and the workplace.

The readers’ complaints about difficult female managers that appear under the interview with Carol Smith make that clear: aggression is certainly more common among men, but for many reasons, the women who rise up the ranks may be on the more competitive and aggressive side — and their subordinates often feel it — especially the women who work with them.

Gary N. Powell is professor of management in the School of Business of the University of Connecticut in Storrs. He is working on the fourth edition of “Women and Men in Management” and is author of “Managing a Diverse Workforce” and editor of “Handbook of Gender and Work.”

Many people still see an incongruity between the female gender role and the leader role, which makes it harder for women to attain corner office positions and puts them in an unwelcome spotlight when they do. In 2006, after PepsiCo announced that Indra Nooyi would become its new CEO, the headline of the New York Times story was, “A Woman to Be Chief at PepsiCo.” No headline has ever announced “A Man to Be Chief at Acme Corp.”

Sharon Meers is co-author of “Getting to 50/50,” about working couples, and a former managing director at Goldman Sachs. She and her husband created the Partnership for Parity at Stanford Business School and the Dual-Career Initiative at Harvard University.

I’ve worked for many great men. But, in my experience, female managers are a special breed. We won’t know for decades if the differences are due more to nature or nurture but they are largely good — and stem from the fact that senior women are still outsiders.

Click here to read the full story.

So, as I see it, besides bringing all the collaboration, positive emotion, empathy and diligence into the workplace, women need to:

• Be accepted as authority figures
• Acknowledge that the chips are stacked against them, and help out others coming behind
• Stop multitasking
• Be as aggressive as the guys, but don't cross the line
• Learn to navigate the unwelcome spotlight
• Figure out how to accomplish all of the above while being an outsider.

And I didn't even include in this list the whole "trying to work in time off to have a baby" issue.  Wow, that's a lot to think about in addition to focusing on the bottom line, surviving a recession, etc.  Imagine what could be accomplished if both genders could put aside cultural biases and women could just focus on getting the work done.  Seems to me that a lot of energy is being wasted forcing women to overcome barriers that have no logical reason to exist ...

American Idol a Gender Equity Model?

Well, there are many things to be criticized about American Idol, but gender equity isn't one of them.  This year, they have equality on the judging panel and they start out each season attempting to have gender equality among the contestants (although this season it's 8 men/5 women).  The results?  So far women have won 4 of the last 3 seasons. 

And, how about success after the show?  Arguably the biggest successes to date are Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, and non-winner, Jennifer Hudson.  Don't hear much from Taylor Hicks and Ruben Studdard, do we?  The most prolific male Idol alum to date is actually non-winner, Chris Daughtry.

So, when given an equal playing field, women seem to do alright in popularity/talent contests. 

Now I just wish that we could find similar results in the corporate world.  Unfortunately, I was recently reminded of some sobering statistics about women as leaders from Barbara Kellerman in the Washington post:

• Women hold only 17% of U. S. congressional seats
• Women constitute only 23.2% of state executive positions
• Women are mayors of only 11% of the country's 100 largest cities
• Women constitute only 20% of American judiciary (and 16% of partners in law firms)
• Women constitute only 2.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs
• Women constitute only 15% of Fortune 500 board members
• Women constitute only 20% of key board committees such as audit, compensation, and governance
• Women earn only a fraction of what men earn: In 2007 the median salary for the 100 CEOs of the largest U. S. companies, all of whom were men, was about twice the median salary of the 100 highest paid women. Moreover the median bonus received by men was almost three times that received by women.

Of course, it's comparing apples to oranges to compare American Idol to Corporate America.  But, is it really?  Isn't American Idol, after all, a business venture?  Makes one think, doesn't it.

*Photo is an AP photo.

Does the stimulus help women business owners?

The following is the Center for Women's Business Research's response to the stimulus package.

Chick Chat

Last night, I met two of my girlfriends for a drink at a local establishment and we got chatting as girls do. The topic of the word "chick" came up as I am currently writing a book with this title and it is used in my blog title as well, Where Chicks Make "Cents". One of my friends really does not like the word and wants me to change it.  My other friend does not have such a strong reaction to the word.  Eventually we moved on to other important topics such as Obama, hairdressers and work.  Like most chick chat it ran the gamete.

Driving home, I wondered "how many other women are offended by the word "chick"?  Should I be change my branding, my vibe, my book title?  Maybe gal, girl or lady would be better.  As an avid skier and one that has and embraces her attitude, I like chick.  In fact, being called a chick on sticks (a girl who skis), a chick that rocks, and  a chatty chick (yes, I am highly verbal!) have always been terms of endearment.  The word makes me feel young, sassy and hip. But maybe I am alone in this one.

So let me know.  What would you prefer to be called?  A chick? A gal? A woman?  A lady? If a man called you one of these names how would it feel?  What images come to mind with each word?  If you were older or younger would you feel differently?

I am one curious chick!

Online Surveys & Market Research