Gender Differentials in Management Positions



Gender Differentials in Management Positions within Stanislaus Financial Services

Prepared for

Samuel Johnson

Director of Human Resources

Stanislaus Financial Services Company

Prepared by

David Wright

Assistant Director of Human Resources

Stanislaus Financial Services Company

February 2, 2000

MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 2, 2000

TO: Samuel Johnson, Director of Human Resources

FROM: David Wright, Assistant Director of Human Resources

SUBJECT: Gender Differentials in Management Positions within Stanislaus Financial Services

Our company policy includes clear commitments to equity for all employees. I am certain you will be interested in the information presented here.

It appears that we do not yet meet our goal of equitable treatment of women. We offer some recommendations to correct the problems identified.

If you have any questions about this report please contact me.

Introduction

Some of our employees have commented that men are promoted to management positions even though there are women applicants who are better qualified. This report presents the results of a brief study done in response to those comments.

As an equal opportunity employer, Stanislaus Financial Services is committed to fair treatment of all its employees regardless of their race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender. Our goal is to make the best business decisions possible while scrupulously avoiding any discriminatory practices or even the perception of bias in our human resources procedures.

This report examines the status of women in our organization and offers recommendations for improvements. We will begin with an overview of the problem using data gathered from major U.S. corporations. Then we will examine our own performance, comparing the qualifications and salaries of men and women managers in our company. Finally, we will offer some recommendations toward improvement.

Overview of the Problem

There are two components to any gender discrimination problem. The most serious is actual evidence of bias or unfairness, but probably more far-reaching in effect is a perception of bias. Perception is also more difficult to manage, because it is difficult to measure.

To help us understand the nature and scope of the problem we looked at data provided by Bickley Townsend in American Demographics magazine2. Derived from a Catalyst report, it is summarized in this table.

Catalyst conducted a mail survey, “Women in Corporate Leadership1,” of Fortune 1000 executives. There were 1,251 responses from women with the title of Vice President or above and 325 responses from male CEOs.

The data regarding why females executives don't advance into corporate leadership positions certainly suggest there are perceptual differences between men and women on this issue. The women were twice as likely to attribute discrepancies to the attitudes of men, while men were just as likely to cite lack of appropriate experience. Given this cultural background, we must be especially circumspect in our handling of gender-bias issues to ensure that not only do we establish equity, but also make it plain that we have done so.

The chart clearly shows that the male CEO's think female personnel are not in high level management because they are inexperienced in the companies' main line of business. The CEOs realized that women are not being trained for management. Female executives believe male stereotypes, exclusion from informal networking, and a hostile culture are responsible. Women don't believe male executives are willing to hire women.

Measuring Our Performance

Our human resources staff examined our personnel records for all management level positions over the past five years. We looked at five attributes of men and women managers: their length of time with our company, how much management experience they have, how many have advanced degrees, their salaries, and the number of promotions they have received.

We did not identify any specific cases with clear indications of improper procedures or overt bias. However, the aggregated data certainly support the conclusion that we tend to place men in management positions when there are better-qualified women available. Furthermore, although our female managers on average have more experience and are better educated, their average salary is nearly 10% less than the average for men.

On the face of it, we have not yet met our goal for gender equity. Certainly some of the factors identified in the Catalyst study are likely to affect us as well, and we will consider some of their proposed strategies for improvement in the next section.

Recommendations

We have adapted some of the strategies identified in Catalyst's report "Women in Corporate Leadership" as possible remedies.

1. Identify and groom high-potential employees for management. This might be implemented by requiring each manager to recommend a minimum number of employees from their department for our management training each year. At least 25% of the candidates for management training must be men, and at least 25% must be women.

2. Ensure that successful employees are recognized and rewarded. After we identify and train talented individuals we don't want them to leave the firm because they feel underappreciated. One possibility is to offer them high-visibility assignments.

3. Have a reviewer from outside the hiring department preselect qualified candidates using applications with all identifying information removed.

4. When conducting group interviews, ensure that some of the interviewers are women.

5. To enhance the fairness of the process, solicit evaluations from coworkers of candidates because they have detailed knowledge of the candidate's day-to-day performance.

We've discovered that we do not yet meet our gender equity goals. We've identified some possible solutions, which include modifications to our interviewing and appraisal processes.

Resources

1. Catalyst. "Women in Corporate Leadership" 1998. New York.

2. Townsend, Bickley. "Room at the Top for Women" July 1996. American Demographics, Riverton NJ.

-----------------------

WHY FEMALE EXECUTIVES DON'T ADVANCE INTO CORPORATE LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

|Reason Cited |According to Female|According to Male|

| |Executives |CEOs |

|Male stereotyping / preconceptions |52% |25% |

|Exclusion from informal networks |49% |15% |

|Lack of general management / line |47% |82% |

|experience | | |

|Inhospitable corporate culture |35% |18% |

|Women not in pipeline long enough |29% |64% |

STATISTICS FOR MALE AND FEMALE MANAGERS

|Employee Statistics |Female Managers |Male Managers |

|Average number of years with the company |12.3 |9.5 |

|Average number of years of management experience |7.2 |6.9 |

|Percentage who have an MBA or other advanced degree |74% |63% |

|Average annual salary |$76,000 |$84,000 |

|Average number of times promoted |4.2 |4.4 |

"What gets measured gets done"

Sheila Wellington, Catalyst.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download