Why Women and Minorities on the Board of Directors Need Mentors
These days almost everyone agrees on the importance of diversity. When people of different backgrounds and ways of thinking come together with a common goal, they can achieve the unthinkable and make possible the seemingly impossible. While many organizations are taking a bottom-up approach to increasing diversity at their firms, e.g. diversity campus recruiting and new hire mentoring programs, it’s at least as important that they work to promote a culture of diversity among their senior leadership as well.
Studies show abysmal numbers of women and minorities on the C-suite and as board of directors of the Fortune 500. The current study attempts to shed some light on why women and minorities are less likely than their white, male counterparts to secure multiple board appointments. McDonald and Westphal (2013) surveyed a group of ‘first-time directors,’ or individuals appointed to their first board of directors role, and found that women and minorities received comparatively less mentoring about how to participate appropriately in board proceedings. As a result, their adherence to established boardroom norms may be less consistent, making it less likely that incumbent directors will support their appointment to other boards.
What’s the takeaway message? Mentoring is key to helping women and minorities obtain multiple board of director appointments, and securing their statuses among the corporate elite.
Selling To Women: Why it Differs from Selling to Men
Deloitte Consulting is giving new meaning to the term “cross-selling,” a term in every consultant’s vernacular. In a nutshell, the traditional use of the word refers to the selling of additional products or solutions to existing clients.
After losing several potential clients to competing firms, Deloitte did some internal investigation to understand why they were not successful on these projects. They found something quite interesting; selling to women differs from selling to men.
I know what you’re thinking… Isn’t that obvious? Well, in some fields it’s not as obvious as you’d think. Considerable market research has been done regarding female preferences in the B2C (Business-to-Consumer) sphere, but Deloitte’s research shows that gender differences have important implications for B2B (Business-to-Business) transactions as well. As a result of these findings, the firm designed a special training program to teach partners and senior managers how to better engage female client executives. Below are a few of the major highlights outlined in this article.
- Women see meetings with potential contractors as an opportunity to discuss different possibilities and explore their options with knowledgeable professionals; men see these meetings as an opportunity to narrow down their options and decide on the best course of action.
- Women nod their heads during a conversation to express interest in what you’re saying and to encourage you continue; men nod their heads to signal that they are familiar with what you’re saying or agree with you and would like to move on.
- Male clients want to feel powerful. They want you to try to impress them by rolling out the red carpet when they arrive, and arranging for them to meet with your most impressive executives. Women, on the other hand, want to talk to the people with whom they’ll be working most closely, be that the CEO or a line manager.
A good understanding of these differences has obvious advantages. If a company greets a female client with the same mindset and meeting schedule they would present to a male client, time is wasted. As a result client and contractor alike may lose out on advantageous opportunities.
Impact of Gender and Race on Charitable Giving in the Workplace
Let’s play a game. In a workplace setting, do you think women or men give more charitable contributions? Similarly, do you think whites or ethnic minorities give more charitable contributions? In providing the answers to these two questions, we look to Lisa M. Leslie, Mark Snyder, and Theresa M. Glomb of the University of Minnesota: women donate more than men, and whites donate more than ethnic minorities. How’d you do?
For their study, the investigators looked at the gender, ethnicity, and charitable giving of 16,429 employees at a large university across academic and non-academic work units (e.g., faculty and staff). Instead of surveying the employees, the investigators were able to gather all of the data from archival records kept by human resources that indicated the employees’ gender, ethnicity, and giving to the university’s annual charitable campaign. Of the 16,429 employees, 79% did not give any money, and the university’s charitable campaign provided resources to charities focused on eliminating poverty, education, chronic illness, the environment, and the arts. Employees were able to donate cash or take payroll deductions. For the analysis, salary, position level, and age were controlled for, since these factors were thought to be related to levels of charitable giving.
When women don’t reach the C-suite as often as men, benevolent sexism may be to blame
Topic: Gender, Discrimination, Development
Publication: Journal of Management (NOV 2012)
Article: Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences
Authors: King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A.
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
Women are breaking the glass ceiling and entering higher levels of organizations. To be successful, women need to get the same developmental experiences as men, and both men and women seem to be getting about the same number of developmental experiences. But if this is the case, why then are there fewer women than men reaching the very highest levels of the organization?
Eden King and her colleagues recently conducted a series of studies in an attempt to answer this question. They found that although the number of developmental experiences is fairly similar between men and women, the types of experiences differ. Men are given more challenging experiences than women are, and this isn’t because women don’t want more challenging experiences. It’s because managers choose to give more challenging developmental experiences to men.
The findings from these studies seem to occur because some managers are benevolently sexist. For example, they may feel that they need to provide for and protect women, but not that they are any better than women. Men who held these beliefs about women tended to provide fewer challenging developmental opportunities to female subordinates, but men who didn’t hold these beliefs more often gave equally challenging opportunities to male and female subordinates. Women, regardless of their beliefs, also generally gave equally challenging opportunities to male and female subordinates.
These findings suggest that women who want to advance need to seek out challenging developmental experiences, because they may not be getting those experiences otherwise. Organizations need to ensure that both men and women are provided with equally challenging developmental opportunities, and managers must understand that even well-meant attitudes toward women may actually be discriminatory.
King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A. (2012). Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. Journal of Management, 38, 1835-1866. doi: 10.1177/0149206310365902
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Mixed Messages: Gender Differences in Performance and Promotability Ratings (IO Psychology)
Topic: Gender, Performance Appraisal
Publication: Journal of Management (MAR 2012)
Article: A Meta-Analysis of Gender Group Differences for Measures of Job Performance in Field Studies
Authors: Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P.
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada
In human resource management, we are often concerned with group-based differences in the measurement of performance, satisfaction, and other variables (for legal and ethical reasons). Previous meta-analytic studies (studies that look at data/findings across multiple studies) have examined the role of certain group characteristics, such as ethnicity, on performance, but gender differences have not been studied as frequently. In addition, as the authors of the current article note, previous meta-analyses that have assessed gender differences in performance have generally utilized various proxies for performance (e.g., absenteeism, satisfaction ) rather than actual performance measures (e.g., supervisor ratings). The goal, then, of this meta-analysis, was to examine gender differences on these realistic performance indices in field samples.
Meta-analyzing a total of 61 employee samples (rather than college student samples), the authors concluded that, on the average, there appears to be a great deal of similarity between levels of performance for males and females. Despite this conclusion, the authors also found support for their hypothesis that males generally receive slightly higher promotability ratings. The authors’ conclusions about gender differences in performance and promotability point out a potential management paradox in the following sense: although small, performance differences seem to suggest that females are better performers, yet they appear to be rated slightly lower on promotability compared to males.
Roth et al. suggest a number of future research directions to assist in increasing our understanding of this phenomenon, including studies of other types of job performance (such as work samples) and additional research on the influence of gender on promotability ratings in general (Roth and colleagues only identified eight such studies to include in the current meta-analysis). It will be useful to continue conducting such research in field settings, as the studies included in this meta-analysis did; as such, this may be a prime opportunity for academic-practitioner collaboration in IO psychology.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Co-ruminating with work friends by the water cooler?
Publication: Journal of Business and Psychology (MAR 2011)
Article: Co-Rumination in the Workplace: Adjustment Trade-offs for Men and Women
Who Engage in Excessive Discussion of Workplace Problems.
Authors: D.L. Haggard, C. Robert, A.J. Rose
Reviewed By: Rebecca Eckart
Developmental psychology has long studied this phenomenon: when friends excessively discuss personal problems in an intense, repetitive and speculative manner(termed co-rumination), they experience a significant increase in the quality of theirfriendship, but also an increase in negative adjustment outcomes (e.g., depression). Recently, researchers have become interested in whether this trend also occurs in theworkplace.
Haggard, Robert, and Rose (2011) reported in a recent study that women tend toengage in more co-rumination about work problems than men. And in an environmentwith an abusive supervisor (defined as a supervisor that continually exhibits verbaland/or non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact), this co-rumination is actuallyassociated with increased negative outcomes (e.g., work-family conflict) for women.The good news is that in the absence of an abusive supervisor, co-rumination is notsignificantly related to any negative outcomes for women.
Are Women at a Loss in the Workplace due to Breadwinning at Home?
Publication: Journal of Business and Psychology (WINTER 2011)
Article: A Woman’s Place and a Man’s Duty: How Gender Role Incongruence in One’s Family Life Can Result in Home-Related Spillover Discrimination at Work
Author: Marıa del Carmen Triana
Reviewed By: Kerrin George
The lack of adherance to stereotypical gender is one source of gender discrimination in the workplace. In light of the increasing yet still minority number of women who are becoming the primary earners in dual-earner, heterosexual couples, a question arises: Does this change from the traditional expectation that males should be the breadwinners lead to discrimination at work against the men and women in these relationships ?
In a recent study, del Carmen Triana investigated “home-related spillover discrimination,” or how the stereotype incongruent roles of women being primary earners and men being secondary earners in a household may spillover into work, leading to the creation of barriers. The findings supported that participants were more surprised when women were the breadwinners compared to men who were primary earners. Men who were secondary earners were more likely to be evaluated as overqualified for their current positions compared to women who were the secondary earner. However, females who were the primary earners were not seen as more overqualified compared to male peers.
The Relationship Between Weight and Salary: Bad News For All Kinds of People
Topic: Fairness, Gender, Selection
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JAN 2011)
Article: When It Comes to Pay, Do the Thin Win? The Effect of Weight on Pay for Men and Women
Authors: T.A. Judge, D.M. Cable
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
Does career success have anything to do with what you look like? According to a recent study by Judge and Cable (2011), the answer is yes.
From the same people who explained that height may influence salary (Judge & Cable, 2004), now it seems weight can also influence salary. Drawing from cultivation theory, or the idea that people are slowly drawn to accept social norms promoted by the media, they say it literally pays to be the “ideal” weight.
So what exactly is the “ideal” weight? Not surprisingly, the answer is different for men and women. The authors say underweight men are actually punished with smaller salaries, presumably because they have violated gender-role norms by being too skinny. Men are paid more with increased weight, up to the point of obesity, when salaries start to gradually decline. For women, a very different pattern emerged. Underweight women had the highest salaries, and salaries decreased with additional weight gain.
But not all weight gain is equal. In one study, the salary decrease between average versus underweight women was twice the decrease between average weight women and overweight women. According to the researchers, this is because the media has long been portraying increasingly thinner women as being ideally attractive, and the workplace has discriminated accordingly. Once women violate this ideal and become average weight, they may already be seen as “letting themselves go” so any further weight gain isn’t as detrimental.
“Think Manager-Think Male” versus “Think Crisis-Think Female”
Topic: Leadership, Gender
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (DEC 2010)
Article: Think Crisis–Think Female: The Glass Cliff and Contextual Variation in the Think Manager–Think Male Stereotype
Authors: Michelle K. Ryan, S. Alexander Haslam, Mette D. Hersby, and Renata Bongiorno
Reviewed By: Kerrin George
Traditionally, in what has been called the “Think Manager- Think Male” stereotype (TMTM), males tend to be viewed as more suitable for leadership positions. However, this relationship may be context dependent, as preliminary examinations reveal that women appear to be appointed to leadership positions more often in crisis situations, the “Think Crisis-Think Female” phenomena (TCTF).
Ryan and colleagues (2010) recently examined the TMTM versus TCTF phenomena in a series of studies. They supported that the TMTM stereotype is persistent for managers of successful companies, especially among male respondents. Traits that typically characterize males (i.e., forceful and aggressive) tended to be desired considerably more than stereotypically feminine traits (i.e., understanding, sympathetic). The authors argue that this finding may be due to typical relationships between gender and upper-level leadership, as a subsequent study that asked participants to characterize ideal managers of a successful company showed that both masculine and feminine traits were desired.
In contrast, when imagining organizations performing poorly, male characteristics were negatively associated with the manager characterization, suggesting a “Think Crisis- Think ‘not male’” relationship that may lead women to occupy these positions.
Organizational Culture: Attracting Job Applicants by Advertising the “Softer Side”
Topic: Recruiting, Gender
Publication: Journal of Business and Psychology (WINTER 2010)
Article: The impact of organizational culture on attraction and recruitment of job applicants
Authors: D. Catanzaro, H. Moore, T.R. Marshall
Reviewed By: Rebecca Eckart
Organizational culture is typically described as the collective set of values and norms shared by members of an organization. Recently, researchers have started to categorize organizational cultures as either being “supportive” or “competitive” in nature. Supportive cultures value collaboration, equality, supportiveness, and work-life balance, whereas organizations with a competitive culture typically value individualism, ambition, rewards, and a focus on one’s career.
In a recent study, Catanzaro, Moore, and Marshall (2010) examined how beliefs about the organization’s culture impacts male and female applicants’ job pursuit, organizational preference, and organizational choice. They found that overall, both men and women would rather pursue a job with a supportive organization, even if that meant accepting less compensation. However, when presented with a job in a competitive organizational culture, men are more likely than women to pursue the job. Participants indicated that they would rather work for the supportive organization because it allows for more work-life balance and appears more concerned for its employees.