Women in management - Essay Example

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE # Executive Summary ment of Problem 2 Background 3 HRM Position 5 Argument and Data Support 5 Time on the job 6 Reasons why females don't advance 8 Lack of Management Experience 9 Inhospitable Culture 10 Women not in pipeline long enough 11 Summary and Conclusion 12 Appendix "A" 14 Appendix "B" 15 Works Cited 1 Executive Summary The presence of women in management positions, or positions traditionally occupied by men, became more prevalent after the passage of title VII and Title IX. However, the enactment of these laws have not proven to be the panaceas which was envisaged. Companies have skirted with the laws and showcased a few isolated incidents which gave the perception that they were moving full speed ahead with equality, when in actuality they were pacifying the authorities and the public. As David Leonhardt points out in a recent New York Times article; "all the recent high profile achievements - the first female secretary of state, the first female lead anchor of a nightly news-cast, the first female president of Princeton, and the first female speaker of the house - do not reflect what is happening to most women"(Leonhardt) As a matter of course, the higher the hierarchal order the more prevalent the proverbial glass ceiling persists. As a general rule, companies for the most part do not exhibit a problem with employing women. However, most companies have exhibited a long standing history of gender stratification, income discrimination according to gender, and discrimination in upper management positions. One of the most telling issues in today's workplace is the difference in pay received by women who occupy the same work as their male counterparts, yet the 2 women do not receive the same pay as men. This phenomena has been simply termed either wage discrimination, or for those who prefer to soften the sound effects of the malady, it is referred to as the wage pay gap. Moreover, women who are hired on the same day as men, for the same job, are prone to receive at least $.37 on the dollar less than their male counterparts. Also, women who have received very positive performance ratings are not promoted at the same rate as males with similar or even less substantial performance ratings. Still, those women who are promoted often times receive an assignment which is not on the upper management tract, and as a consequence these promotions received by women, even if they are upper management tracts, women do not receive the same rate of pay as their male counterparts. Consequently, female employees are more prone to reach the glass bubble, by being retained in hourly wage or lower level management positions, in disproportionate numbers, and are less likely to receive company sponsored training for advancement. Statement of problem According to Heidi Hartmann, an economist and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research in Washington, D. C. ; "There's been a period of several years in a row with little or no real earnings growth for women. This is a real danger sign. If we want to see women closing the wage gap with men, we have to put a little 3 more effort into this. We need a turnaround".(Hartmann) The 2005 NAFE salary survey, reporting on 20 different industries, shows that across these industries and at the bottom and top of the labor market, women continue to earn less than men. For example, women in marketing and sales managers earned $46,696 in 2004, compared with $74,932 for men. Evelyn Murphy, author of "Getting Even; Why Women Don't Get Paid Like Men, And what To Do About It", says, "The inequity runs through every industry; its widespread in the public and private sectors and in non-profits". (Murphy) Background The General Accounting Office prepared a macro statistical analysis of 10 American Industries at the behest of a Congressional oversight committee who was concerned about the gender gap in managerial positions. In viewing Appendix "A" we see that in the most non-traditional jobs i.e., Communications, and Business and Repairs, where 40.9 per cent and 38.3 per cent represent the total percentage of the whole, of women employed respectively in either industry. Additionally we find in the Communication Industry, only 39.4 per cent of the total percentage of women employed are in managerial positions. Albeit the percentage point difference is 1.5 percent of the total percentage of female employees and female managers, which on the surface is a positive proportional representation within the industry, the numbers do not indicate the percentages which would reflect the presence of gender 4 stratification within the managerial ranks. By way of explanation, gender stratification is present when women are placed in "traditional" female positions, i.e., clerical which would lead to a managers position as perhaps an administrative officer, or chief logistics officer. While these would also be positions of vast responsibilities, they are not aligned with the track for probable upper level corporate management. One of the most compelling indicators of sexual parity and discrimination due to gender is highlighted when we view the salary differentials of full time managers (Appendix"B") in the 10 industries selected and compare the figure against male managers of similar standing. In the Communications Industry, when we view the figures over a five year (1995-2000) period, we are confronted with a disparaging fact; In 1995 women were paid $.86 on the dollar paid to their male colleagues. Then in 2000 the salary gap increased as women received only $.73 on the dollar. The pay discrimination gap has permeated every industry and denigrating the valuable contribution which women contribute to the whole. Given the patterns which we have observed in every industry thus far, upper management is sending a strong negative message, which implies that women do not need as much money as men, or that the contribution of women managers is not worth any more remuneration than they receive. No matter what rationale is attached to this anomaly, it is discrimination, clear and simple. The law calls for equal pay for equal work. 5 HRM Position This office submits that if we (the company) are going to promote parity, maintain high levels of morale, and improve productivity, we must address this negative scourge with the objective of eradicating it within our ranks. We share many of the negative practices and policies, which most companies have practiced throughout their existence. Moreover, our complacency with acquiescing to the status-quo, will only make us vulnerable to the mounting incidence of negative financial outlays; which are associated with the levy of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission fines, large cash settlements and unending and ever escalating attorney's fees and court costs. All of which distract from our main focus of conducting business. All of which effect our bottom line. Obviously, our image is important and is closely aligned with our overall business success. However, if we continue to be insensitive to a segment of our labor force, we can not expect our clients or potential clients to view us as innovators with the reasonableness and sound business acumen needed to envision their needs and spear head their business campaigns. Arguments and data support We have assembled a considerable amount of statistical data on our male and female managers. Albeit these numbers point to a significant malady within our organization, I have decided to cross reference these numbers with those of other 6 companies, who have similar dilemmas, and to emphasize the urgency of our predicament, I will compare our numbers with companies who experienced substantial legal difficulties, due to our common position on the wage gap. Time on the job In our company we find that the average female employee has been employed by us an average of 2.8 years longer than the average male employee. It is therefore clear that we do not exhibit any odious signs of discrimination in the hiring of female employees. As a matter of fact, our female managers actually have more (.3) years of experience in management than their male counterparts. However, we have not been as generous to our female employees, whose annual salary is $76,000 per year, versus $84,000 per year for their male counterparts The phenomena which causes and enables the disparity of wage distribution between men and women in the work place has been of growing concern, particularly among those negatively affected for quite sometime. The reasons why the gap exist and persist, can be attributed to the social and psychological efforts of men as well as women.. Additionally, we have not been so keen on acknowledging the female longevity, which translates into loyalty to our company, in that females have received fewer promotions than male employees. Moreover, the females in our employ are better prepared for their jobs than their male counterparts, as 74% of our female managers have advance degrees, as compared with 63% of our male managers. When 7 we compare our numbers with a company (Wal-Mart), who is experiencing considerable backlash from female employees for the same reasons, we find a negative parallel, and according to Dr.Richard Drogin in, Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns In Wal-Mart Workforce, his findings were that: "Women stay in the workforce longer than men at Wal-Mart. This is shown by the fact that the average number of years since date of hire is greater for women than men in the workforce. Among full time women active at year end, the average number of years since date of hire was 4.47 years, while the corresponding average for men was only 3.13 years. The average time since hire was greater for women overallwomen had greater time since hire in 97% of the job codes with at least 1000 full time employees".(Drogin) The pattern of gender hierarchy between management and hourly jobs is further reflected within the management and hourly supervisor positions. The Support manager, Department manager, and CSM (Customer Service Manager, which is a supervisor of cashiers at Wal-Mart), are the main hourly supervisory jobs. Within each of the store management jobs, women earn less than men, on the average.. How big a deal is it anyway that a man earns a few thousand dollars more per year than his female counterpart The cumulative effect of the gender wage gap may surprise many. In "Explaining The Gender Gap" it shows that "a woman in her late 8 20's who works full time would lose about half a million dollars in income by the time she was in her mid 40's, compared to a similarly qualified man".( Higher Ed) Reasons why females don't advance In our numbers, 52% of the female executives feel that women are not in the loop for promotion due to the attitudes of males. While only 25% of the male managers saw this as the problem. How one feels about the rates and levels of advancement between men and women depends on whether you see it as a result of women's choices, or discrimination. One view which is expressed in the article, " The Wage Gap Continues", says that, "women choose to enter "female" occupations that are lower paid and require less skills, and time commitment in order to care for children. Since gender inequality is the result of "choice", why worry about pay inequality The piece goes on to point out some idiosyncratic points; "Others say the wide gap in pay is due to policies and social institutions - labor markets, family, religion - which confine women to jobs characterized by low wages, little mobility, and limited prestige. Added to this, employers and male employees are seen as actively discriminating against women, who are denied promotion and training opportunities that men have".( Vermont) What does the evidence tell us about the merits of these two positions It tells unambiguously that a large part of the wage gap is discriminatory, and only part is 9 due to differences in male and female occupations and women's greater time off to care for children and the elderly. How this happens is quite complex. It can of course begin with a form of gender ostracism. 49% of our female managers feel that they have been cut off from the good ole boy network, consequently, they are not included in the loop on many advancing and critical decisions which affect projects and the job in particular. On the other hand, 85% of the executives feel that they are sharing as much information with their female counterparts, as they are with their male colleagues. Only 15% of the male executives see the networking issue as relevant. I can not emphasize too strongly, the importance of open lines of communication within our company. This element is the underlying key to our continued success. We must take immediate steps in eradicating this aura of superiority, based solely on gender. If 49 % of our female executives perceive they are being denied information, then we clearly have a problem. Lack of management experience This is clearly another one of our primary problem areas. 85% of the male executives in our company feel that females do not have enough management experience to be promoted. When one views our own numbers, this perception in refuted. Our female employees are in fact more experienced than the male executives. Albeit not a substantial margin, the numbers do give the female the advantage. 10 Moreover, the females have more advanced degrees than the male executives, which qualifies more women for managerial positions. Our problem here, is much like many other companies; the societal stereotypes of men toward women, have permeated the work place. It is incumbent upon us to initiate some types of "organizational learning" programs to address the stereotypes, which cloud the reality. If we don not address this then we leave ourselves open for marginalizing our potential business expansion and ultimately our profitability. Inhospitable culture It is interesting that only 18% of the male executives feel that the culture is inhospitable towards females. This is understandably considering the male perceptions of their female colleagues. There are various attitudes projected towards female by some men, due to the males perceptions of where the woman belongs in the order of things. As a company, we are not afforded the privilege of stratifying individuals or groups, solely on the basis of their gender or even race. We are regulated and monitored, both internally and externally. As an employer, it is our duty to promote and facilitate fair and equitable treatment. Albeit, only 35% of the female executives perceive the culture to be inhospitable, this is of course, more than one-third of the female managerial workforce and it is significant, even if it were only one per cent. This industry has its own inherent job related stresses and with 11 these stresses we expect each employee to be able to cope and meet their objectives and deadlines. If we tolerate sociological entities to compound all of the normal stresses, we do ourselves a disservice, along with the injustice which we benignly ignore. Women not in pipeline long enough This is reminiscent of the old grandfather concept. As if only the male executives have the right to passage, because they as a group, have traditionally held the helm of power. 64% of the male executives feel that this is a legitimate concern. I say it is non sense. If not now, then when All of our numbers point to the fact that we have not been absolutely accommodating towards our female employees. Moreover, females have been on the job longer and they stay on the job longer than their male counterparts. Do we sit idly by and rest on the laurels of the 64% who feel that women as a group are not yet ready Or, do we initiate the type of action which we reasonably recognize as being equitable. Of course, there is a third optionwe can drag our proverbial feet, and wait until a class action suit is filed, wherein, we will be in a position similar to that of the Wal-Mart's, the Targets and the Costco's. Our numbers are not dissimilar to those of the aforementioned companies, and to do nothing to at this time to right the wrongs of present and past discrimination, would not be in keeping with sound business practices and ethical behavior. It would simply 12 be fool hearted and costly. Summary and conclusion As a company, we show very clear signs of discrimination in our managerial policy towards our female employees. It would not make much difference if we had one female employee, or if we had one hundred female employees, we have a documented history of inequitable treatment of those in our employ, and that inequity is based solely on the gender of the employee. Moreover, we have tolerated the establishment and persistence of a culture, where we have allowed male employees to dictate a practice which is unconstitutional. We are extremely vulnerable to criticism and financial loss. If this criticism emanates from the general public, then we will be maligned in the press, which will ultimately place us in a position of affecting our current, potential and prospective client pool. We are a business which caters to the purchasing habits and patterns, and in some instances the whims, of the public. Much of this consumerism, is spearheaded by females. Many of our client pool consist of companies which are headed by females, and many of them cater exclusively to females.The most current census figures place women at a little more than 51% of the total population. Consequently, it is not sound business acumen to not include their perspectives in developing the projects which cater to the buying public. We would be doing the company a serious disservice if we continue to base all 13 of our company's basic decisions solely on the premise of the male perspective. We must formulate a plan which incorporates diversity in our long range business plan. Moreover, we must put into force a plan which addresses sensitivity in the workplace. We can not and will not eradicate inequities by merely issuing memorandums. We must appoint committees, which will address the numbers which we have presented above and put into place, an on-going training program, which will be facilitated by outside contractors, to bring about change in our environment, which will foster a new and healthy attitude toward diversity. One which is fair and just. 14 Appendix "A" Table 1 Representation of Women in Management Industry Positions Filled by Women Percentage All Management Point Difference % % % Communications 40.9 39.4 1.5 Public Administration 45.1 44 1.1 Business and Repair 38.3 33.5 4.8 Entertainment & Recreation 41 37 4 Other Personal Services 50.1 50.8 -0.7 Educational Services 70.6 61.1 9.5 Retail Trade 52.7 45.8 6.9 Finance Ins. & Real Estate 61.1 52.8 8.3 Hosp.& Medical services 79.5 65.9 13.6 Professional Med. Svs. 79.8 90.2 -10.4 Source: GAO: Congressional Briefing Slide; Women in Management 15 Appendix "B" Table 2 Salary Differentials, Full-Time Managers Industry Full-Time Female Managers Earnings for every $1.00 Earned by Male Full-Time Managers 1995 2000 Communications $0.86 $0.73 Public Administration $0.80 $0.83 Business and Repair Services $0.82 $0.76 Entertainment and Recreational Svcs. $0.83 $0.62 Other Professional Services $0.88 $0.83 Educational Services $0.86 $0.91 Retail Trade $0.69 $0.65 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $0.76 $0.68 Hospital and Medical Services $0.80 $0.85 Professional Medical Services $0.90 $0.88 Source:GAO; Congressional Briefing Slode; Women in Management Works Cited Drogan, Richard, Gender Biased Disparities, Wal-Mart General Accounting Office, Presentation of Women in Management, Congressional Briefing Slide, Women in Management Hartman, Heidi, Institute For Womens's Policy Research Higher Education, Explaining the Gender Gap Leonhardt, David, Gender Pay Gap, Once Narrowing, Is Stuck in Place, New York Times, December 24,2006 Murphy, Evelyn, Getting Even, Why Women Don't Get Paid Like Men NAFE 2005 Salary Survey, How Can We Close the Gender Gap Vermont, H., The Wage Gap Continues Read More