Approximately six months ago in my blog post about gender inequality I concluded that ‘the global business world continues to be too slow at closing the gender gap’. Naturally, within these six months, nothing drastically has changed. Taking stock at where we currently are in terms of gender equality, McKinsey professionals reaffirm that the progress is painfully slow.
Echoing the previously discussed notions, the persistence of the problem is largely attributed to the lack of initiative from organizations, specifically senior management. As per McKinsey’s numbers, in 2010 only 28% of companies saw gender diversity as one of their top-ten priorities, and a third of companies didn’t think the matter was of any strategic importance for them at all. As discussed in my respective blog post, companies start undertaking many different initiatives that aim to support and empower women, like Telstra’s ‘All roles flex’, Sadexo‘s ‘SWIFt’, or McKinsey’s ‘HeForShe’. Gender diversity is also about changing organizational culture on a larger scale, changing fundamental mindsets, challenging gender stereotypes and gender bias.
Yet, stubborn numbers seem to suggest that it is not working, or at least, not effectively enough? Given the modest time that has passed since my last discussion on the topic, I would say that the arguments offered half a year ago stand true also today. Companies are on the right track; they just need further commitment, even more efforts and some patience along the way.
At the same time, what stood out for me in the latest McKinsey publication is their surprise in that ‘a higher percentage of men than women have been taking advantage of some of our flexibility programs’. In other words, even when there are new initiatives aimed at empowering women, men seem to show greater interest in using them than women. Hence, is it possible that the problem persists not just because not enough is offered and done, but also because not enough is taken up?
There might be some truth to this explanation of the gender gap. According to recent research studies conducted at Harvard Business School, men and women have different preferences for professional advancement. More specifically, the researchers identified that women have more life goals associated with different life domains than men. For example, compared to men, women listed more goals overall, such as doing sports, keeping relationships, being organized. At the same time, women listed a smaller proportion of power-related goals (e.g., taking on a high-level position in an organization) out of their list of total goals than did men.
Further, the researchers found that although women perceive professional advancement equally attainable to men, they see these opportunities as less desirable. Moreover, compared to male participants, female participants associated more negative outcomes (e.g. stress, conflict with other life goals) with a hypothetical promotion. Interpreting the results, the researchers concluded that because women have a greater number of goals than men, they might feel more anxious about the sacrifices and difficult trade-offs they might experience in the case of possible promotions, which in turn makes the latter less desirable. As the researchers put it, ‘women may not assume high-level positions in organizations—at least in part— because they desire other things as well’.
To some extent, these gender differences in preferences for career advancement may be the result of cultural learning and socially supported gender-based roles and stereotypes. Cultural changes at the organizational level and awareness of gender-based discrimination would tackle this source. Yet, to some part, the discussed gender differences may also result from biological gender differences (e.g. higher testosterone – ‘power hormone’ levels in men), which are not to be manipulated.
As the researchers highlight, it is important to note that their findings are descriptive, not prescriptive. As such, it would be a mistake to conclude based on the data that women are indeed less ambitious and that they should not be offered promotions. Rather, this data broadens our understanding of the persistent gender gap, suggesting that apart from organizational and societal barriers, one reason may also relate to gender differences in preferences for professional advancement.
there needs to be behavioural campaigns to change attitudes and behaviour as regards gender diversity thats the only we can break the gender ceiling.
Interesting that women/girls dominate by a large margin participation in study abroad at the high school and university level (at least in the United States) and yet in the actual internationalized, globalized work reality there is a reverse gender gap. Maybe employers should be explicitly require study abroad experience and explicitly say that, advertise it so young men have more incentive to engage in this? If they did it might help us get more boys and young men into study abroad. There would also be more women in the pool of job candidates even considered for some of these positions.
hi! thank you so much you define “the persistent gender gap”.I hope you share more information about gender gap.!