Gender imbalances persist today
In many European countries, gender quotas on corporate boards have been in place for several years, first in Norway, then Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands The European Union Commissioner is pushing for quotas in companies as well, stating1 that companies have done little to remedy the disparity between male and female leadership. The quotas could be implemented in coming years if the gender imbalances persist.
Quotas are a contentious issue in Europe, but an even more hot button topic in America. The problem internationally with how the gender imbalance is being portrayed is that when companies report this data, they do not cite stats for the entire company, rather, it is female leadership and management that is reported, and those numbers are admittedly improving in the U.S.
But not so fast – the numbers being reported as women in leadership roles is not necessarily C-level executives, and more often than not, it is low level management being portrayed as female leaders, so just promote a few gals into lower management and your company has solved the gender gap crisis, right?
Not only is reporting flawed and skewing how the dilemma is being portrayed, a new Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report2, there is a dramatic preference for promoting men over women. Here is how the gender balance breaks down by each level, according to the WSJ:
- Graduate entry level – 53 percent female, 47 percent male
- Director level – 35 percent female, 65 percent male
- Senior level – 24 percent female, 76 percent male
- C-suite – 19 percent female, 81 percent male
Gender imbalances, what is the cure?
A recent report3 unveils that Millennial businesswomen do not ask for raises or promotions as often as their male counterparts, which is fascinating, as the generation grew up under the mantra that we are all equal, no matter our gender, race, or religion. Other generations that were not raised under this banner are also likely to be comprised of women that do not insist on promotions or raises.
For years, I have personally written on the topic of gender equality and have taken the unpopular stance that there is no such thing as a glass ceiling, and that women must not fear being considered a bitch at work if that is what it takes to succeed, and must never see themselves as inferior, particularly when their experience and education level is on par with or better than their male counterparts.
The idea that women are not as assumptive about raises or promotions is a clear indicator that the glass ceiling is somewhat self-imposed, but there are things our nation can do to make progress with gender equality at work without having to follow Europe down the path of gender quotas.
First, reporting must be accurate. Saying a company has a 50/50 balance between men and women, yet there are no C-suite executives that are female, only 5 percent in the senior level, but a massive number in the director level, the reporting is nothing more than back-patting and a back door way to show gender equality.
Secondly, women must push harder and insist on promotions and raises, because their male counterparts are doing it assumptively. Take away the self-imposed glass ceiling and our gender gets one step closer to equality.
Third, new leaders, young leaders must evaluate their company culture. Is twisting numbers a reasonable way to solve a company’s gender inequality problem, or is really looking at the culture a more effective path toward long term change? That’s a rhetorical question.
Lastly, as we’ve written about several times, encouraging young women, mentoring young women, and providing tools for their entry into the workplace as more than a receptionist. STEM (science, tech, engineering, and math) careers are always short female talent, and the pool employers have to choose from is very small, so encouraging and empowering young girls to be interested in STEM careers is the best way to bridge the gender gap in the long run.
There are many excuses companies can make as to why the gap exists, and many excuses women can make for themselves as to why they are not in leadership roles, but with improved reporting, improved culture, and mentorship of young women, the next generation has a chance at making some real headway on the gender imbalance dilemma.
You should apply to be on a board – why and how
(BUSINESS NEWS) What do you need to think about and explore if you want to apply for a Board of Directors? Here’s a quick rundown of what, why, and when.
What does a Board of Directors do? Investopedia explains “A board of directors (B of D) is an elected group of individuals that represent shareholders. The board is a governing body that typically meets at regular intervals to set policies for corporate management and oversight. Every public company must have a board of directors. Some private and nonprofit organizations also have a board of directors.”
It is time to have a diverse representation of thoughts, values and insights from intelligently minded people that can give you the intel you need to move forward – as they don’t have quite the same vested interests as you.
We have become the nation that works like a machine. Day in and day out we are consumed by our work (and have easy access to it with our smartphones). We do volunteer and participate in extra-curricular activities, but it’s possible that many of us have never understood or considered joining a Board of Directors. There’s a new wave of Gen Xers and Millennials that have plenty of years of life and work experience + insights that this might be the time to resurrect (or invigorate) interest.
Harvard Business Review shared a great article about identifying the FIVE key areas you would want to consider growing your knowledge if you want to join a board:
1. Financial – You need to be able to speak in numbers.
2. Strategic – You want to be able to speak to how to be strategic even if you know the numbers.
3. Relational – This is where communication is key – understanding what you want to share with others and what they are sharing with you. This is very different than being on the Operational side of things.
4. Role – You must be able to be clear and add value in your time allotted – and know where you especially add value from your skills, experiences and strengths.
5. Cultural – You must contribute the feeling that Executives can come forward to seek advice even if things aren’t going well and create that culture of collaboration.
As Charlotte Valeur, a Danish-born former investment banker who has chaired three international companies and now leads the UK’s Institute of Directors, says, “We need to help new participants from under-represented groups to develop the confidence of working on boards and to come to know that” – while boardroom capital does take effort to build – “this is not rocket science.”
NOW! The time is now for all of us to get involved in helping to create a brighter future for organizations and businesses that we care about (including if they are our own business – you may want to create a Board of Directors).
The Harvard Business Review gave great explanations of the need to diversify those that have been on the Boards to continue to strive to better represent our population as a whole. Are you ready to take on this challenge? We need you.
Everyone should have an interview escape plan
(BUSINESS NEWS) A job interview should be a place to ask about qualifications but sometimes things can go south – here’s how to escape when they do.
“So, why did you move from Utah to Austin?” the interviewer asked over the phone.
The question felt a little out of place in the job interview, but I gave my standard answer about wanting a fresh scene. I’d just graduated college and was looking to break into the Austin market. But the interviewer wasn’t done.
“But why Austin?” he insisted, “There can’t be that many Mormons here.”
My stomach curled. This was a job interview – I’d expected to discuss my qualifications for the position and express my interest in the company. Instead, I began to answer more and more invasive questions about my personal life and religion. The whole ordeal left me very uncomfortable, but because I was young and desperate, I put up with it. In fact, I even went back for a second interview!
At the time, I thought I had to put up with that sort of treatment. Only recently have I realized that the interview was extremely unprofessional and it wasn’t something I should have felt obligated to endure.
And I’m not the only one with a bad interview story. Slate ran an article sharing others’ terrible experiences, which ranged from having their purse inspected to being trapped in a 45 minute presentation! No doubt, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mistreatment by potential employers.
So, why do we put up with it?
Well, sometimes people just don’t know better. Maybe, like I was, they’re young or inexperienced. In these cases, these sorts of situations seem like they could just be the norm. There’s also the obvious power dynamic: you might need a job, but the potential employers probably don’t need you.
While there might be times you have to grit your teeth and bear it, it’s also worth remembering that a bad interview scenario often means bad working conditions later on down the line. After all, if your employers don’t respect you during the interview stage, it’s likely the disrespect will continue when you’re hired.
Once you’ve identified an interview is bad news, though, how do you walk out? Politely. As tempting as it is to make a scene, you probably don’t want to go burning bridges. Instead, excuse yourself by thanking your interviewers, wishing them well and asserting that you have realized the business wouldn’t be a good fit.
Your time, as well as your comfort, are important! If your gut is telling you something is wrong, it probably is. It isn’t easy, but if a job interview is crossing the line, you’re well within your rights to leave. Better to cut your losses early.
Australia vs Facebook: A conflict of news distribution
(BUSINESS NEWS) Following a contentious battle for news aggregation, Australia works to find agreement with Facebook.
Australia has been locked in a legal war against technology giants Google and Facebook with regard to how news content can be consumed by either entity’s platforms.
At its core, the law states that news content being posted on social media is – in effect – stealing away the ability for news outlets to monetize their delivery and aggregate systems. A news organization may see their content shared on Facebook, which means users no longer have to visit their site to access that information. This harms the ability for news production companies – especially smaller ones – from being able to maintain revenue and profit, while also giving power to corporations such as Facebook by allowing them to capitalize on their substantial infrastructure.
This is a complex subject that can be viewed from a number of angles, but it essentially asks the question of who should be in control of information on a potentially global scale, and how the ability to share such data should be handled when it passes through a variety of mediums and avenues. Put shortly: Australia thinks royalties should be paid to those who supply the news.
Australia has maintained that under the proposed laws, corporations must reach content distribution deals in order to allow news to be spread through – as one example – posts on Facebook. In retaliation, Facebook completely removed the ability for users to post news articles and stories. This in turn led to a proliferation of false and misleading information to fill the void, magnifying the considerable confusion that Australian citizens were confronted with once the change had been made.
“In just a few days, we saw the damage that taking news out can cause,” said Sree Sreenivasan, a professor at the Stony Brook School of Communication and Journalism. “Misinformation and disinformation, already a problem on the platform, rushed to fill the vacuum.”
Facebook’s stance is that it provides value to the publishers because shared news content will drive users to their sites, thereby allowing them to provide advertising and thus leading to revenue.
Australia has been working on this bill since last year, and has said that it is meant to equalize the potential imbalance of content and who can display and benefit from it. This is meant to try and create conditions between publishers and the large technology platforms so that there is a clearer understanding of how payment should be done in exchange for news and information.
Google was initially defiant (threatening to go as far as to shut off their service entirely), but began to make deals recently in order to restore its own access. Facebook has been the strongest holdout, and has shown that it can leverage its considerable audience and reach to force a more amenable deal. Australia has since provided some amendments to give Facebook time to seek similar deals obtained by Google.
One large portion of the law is that Australia is reserving the right to allow final arbitration, which it says would allow a mediator to set prices if no deal could be reached. This might be considered the strongest piece of the law, as it means that Facebook cannot freely exercise its considerable weight with impunity. Facebook’s position is that this allows government interference between private companies.
In the last week – with the new agreements on the table – it’s difficult to say who blinked first. There is also the question of how this might have a ripple effect through the tech industry and between governments who might try to follow suit.
Opinion Editorials1 week ago
Declutter your quarantine workspace (and brain)
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Minimalism doesn’t have to happen overnight
Business News5 days ago
Everyone should have an interview escape plan
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Online dating is evolving and maybe networking will too
Business Entrepreneur6 days ago
Small businesses must go digital to survive (and thrive)
Tech News5 days ago
How to personalize your site for every visitor without learning code
Business News4 days ago
You should apply to be on a board – why and how
Tech News2 weeks ago
4 ways startups prove their investment in upcoming technology trends