What role should men play in the gender equality dialogue of business?
It’s becoming evident to many men that the achievement of gender equality should not be delegated to women’s networks and women’s groups in isolation. Men hold overwhelming power in the business world – globally they comprise 95% of CEOs and hold between 83 and 85% of director positions. It follows that if there is to be a more balanced representation of the genders in the workplace, many men will need to be actively involved in initiatives to effect the change needed.
But how should they lead these initiatives and best participate in women’s networks?
It might be easier to answer this by explaining what men should not be doing. Any man who shows up to ‘set the women straight’ and to provide all the answers is perpetuating gender imbalance and is actually making the problem worse. There’s a lot that men need to learn about women, and participating in gender balancing endeavours is an opportunity to open their minds and become better managers of both genders, rather than just being good at leading men. As Joanne Lipman wrote in her recent article, Women at Work: A Guide for Men: “Even the most well-intentioned managers can be clueless when dealing with women in the workforce”.
Being active partners in a network doesn’t mean that men need to dominate the conversation. Instead, it would be most useful if men adopted an attitude of learning and striving to understand. What men (and women) need to be aware of before any useful dialogue can take place is that the business world has been set up along masculine lines of behaviour and values. Everything from recruitment to salary structures to evaluations and promotions favour men and masculine behaviour because that’s the premise that underlies all decision-making. So, there are really only two ways that gender balance can be achieved:
Option 1 : Teach the women how to become more like men
Option 2 : Change the corporate culture so that it embraces the skills and talents of both genders and fosters a work environment where both can thrive.
The 20th Century was all about the former solution – ‘fixing’ the women. The thinking was that if women could just be less emotional, more to the point, more assertive, less caring about customer and staff needs and more focused purely on the bottom line, all would be well and women would naturally rise into senior positions. And many did. Women became adept at assessing how the game was played and learned how to modify their natural behaviour to follow the male-invented rules.
The problem was that this made many women very unhappy – they were one person in the office and another person at home. Women are generally not able to compartmentalize different parts of their lives as successfully as men can. Men brag about driving to work and mentally opening ‘the office box’; followed by a trip home when they close the office box and open ‘the home box’. Most women are connected to what is happening in their personal lives while at work – this doesn’t mean that they can’t concentrate on the task at hand, but they’re still able to make the odd phone call to check in, or make plans for children or housekeeping issues in-between attending to deadlines.
If the world hadn’t changed, this male-dominated system could probably keep continuing. Training women to become more like men in the workplace could simply continue as it has done for a few decades now and programmes that help women become more assertive, more confident, more to-the-point and unilaterally decisive would keep flourishing.
But the world has changed – quite dramatically as it turns out.
Read More»Outrage over the panel of men at the Global Summit of Women!
The picture to the right seems relatively benign doesn’t it? But it has drawn a storm of outrage from women across the globe, 
being re-tweeted endlessly with angry captions such as: “A picture speaks a thousand words”, and “mansplaining”. To put it in context, as can be seen by the background posters, the photograph was taken at this year’s Global Summit of Women. Thus, the underlying sentiment is that men have no place in discussing women’s issues; that their mere presence elicits indignation. I couldn’t disagree more strongly, so let me explain why.
To start with, the horrified tweets brought to mind an analogy of my own distress some 20 years ago on a different but somehow related matter. My company was involved in conducting an in-depth strategic plan and, as one of the executives, my task was to do scenario planning of the political future of the country – to look at the best, worst and most likely case scenarios for the next 5 to 10 years. Now I am a South African, and this was during the late 80’s, so we were living through a fascinating time of dramatic possibilities, but also through a period of enormous uncertainty. Clarity for a 5 to 10 year period was something only to be dreamt of.
Nevertheless, I consulted the most prominent political expert I could find; someone who was as objective as he could be under the circumstances. There was only one certainty he could offer, and that was that change in the country would not come through 
the opposition party. His best-case scenario was that the then President would retire through ill health, that FW de Klerk would come to power and that he, along with the ruling Nationalist Party, would willingly hand over power to the majority of South Africans (as opposed to the white minority) led by Nelson Mandela. This was not what I wanted to hear. As a staunch opponent of apartheid and as a then political activist I wanted to hear only that the opposition party would somehow sweep into power (something they’d failed to do for 48 years) and would bring an end to a loathed system. I hated the thought that the ruling party might be given any credit for bringing about change. I was even prepared to accept the worst case scenario that the country would collapse into a civil war and that change would come about that way, rather than to accept that those in power should be allowed any part in effecting a transformation. Why should they be given any glory, I argued? – they were the ones who’d put the system in place and had derived the benefits.
Putting women into top positions won’t happen without changing the culture of the organisation
For gender balancing to work, nothing less than a complete change in the culture of an organisation is required. This is the reason all gender experts advocate that the CEO needs to be committed to the process. Any change in a business culture is hard, but the kind of social change needed for balancing the genders is enormous. It involves re-examining every aspect of the business to uncover where unconscious bias towards women exists, and rebuilding a different culture that supports both genders. And, much of the time, without the buy-in of all the different levels of management (usually mostly men), there’s going to be plenty of resistance to even getting initial plans off the ground.
Why is such a comprehensive change necessary?
Most business cultures are very much an alpha male construct. Throughout the centuries, even when humanity was largely involved in agricultural pursuits, men made the rules and were in charge. This was equally true when the industrial revolution occurred. Women have always worked in factories and even in the mines (children as well, until laws were passed forbidding it), but they reported to men who held all the decision-making positions.
Into the 20th century, women started to enter the workplace in increasing numbers, but were strictly curtailed as to the positions 
they held. The majority of women became teachers, nurses or secretaries. In the US, women work as secretaries more than any other position – this was true according to the Census in 1950, and was still true in the 2010 Census. When you consider that women in the US are now more highly educated than men, holding more primary degrees, as well as more Masters and PhD degrees, it’s astonishing that so little progress has been made after 60 years.
As we know, men are running most organisations today, as they have done in the past (about 95% of CEOs are male). Consequently, most businesses operate according to a male perspective – this means that all decision-making, be it about hiring, promotion or remuneration, is heavily biased in favour of men. While this situation continues, no real progress can be made to fully utilise the skills and abilities of women. And it’s essential that we do – bearing in mind that women control about 80% of total consumer spending and are now the largest pool of qualified talent available throughout the world. Not to mention that the presence of women in senior management improves almost all aspects of corporate governance and has a direct effect on improving the bottom line.
Read More»Why is gender balancing happening so slowly?
We’re 14 years into the new millennium. The economic empowerment of women, something The Economist called “arguably the biggest social change of our times” (2010), is a major factor in a fast-changing landscape. And yet the representation of women in decision-making positions in both the public and private sectors is still limping along at a surprisingly slow pace.
Most organisations are now aware that there is a powerful business case supporting the need to bring vastly greater numbers of women into senior decision making positions. They know that women represent 60% of university graduates worldwide and that 70% of consumer-spending is in the hands of women. They probably are even aware that almost all aspects of corporate governance are improved with the presence of women on the Executive Committees or on the Board of Directors. They might even have learned that any ratio relating to profits and return on investment is enhanced with the presence of even one woman director versus a company that has a 100% male Board.
And yet, there is still almost no progress being made in balancing the genders at the top levels of decision-making. The figures for the US for 2013 show that no advancement was made at all. The Nordic countries lead the way but, for the world in general, almost no gains have been made for the last decade. How can this be?
Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, in a recent article, quotes a report published by King’s College London (sponsored by KPMG) which states: “The lack of women in an organisation is a management failure.” This is wider than just a lack of CEO commitment to change. It also encompasses a failure by top leadership to truly understand the scope and scale of the organizational change required to ensure that this balancing of the genders takes place. Even knowing the details of the business case, which shows the value of having more women ‘at the top’, is clearly insufficient. Balancing the genders in society is going to be a major shift from our current practices. It will require changing the conversation and culture of our business (and personal) lives, and this won’t happen without tremendous commitment, effort, and training. No less than a profound questioning of the assumptions underpinning the social systems that currently exist is needed.
The approach that has existed so far – to ‘fix’ women or to somehow mould them to fit into the male-dominated culture that currently exists – will not work, and is of no benefit to society anyway. What is truly necessary is for men and women to work 
together to build a whole new social order – comprising both their business and personal lives. The lack of gender-balancing progress, then, is not surprising – it’s an enormous task. Some leaders are truly aware of the size of the change needed and are perhaps overwhelmed by the task. Others clearly haven’t grasped the complex nature of what is needed, and so continue to provide band-aids to a wound that is too deep and too serious to be healed with superficial surface measures.
From the companies I have researched in South Africa, the latter is the most likely scenario. The efforts that a few businesses are making towards balancing the genders can be summed up as follows:
- A lip-service commitment to gender balancing, resulting in a directive to HR to make inroads into balancing the work-force. This is a most inefficient solution, and usually results in gender-balancing being thrown in with all other aspects of ‘diversity’ and getting lost among the many other responsibilities HR has. It diminishes the focus that is truly required for good results.
- An over-arching opinion is adopted that meritocracy is the answer. Sooner or later, women will start to exhibit the
skills and behaviours required and they will naturally rise into senior positions. In other words, the best way to treat a woman is to treat her just like a man. This approach pays no attention to the differences between the two genders – it simply repeats the status quo. Should a handful of women manage to rise up the ranks through their sheer skill and determination, they would still find themselves dealing with a male-driven culture that doesn’t take into consideration the tremendous benefits a business can derive from incorporating the qualities that the feminine brings. Over time, this is what leads to the revolving door syndrome as qualified women leave in their droves.
- The appointment of a junior person in a full-time capacity (usually a woman) whose job is to research the skills required versus those available (for example, if more women are needed in a technical division, to ascertain the availability of these skills amongst women and to strive to acquire them), and to urge various departments to give preference to women in the recruitment process. While this step is important, and has certainly made a contribution, it is effective only at junior management to middle management levels. These levels have improved enormously throughout the world in recent years. However, no impact has been made on the General Management, Executive Committee and Board of Director levels. Those junior staff appointees are committed and striving, but have no effect on the true circles of influence in the company.
- The tasking of a senior woman in the organisation to head up the process of gender-balancing. Once again,
this step falls into the ‘fixing the women’ category. What is being implied is, if a certain woman has succeeded, she’ll be able to help other women conform to the required behaviours that will help them get ahead. Often, no budget is given and the woman appointed is expected to make this transition happen in her own time. The whole premise is flawed in that it comes from the viewpoint that gender-balancing is a women’s issue and that women will start to succeed if they could just learn to modify their behaviours and act in a different way or with a different mind-set.
- A ‘women’s group’ is formed – inspirational speakers (women) are invited and the group may even get together on a monthly
basis to discuss challenges etc. The fact that this tactic has never had any impact on improving the representation of women at senior levels is not surprising. Once again, the company approach is to isolate women and to treat gender-balancing as something that will come about once women ‘get-it’. Men tend to disregard these women’s groups, other than to deride them as ‘whine and wine clubs’. A functioning women’s network, on the other hand, that would hold senior management in a company to account is a different thing altogether from what exists in most businesses.
These approaches will never achieve a significant or sustainable increase in women at senior decision-making levels. For those CEOs and Boards of Directors who are sincere about trying to increase the representation by women at these levels, they are perhaps bemused as to why their efforts aren’t working. They don’t see that what is often happening in business can be likened to an all-male club opening its doors and expecting women to come in, adapt and thrive. I remember one of these men-only 
‘gentlemen’s clubs’ because I used to visit my father’s club several years ago. Women were allowed to enter only through the side entrance, never the main door, and there were strict rules as to how we could behave and where we were allowed to walk. Of course, we had to be escorted at all times, only being left to our own devices when we needed to find a restroom. This was just about 25 years ago, but it seems so silly and outdated in the 21st Century. All-male clubs have almost disappeared now – and many died anyway, even when they opened their doors to women members in desperation.
The rules of society have changed, and yet we continue to try to repeat old patterns, wondering why we’re not getting different results. Businesses are still clinging to many archaic and prejudiced ways of operating, and continue to be surprised that women aren’t thriving! Patterns of decision-making, net-working, self-promotion, career advancement, training, production, product planning, target-setting and many other every day processes are almost always fashioned along the lines of the over-riding masculine culture.
This has to change – not just because women have the skills that are needed in business but because society needs it. The masculine dominated pattern of ‘profits before people and the planet’ has led us to the perilous state we’re now in. As one article recently stated : “A business and political world predominantly led by men has brought us to today’s global juncture.” This is not to paint all businesses with the same brush, as some are becoming very aware that an all-consuming pursuit of profits is unsustainable, but it’s clear that a major change is needed. Recognising the scope of the change and the systematic efforts needed to bring it about is essential before any real progress will be able to be made.
Working Mothers Outperform Other Employees
Another myth is debunked by the statistics in the article below. The details don’t surprise me – women with children have no choice other than to become highly organized, and those I have interviewed over the years are very conscious of getting through their work-load so that they can leave on time. One of the trends admitted to by many employees (men and women alike) is that they feel the need to look overworked and stressed in order to impress senior management. There is a tendency to work at a slower pace through the day, but then to put in several hours of overtime, which sometimes is more for the ‘show’ of being dedicated and vital to the business. In many instances a more focused and steady pace of work would have achieved the same results in a shorter period of time. Mothers, who don’t have the luxury of putting in those extra hours in the office, get the same amount of work done (if not more) in the working hours allocated to them.
What is definitely true, though, is that they continue to feel guilty about leaving the workplace when others are still there working (even though, as discussed above, this is no indicator of true productivity). As a result, they very often don’t attribute a high value to their work and are happy to accept lower salaries than they deserve. Here is the research from the UK :
The Value of Working Mothers:
Subconciously or not, companies are aware of the advantage, and 12.5% admit to seeing it as a hiring advantage
- A survey of British business found that working mothers work harder than other groups of employees — and that businesses are
aware, however unconsciously, of this advantage. - And every company said it preferred to hire a working mother over a younger childless woman.
- In the UK, 7 in 10 mothers work.
- 61.4% of the 49 UK businesses surveyed for the mothers organization Mums In Control ranked mothers as better employment value than men or women without children, with 3 in 4 rating mothers as tops in organisational skills and almost 2 in 3 saying mothers were likely to remain longer with the company.
- Mums In Control said the companies attributed many of the advantages cited for working mothers as being the direct result of being mothers, especially as the need to complete tasks and be able to finish a workday (to get back to their children) concentrate them on their work.
- But this advantage is almost squandered, as even about 4 in 10 companies acknowledged that mothers who work for them considered themselves to be of “low value” in the workplace.
- And women are perceived by many companies as not just good value but also cheap — 1 in 8 companies actually admitted to employing mothers because they think mothers have lower salary expectations than other employees.
How do companies begin to conduct successful gender balancing?
As we move towards legislation in South Africa that will require all companies to have women fill 50% of every decision-making level, many captains of industry are going to be looking at ways to meet these quotas
Read More»The Women Empowerment and Gender Equality Bill – Friend or Foe?
Any day now, the Women Empowerment and Gender Equality Bill (WEGE) is likely to be passed into law in South Africa. When it does, the country’s economic landscape will start to change dramatically.
The Bill requires that women occupy 50% of all decision-making positions within an organisation. Current statistics show that women comprise about 15.5% of all directorship positions. No statistics are yet available on a national basis for the number of women in senior management positions, or of membership of executive committees, but it won’t be higher than 15.5% (the reason for this is that non-executive director positions are easier to fill with ‘minorities’ if required; it’s more difficult to ‘fix the numbers’ below Board level where staff are full-time employed and operational).
So what, on the surface, are the first impressions of this new proviso for business – is it going to be good or bad for the economy? – is it a friend or a foe?
Read More»Your Company Doesn’t Need a Women’s Network
Very soon, legislation may be passed in South Africa that will require all companies to have a 50% representation by women at all decision-making levels. This historic shift will have many businesses scrambling to re-arrange their corporate structures – moves that are currently being made by companies around the globe who are catching up to the massive change that has taken place in the world. This shift now sees women as the majority of educated Talent in the world, as controlling the largest consumer-spend on the planet, and as a means to improving a company’s bottom line fairly dramatically when they rise up into senior management positions. The article below, by global Gender Expert, Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, provides some excellent views as to the mistakes that many businesses are currently making in their quest to attain a better balance between the genders.
Empowering women has a positive effect on reducing poverty
The fact that having one or more women in senior management / C-suite positions has numerous positive effects on business is already well known. These benefits include much improved corporate governance, a greatly decreased possibility of insolvency, better ability to relate to the largest section of the consumer market (which is 70% comprised of women worldwide) and, consequently, improved profitability.
But what effect does this empowerment have at a social level?
Read More»Is the customer still King – or is she now the Queen?
Statistics from across the globe would indicate that the customer is now very definitely the Queen! How would we determine who our customer is? By looking at buying power and finding out who has decision-making authority when it comes to purchasing consumables. By both definitions, the King has definitely been de-throned.