Women and senior management
Discussion
Seeing in the media that Vince Cable's (failing) drive to get more women onto the boards of FTSE companies may result in the introduction of quotas: :Source:, I was just left with a deflated feeling of 'why?'.
I'm going to stick my head above the parapet here, but hopefully we can have a discussion befitting N, P & E rather than the Lounge.
In over 25 years in the workplace, I have worked in both the private and public sector; I have worked in environments from small family businesses through to FTSE100 companies and huge corporations.
And across all those experiences, I have never come across a woman competent in a role above that of 'doing stuff'. There. I've said it.
I've met very competent ladies in manufacturing, administration and support roles, but not one in any kind of management or executive function. My own experience has not delivered one who could properly manage a team, think strategically or control any complex task or organisation.
Repeating myself, for the avoidance of doubt, this is not bar-room punditry, THIS IS BASED UPON MY EXPERIENCE in the workplace.
All this means one of two things:
1. I've been incredibly unlucky, as there are some great women managers and leaders out there; or
2. Cable (and others') attempts to push women upwards in organisations is contrary to the skillset being available (hence why it's failing).
Or, am I just too blinkered against women managers that I wouldn't recognise a good one if she was standing in front of me? I don't think I am; there's nothing in my family history or upbringing to suggest such a learned value. But... I just don't know.
All I do know, is that my opening gambit^ seems 50+ years out of date, and I'm keen to understand whether such a view has been rightly consigned to history or whether it's a big equal opportunities cover-up?
I'm going to stick my head above the parapet here, but hopefully we can have a discussion befitting N, P & E rather than the Lounge.
In over 25 years in the workplace, I have worked in both the private and public sector; I have worked in environments from small family businesses through to FTSE100 companies and huge corporations.
And across all those experiences, I have never come across a woman competent in a role above that of 'doing stuff'. There. I've said it.
I've met very competent ladies in manufacturing, administration and support roles, but not one in any kind of management or executive function. My own experience has not delivered one who could properly manage a team, think strategically or control any complex task or organisation.
Repeating myself, for the avoidance of doubt, this is not bar-room punditry, THIS IS BASED UPON MY EXPERIENCE in the workplace.
All this means one of two things:
1. I've been incredibly unlucky, as there are some great women managers and leaders out there; or
2. Cable (and others') attempts to push women upwards in organisations is contrary to the skillset being available (hence why it's failing).
Or, am I just too blinkered against women managers that I wouldn't recognise a good one if she was standing in front of me? I don't think I am; there's nothing in my family history or upbringing to suggest such a learned value. But... I just don't know.
All I do know, is that my opening gambit^ seems 50+ years out of date, and I'm keen to understand whether such a view has been rightly consigned to history or whether it's a big equal opportunities cover-up?
I've met plenty of capable female leaders.
>shrug<
It'd be great to think that we judge people on what they say and do, but there's still prejudice based on racism/classism/sexism in the workplace.
Some people (present company excepted, natch) see boobs and a fanny sat in the interview chair, and they - consciously or otherwise - silently knock ten K off the salary offer, or think "can't possibly do the job", even before she's opened her mouth. See also brown people, gay people, etc.
I'm not some starry-eyed idealist who thinks we can eliminate this sort of thing and sit around doing whatever it is starry-eyed idealists do, but I do think we should strive to avoid it.
If nothing else, it's f
king lazy and unprofessional. You should hire the best person for the job, irrespective of genitals, skin colour or orientation.
>shrug<
It'd be great to think that we judge people on what they say and do, but there's still prejudice based on racism/classism/sexism in the workplace.
Some people (present company excepted, natch) see boobs and a fanny sat in the interview chair, and they - consciously or otherwise - silently knock ten K off the salary offer, or think "can't possibly do the job", even before she's opened her mouth. See also brown people, gay people, etc.
I'm not some starry-eyed idealist who thinks we can eliminate this sort of thing and sit around doing whatever it is starry-eyed idealists do, but I do think we should strive to avoid it.
If nothing else, it's f
king lazy and unprofessional. You should hire the best person for the job, irrespective of genitals, skin colour or orientation.The best senior manager I have ever worked under (and curently do, until the special liquidation ends anyway) is female.
She is brilliant, commands utmost respect from CEO's of companies, collegues and advisors equally and was reacently nominated for the top 100 women in the city/property. Even in the current situation she is the one person in the company that I know has the best interests of us, her team, in mind.
She is brilliant, commands utmost respect from CEO's of companies, collegues and advisors equally and was reacently nominated for the top 100 women in the city/property. Even in the current situation she is the one person in the company that I know has the best interests of us, her team, in mind.
I have met and worked with many very competent senior leaders who are female. Sadly, most lose the drive level required after having kids. Some others keep going, but they're largely the career woman no kids types.
IMO, it's having kids that dictates the length of a lady's career rise - once kids come on the scene, that hunger for progression has a tendancy to wane, becuse there are more important matters to hand. Again IMO, this leads to a lower fraction of women at the most senior levels, because it takes longer on the career ladder to get there. Take a year or 2 out, and suddenly you're behind the guys you werte level with, and they have filled to open senior position...
IMO, it's having kids that dictates the length of a lady's career rise - once kids come on the scene, that hunger for progression has a tendancy to wane, becuse there are more important matters to hand. Again IMO, this leads to a lower fraction of women at the most senior levels, because it takes longer on the career ladder to get there. Take a year or 2 out, and suddenly you're behind the guys you werte level with, and they have filled to open senior position...
There are some female executives who are fantastic and quite capable of doing the top jobs. I don't believe they really face any significant barrier to doing so either.
The reality is that a massive proportion of the female population - massive enough that you might call it normal - have other priorities. Mostly children, but women are also more likely to take time off to care for an elderly relative as well.
I don't know why this is such a problem - it's been part of nearly every culture, everywhere, for all of recorded history, and it's quite possibly hard wired into us for evolutionary reasons. There's nothing to stop a determined woman from succeeding in "a man's world" be it corporate, politics or whatever. But to pick some arbitrary number and say it must be this proportion is just insane.
The reality is that a massive proportion of the female population - massive enough that you might call it normal - have other priorities. Mostly children, but women are also more likely to take time off to care for an elderly relative as well.
I don't know why this is such a problem - it's been part of nearly every culture, everywhere, for all of recorded history, and it's quite possibly hard wired into us for evolutionary reasons. There's nothing to stop a determined woman from succeeding in "a man's world" be it corporate, politics or whatever. But to pick some arbitrary number and say it must be this proportion is just insane.
Forcing women into roles instead of letting their merit get them there will only detriment the entire thing. It will only make such stereotypes worse as they needed other people to help them out, rather than do it themselves.
What a sad state of affairs it is. In response to the "most people see a fanny and tits and knock 10k off" there are also people who see the same things and instantly think hired, be it a woman wanting to be surrounded by fellow women, or a man trying to give himself something to look at, never clear cut as we'd like it to be.
What a sad state of affairs it is. In response to the "most people see a fanny and tits and knock 10k off" there are also people who see the same things and instantly think hired, be it a woman wanting to be surrounded by fellow women, or a man trying to give himself something to look at, never clear cut as we'd like it to be.
CommanderJameson said:
Rovinghawk said:
If they're good enough then they'll get there on merit.
Not necessarily. That's the problem with prejudice.While statistically possible it's very unlikely that the OP hasn't met any women capable of leading and doing a damn good job at it so there must be another reason the capability wasn't recognised either by the OP or by the organisations. Prejudice may be that reason.
IainT said:
CommanderJameson said:
Rovinghawk said:
If they're good enough then they'll get there on merit.
Not necessarily. That's the problem with prejudice.While statistically possible it's very unlikely that the OP hasn't met any women capable of leading and doing a damn good job at it so there must be another reason the capability wasn't recognised either by the OP or by the organisations. Prejudice may be that reason.
Some Gump said:
I have met and worked with many very competent senior leaders who are female. Sadly, most lose the drive level required after having kids. Some others keep going, but they're largely the career woman no kids types.
IMO, it's having kids that dictates the length of a lady's career rise - once kids come on the scene, that hunger for progression has a tendancy to wane, becuse there are more important matters to hand. Again IMO, this leads to a lower fraction of women at the most senior levels, because it takes longer on the career ladder to get there. Take a year or 2 out, and suddenly you're behind the guys you werte level with, and they have filled to open senior position...
I agree with most if this, but there is also the problem of perception, when I was in my 20's I lost out on a management role because "I was just married and how could I promise them that I wouldn't be off having kids in a few years" The fact I would have signed a statement in blood saying I would never have/want kids didn't seen to work!IMO, it's having kids that dictates the length of a lady's career rise - once kids come on the scene, that hunger for progression has a tendancy to wane, becuse there are more important matters to hand. Again IMO, this leads to a lower fraction of women at the most senior levels, because it takes longer on the career ladder to get there. Take a year or 2 out, and suddenly you're behind the guys you werte level with, and they have filled to open senior position...
Also woman do themselves no favours by lying about what they intend to do when they have kids, although current employment laws encourage this.
In my experience Women can get ahead but only by showing that they are better not just by being equal in experience, skills etc to men to overcome the perceived disadvantages to hiring them
I've worked for good and bad bosses of both sexes, probably the best person I worked with was a woman whose children had grown up and climbed the ladder afterwards. Whilst I don't agree with quotas I suspect there is a certain amount of old boys club networking going on which discourages women from getting on.
Also consider certain women may believe "I'm perfect- the only reason I haven't been promoted MUST be my gender" even when they are significantly less than perfect. They speak to other women who feel the same way & a conspiracy theory is born.
Just read the old Crème section in The Times where the secretaries/PAs would always claim to run the company for a fraction of their bosses' salaries.
RH
Just read the old Crème section in The Times where the secretaries/PAs would always claim to run the company for a fraction of their bosses' salaries.
RH
I think the main problem seems to be the progression from senior management to board level.
I've worked in many FTSE100 companies and there's been some very good women at senior management level just below the board. But then the board is dominated by white men (often with the exception of HR director). I do wonder whether this is where talent stops being the most important factor and the old boys network takes over.
I've worked in many FTSE100 companies and there's been some very good women at senior management level just below the board. But then the board is dominated by white men (often with the exception of HR director). I do wonder whether this is where talent stops being the most important factor and the old boys network takes over.
Some Gump said:
IMO, it's having kids that dictates the length of a lady's career rise - once kids come on the scene, that hunger for progression has a tendancy to wane, becuse there are more important matters to hand. Again IMO, this leads to a lower fraction of women at the most senior levels, because it takes longer on the career ladder to get there. Take a year or 2 out, and suddenly you're behind the guys you werte level with, and they have filled to open senior position...
I think the OP has been unlucky in that he's never seen/worked with a good Femal management. I certainly have, and as a poster above says there are good and bad, men or women.I wouldn't necessarily say the hunger goes in mothers, just the ability to focus on work and taking several years out (or treading water when returnign to work and getting pregnant again) to raise kids has an impact on a career. I'm surrounded by Mumpreneurs who have plenty of hunger and success, but now focus it around their lives.
A huge waste for any industry who have invested time and money developing a chunk of their workforce, who then go off and start up their own business.
To be honest having kids is having an impact on my ability to do my job - there are a couple of hours a day I would be spending banging out emails when now I'm doing the nursery run, by the time my two are in bed and I've had some dinner, the last think I fancy doing is a bit more work when I used to be happy checking and sending a few more emails or sorting reports in the evening. I feel like I'm really not doing, or able to do as much as I could before kids.
Edited by prand on Thursday 11th April 10:32
V8mate said:
In over 25 years in the workplace, I have worked in both the private and public sector; I have worked in environments from small family businesses through to FTSE100 companies and huge corporations.
And across all those experiences, I have never come across a woman competent in a role above that of 'doing stuff'. There. I've said it.
Have you met men doing senior stuff who were incompetent? And across all those experiences, I have never come across a woman competent in a role above that of 'doing stuff'. There. I've said it.
The key to make it to the top is to be tall. Women are generally shorter than men so are very much less likely to make it to senior positions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff