The Center for Talent Innovation released a new report, the “Sponsor Effect: UK” that was released last night at the House of Commons at an event keynoted by Theresa May, the British Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities.
Women enter the white-collar workforce in the UK in far greater numbers than men: 57 females for every 43 males. Yet as employees in large corporations move from entry-level to middle management, and from mid- to senior-level positions, men advance disproportionately. Across sector and occupation, women are simply not breaking through to leadership positions in numbers commensurate with their weight in the talent pool.
Why? According to the new CTI study the reason is straightforward and has nothing to do with a lack of accomplishment or ambition—or a paucity of childcare or flextime. Rather, British women tend not to have sponsors—powerful champions willing to take a bet on a young talent, go out on a limb for him/her and advocate for the next promotion. Sponsors are the people that propel and protect high performing employees through the treacherous shoals of upper management.
The study found that UK men with sponsors (as opposed to those without) are 40 percent more likely to move up the ladder at a satisfactory clip, while this “sponsor effect” for UK women is even higher—52 percent.
Catalyst's longitudinal project, The Promise of Future Leadership: Highly Talented Employees in the Pipeline, develops timely reports on the retention and advancement of high potential women and men. The project surveys graduates of leading business schools in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia, with the intent of assessing their career values, goals, and expectations, the developmental opportunities afforded them, and their strategies for managing work and family life. The reports highlight the differences in women's and men's career experiences and satisfaction; some feature perspectives from global leaders and other experts.
Since 2007, McKinsey has been researching intensively the advancement of women in the workplace. The business benefits are clear: a wider, deeper swath of talent to solve problems, spark innovation, and, in many cases, mirror a company’s own customer base.
GO ASK A GIRL: A Decade of Findings from the Girl Scout Research Institute (PDF) summarizes the sweep of the GSRI's work over the last decade. It highlights the GSRI research and outcomes studies that have touched on timely issues relevant to girls' lives - and in many cases boys' lives - the impact of the September 11th tragedy on youth, the "obesity epidemic" and healthy living, youth leadership and civic engagement, body image and the fashion industry, girls' interactions with social media and many more. All of this is accomplished in a handy, 28 page booklet that's eye catching and accessible.
By industry estimates, about $2 trillion is invested in global hedge funds. And as anyone familiar with Wall Street should know, the lion’s share of that cash is managed by men.
But women are carving out a bigger piece of the hedge fund world. According to The Hedge Fund Journal, women were running about $100 billion of that total in 2011 — and when COOs are included along with researchers and executive teams, that total moves up to $200 billion. True, 10% of the total isn’t a lot to crow about — we are hardly at a place where the industry is truly “equal opportunity.” But considering Wall Street was exclusively a man’s world just several decades ago, it is worth noting that women are indeed on the rise.
So who are the most influential female hedge fund gurus, and just how much money do they manage, directly or indirectly? Here’s a list of five women in leadership positions at some of the most respected hedge funds in the world — some of which they built with their own hands:
The ranks of female chief executives remain thin, with women in the top spot at just 35 Fortune 1000 companies. But the pipeline is promising, says Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications Corp., adding that she has noticed a number of "women in waiting" at Xerox Corp. and Procter & Gamble Co., where she is a board member.
She adds that she wouldn't be surprised if the number of major-company female CEOs doubled by 2017. At her own employer, a diversified telecom firm, half of Ms. Wilderotter's six direct reports are women.
"If you want a CEO role, you have to prepare for it with a vengeance," says Denise Morrison, chief of Campbell Soup Co. CPB and Ms. Wilderotter's sister.
Heather McTeer lost her long-shot bid to unseat Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson in Mississippi's March primary. But she hopes her attempt encourages other women in the South to run for office — whether for a seat on the school board or in Congress.
"Women need to see other women running," said McTeer, former mayor of Greenville, Miss. "Regardless of what it looks like, we have a voice, and a voice that absolutely must be heard."
McTeer is helping to recruit women to run for elective office in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee for a group called She Should Run, which says its mission is to dramatically increase the number of women serving in public leadership.
It's just one of the groups, both national and local, that have stepped up efforts to recruit more women in the South to become political candidates. The region the Census Bureau identifies as the South is represented by 22 women in Congress.
The day was originally born of a time when girls seemed to be stalled and floundering. "A national intervention" was what Marie Wilson, president of the Ms. Foundation for Women, called it -- one that "sends a positive message to girls and focuses on their potential.'' It came at a time when books like"Reviving Ophelia" worried for girls' futures, and when experts told us that young women lacked for self-confidence, strong role models, and solid opportunities. Bring them to the office and show them what is possible, the thinking went. And do so without boys around to steal their spotlight.
By 2003, however, times had changed. We were beginning, then, to think of boys as the problem children, or, more accurately, the children with problems -- more likely to be victims of violence, or suffer from learning disorders, or to be diagnosed with ADHD. At the same time, we didn't see our girls as quite so helpless anymore. Shouldn't all our children have a chance to see what Mom and Dad do all day, we wondered. Don't both sexes need a glimpse of what their futures might hold? Even "Reviving Ophelia" author Mary Bray Pipher came out in favor of adding boys to the day.
Karin Kamp asks "Is there an upside to the so-called 'war on women'? Could it be mobilizing a new generation of women leaders?" She interviews some prominent women representing the interests of other women to find out.
Women's issues have been all over the media lately, and not for all the right reasons. Birth control, abortion rights, the Rush Limbaugh Sandra Fluke 'slut' comment controversy, Hilary Rosen's comments on Ann Romney never working a day in her life -- it's really enough to make your head spin. (At least we have one more woman on Forbes' list of billionaires, thanks to Spanx inventorSara Blakely, which had The Story Exchange staff cheering.)
I overheard some young women talking about these issues on the train the other day and that got me thinking... Is there an upside to the so-called "war on women"? Could it be mobilizing a new generation of women leaders? I decided to contact some prominent women representing the interests of other women to find out. Here's what they told me.
Congrats, ladies! By today you’ve earned the same as men did in 2011. That gap means that the typical woman working full-time, year round, makes about seventy-seven cents for every dollar a typical man does, and those missing twenty-three cents can really add up. In a year a woman loses $10,784 to a man—enough to buy about 2,700 gallons of gas. It can add up to a loss of $431,000 in pay for the typical woman over a forty-year career. No small chunk of pocket change.
This issue hasn’t gone unnoticed. The first thing President Obama did after settling into the West Wing was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, which expanded the statute of limitations on lawsuits over equal pay. Yet Ledbetter did little to actually change the gap: it stood at seventy-seven cents when the bill was passed at 2009, where it stands today.
But this high holiday of gender inequality is not the day to get dragged down in pessimism! After all, it can’t be totally out of reach to change this thing that’s barely budged in fifty years, amiright? In the spirit of moving forward and focusing on real solutions, here are some quick steps we can all take to make the gap disappear: