- MYTH: Times are changing and the younger generation of men
is more supportive of the idea of working alongside women executives
in high level positions.
FACT: Unfortunately, the younger generation of corporate
men seems to be holding tight to the negative attitudes their predecessors
displayed toward women in top positions. Between 1975 and 1983,
men MBA students "retained consistently negative attitudes
toward women as managers, while their female counterparts were consistently
positive." Nor will sex discrimination automatically decrease
as the proportion of women in business increases. In fact, studies
suggest that as women increase their numbers and get closer to the
top, the resistance from men hardens, and discrimination becomes
more open, according to Harlan and Weiss.
- MYTH: Contflicts with family and home responsibilities keep
executive women from getting "to the top."
FACT: If you ask women executives, many believe their jobs
have strengthened their family lives. Of women executives who do
have families, "only a tiny minority (3%) feel that family
responsibilities have hindered their careers," according to
the Wall Street Journal / Gallup Survey.
Few of the women executives reported that family conflicts had
ever "prevented them from accepting a job change that would
have required relocation" (only 9% of the one-third who say
they ever turned down a transfer).
Besides, executive-level women are more likely to get help from
their husbands with household chores and family responsibilities.
According to the Wall Street Journal / Gallup Survey, "married
women ranking near the top of the corporate hierarchy...are much
less likely than those with lower status to carry a heavy domestic
burden." Additionally, it is easier for executive level women
to combine their careers with motherhood, because they can afford
to pay for child care and household services.
- MYTH: The "mommy track" is a practical way for
women to "have it all" and get to the top while fullilling
their child-rearing responsibilities.
FACT: The "mommy track" is a blatant form of
institutionalized sex discrimination. It is an excuse to pay women
less and to swell the ranks of middle-management by keeping women
from competing for the top jobs. In effect, the "mommy track"
penalizes women who have children by placing them in dead-end jobs
which ask them to do essentially the same work as their male counterparts
on the "fast track" - but at a fraction of the pay.
The two-fold danger of the "mommy track" is that it
provides a rationale for keeping women out of the top and in the
middle or bottom, low paying positions. The reasoning goes something
like this: obviously, if women cannot keep up, they deserve less
pay - after all, these jobs must be easier, or how could they do
them and juggle family responsibilities?
It is interesting that talk of a "mommy track" is only
directed at the most promising women executives on the "fast
track" to the top. It seems that the question "Can women
have it all?" is really asked as a way of challenging women
who are at the top and who exercise power. No one ever asks women
who are on night-time cleaning crews and who often hold one and
a half other jobs while raising children whether they can "have
it all."
Besides, most women executives do not have the luxury of deciding
to go on the "mommy track." In general, women are far
more likely than men to be the sole supporters of their family at
one time or another. To accept less pay and forego career growth
opportunities, a woman would be jeopardizing her ability to adequately
provide for herself and her family in the future.
The problem is not that corporations need to provide greater flexibility
to women executives balancing career and family responsibilities,
but rather to provide women executives the same flexibility and
choices already enjoyed by male executives. Corporations readily
provide paid extended leaves of absence for male executives who
have suffered heart attacks without questioning their returning
status or growth potential.
- MYTH: Women executives cost the corporation more because
they must divide their attention between career and family.
FACT: Considering the proportion of top management that
is male, the likelihood is that male-linked habits will cost companies
a great deal more than pregnancy ever could.
For example, alcoholism and the problems it causes are overwhelmingly
associated with males. In 1985, 11.9 million men were classified
as alcohol abusers as compared to 5.7 million women. Forty-five
percent of men versus 18% of women were considered moderate-to-heavy
drinkers. This male-associated habit creates excessive medical costs
and serious performance losses in business. Yet these deficits are
tolerated and are not calculated as a "male related cost of
business."
As one observer recently put it, "How many maternity leaves
could Exxon have funded with the billions of dollars that were lost
because the captain of the Valdez was drunk?" - Audrey Freedman,
The Conference Board.
- MYTH: Women at the top are frequently single, divorced or
have no children, proving how difficult it is to combine family and
career.
FACT: It is also true that the men at the top of corporate
America exhibit very different marriage patterns compared to the
national norm. Why do executive men and women show marriage patterns
so divergent from the general population? The bias in the system
that favors the selection of a certain type of woman - and a certain
type of man - discriminates against all other types.
The proportion of executive women who remain single (26%), who
are divorced or separated (16%), and who have never had children
(52%) are higher than the national norms (Wall Street Journal/Gallup
Survey). In fact, the higher her ranking, the less likely the executive
woman is to be married - only 46% of top corporate women are married.
The overwhelming majority of executive men (94.6%) are married
compared to 81.6% in the general population of men 45 years and
older. Nearly 6% of men over 45 years are single compared to only
0.9% of executives.
Corporate management is narrowly selecting its executives, and
anyone who doesn't fit the stereotype of the "ideal corporate
executive" - the "single woman" and "married
family man" - is likely to be cut out when promotional decisions
are made. This built-in bias conveniently ensures there will
be very few women at the top.
- MYTH: Women are not as serious about their careers and often
"drop out" to have children or start their own business
to better accommodate their family responsibilities. As a result,
they are poor investments for companies that must spend considerable
amounts on executive development.
FACT: Women executives are no more likely to leave their
jobs than men. According to studies of mobility patterns and turnover
rates, if anything, women in executive positions have traditionally
exhibited lower turnover rates than men, because their chances of
finding another high level post were more limited.
And there is also no evidence that executive women leave corporations
to have children. In fact, a 1980 study by Catalyst found that 37%
of women in two-career families return to work within 2 months of
childbirth; 68% are back after 4 1/2 months; 87% are back in 8 months.
A followup study in 1986 found that women at the top took even
shorter pregnancy leaves of 6 to 8 weeks.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that women are dropping off
the corporate fast track to start their own businesses because of
the desire to balance family and work. While it is true that more
women than ever are starting their own businesses, most are past
the age of 40 when child rearing responsibilities are largely ending,
according to a 1984 study by Hisrich and Brush. Besides, a new business
venture requires neverending attention from its owners - not leaving
much time for taking on even more family duties.
For men executives who start their own companies, the move is
seen as a bold and positive career maneuver. For women, entrepreneurial
ventures are seen as retreats from the corporate world and a chance
to devote more time to the family.
Corporate America take note: the "exodus" by women from
corporate ranks is more likely the result of carefully calculated
career decisions by women who have bumped into the glass ceiling
and see little advantage in staying with the corporation.
- MYTH:Women are not suited for top management because they
aren't aggressive enough and lack the self-confidence required for
the top jobs.
FACT: Sexual stereotypes like these persist because the
best defense by executive men trying to protect their privileged
status is an offense that "keeps women in their place."
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, these stereotypes
will be used - until women won't tolerate them anymore. And so,
in the mode of fighting one old saw with another, whenever a sexist
derogatory comment is made about women, find a parallel to fit men.
Study after study shows there are more similarities in these personal
traits between women and men managers than there are differences.
One of the most comprehensive long-term studies done found that
men and women have very similar "profiles of high power and
achievement needs, high self-esteem, and high motivation to manage"
(Harlan and Weiss). A separate study of 2,000 men and women managers
found "a significant case of no significant difference."
Moreover, women executives often display more modern leadership
traits than men. In fact, many recent studies show than women's
style of leadership varies from the style exhibited by men and that
these differences may make women more effective leaders in today's
business arena. These studies indicate that women's manageltent
style more often encourages consensus, participation, and interaction
- traits which today's employees value - whereas men's management
style often reflects a basic commitment to the premise of a "hierarchy."
- MYTH: Any woman can make it to the top is she's competent
and works hard. That's how men make it and, after all, the corporation
is looking for the best person for the job.
FACT: Don't we wish. That's not how men make it to the
top. From all the evidence we've seen, it is clear that the corporation
is not the meritocracy that we've all been led to believe. At least
up until now, "who makes it to the top" appears to be
as determined as much by "who you are" and "who you
know" - as by "what you know."
The most convincing example of this is found by looking at who
is at the top in corporate America: more than half of the board
chairmen of the Fortune 500 companies are the sons of former chairmen
their single most common shared trait. (One is tempted to ask whether
these men had any daughters!) What this is doing to American competitiveness
and our long term future should be a big issue today for corporate
America.
- MYTH: Most women senior executives suffer from the 'Queen
Bee' syndrome and are not helpful to younger women below them on the
corporate ladder. Or, women are their own worst enemies in the competitive
corporate world.
FACT: Since when don't men seek to be "King of the
Mountain?" If anything, women executives complain about their
treatment by men - not their treatment by other women. Executive
women say men patronize them and they often note male chauvinism.
None of the women in the Gallup Survey spoke about the attitudes
of other women.
In the Korn/Ferry survey, 57% of women executives report belonging
to women's groups. The majority (56%) of women in the Gallup Survey
are involved in networking with other women - "getting together
regularly in groups to discuss problems and offer support."
A huge majority (83%) say they "feel responsible for helping
younger women advance in business."
