What is it about women working with men?

New research shows that women undervalue themselves when part of a male team but are happy to take credit when their colleagues are female.

The researcher, Dr Michelle Haynes at the University of Massachusetts, who wanted to see how women viewed themselves in teams, feels that this damages their earning potential and stops them getting to the top.

She set up experiments where participants worked remotely with people from typical male roles such as a managing supervisor at an investment company.

There was no other person involved however but the participants didn’t know that and they were then asked to both give and receive feedback about their team’s performance.

When they did this the women gave more credit to the supposed male team-mate and took less credit themselves. When their supposed team mates were female however they were happy to take credit for the team’s performance showing that they didn’t undervalue themselves in that setting.

Dr Haynes said “This finding is critical because it debunks the notion that what we found is simply a function of women being modest in groups”  and “if women view their own contribution less favourably than they regard the contribution of their male co-workers, it is likely to impact how women view their efficacy at work and the degree to which they are likely to to vie for competitive projects and promotions”.

This study was published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Other research about women working in teams has found that:

Women perform worse after receiving feedback in a mixed team

Adding women to a team can increase the group IQ level

And do women actually like working in teams?

The issue of men and women working together is a rich area for research.

Throw children into the mix and you can get some surprising results

Women make better business decisions than men: Companies with female directors perform better and cut risk of bankruptcy.

Reblogged from Kindadukish's Blog:

• 
• 

The study, published this week in the International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, also found that male directors prefer to make decisions using rules, regulations and traditional ways of doing business.

Female directors, on the other hand, are less constrained by these parameters and more prepared to use initiative than male colleagues.

The study was conducted by Chris Bart, professor of strategic management at the DeGroote School of Business at Canada's McMaster University, and Gregory McQueen, a McMaster graduate and senior executive associate dean at A.T.

Read more… 484 more words

No Woman can ever be too Rich or too Thin

Whilst other women appears to be piling on weight, those who are lawyers, doctors and business leaders have actually lost weight.

The National Obesity Observatory, an organisation set up in 2007 to monitor the obesity epidemic, found that these were the only groups of women to lose weight in the last 15 years.

In contrast men in similar occupations actually put on weight with 20% being classed as obese in 2008.

There is a perception that women are judged not just on their work performance but on their appearance too, and particularly if they are overweight.

It seems that to get promoted women have to have an “executive presence” which means being slim and toned according to the New York-based Centre for Talent Innovation.

There is some evidence to support that view. Researchers in the UK and Australia asked students to assess the leadership potential of six fat and six thin women with identical educational backgrounds. The fat women were rated poorer than the thin ones.

However Heather Jackson, of the Women’s Business Forum, doesn’t believe it is a gender issue. She points out that among FTSE100 leaders the best ones are not obese because you have to be fit and healthy to be an effective leader.

So this is not about how good-looking you are – which some women think is really important but which can lead to you being discriminated against – but how physically fit you look.

So it seems Wallis Simpson was right: “No woman can ever be too rich or too thin”. It seems those two attributes go hand in hand for modern, well-paid, business leaders.

Golden Skirts don’t necessarily add Midas touch

David Cameron has been taking advice about Norway’s 40% quota of women on boards.There is a campaign to get the UK up to 25% by 2015.

Someone has even started a 30% club to improve on that figure.

So the general impression is that this is a good thing. Cameron says there is overwhelming evidence that having women on boards is good for business.

The government has also said that if companies won’t do it voluntarily the government might have to impose a quota.

That’s what happened in Norway after the 2003 legislation failed to achieve its target – moving from 9% to 40% – by 2005. So on January 1st 2006 publicly listed companies were given two years to comply or be dissolved.

So is there “overwhelming evidence” that it’s a good thing? Unfortunately researchers at the Ross School at the University of Michigan found that having the 40% quota negatively affected companies. They also believe the same thing would happen in the USA and the UK as they have similar systems of governance. Amy Dittmar, associate professor of finance, says “boards are chosen in order to increase shareholder wealth. Placing restrictions on the composition of boards will reduce value”.

First the stock price dropped by almost 3% following the introduction of the new law and 5% for those companies with no women on the board at the time. A measure of the firm’s corporate governance used to determine a company’s value, Tobin’s Q ratio, dropped 18% where companies had to increase the number of women by 10% or more.

One of the researchers, assistant professor of finance Kenneth Ahern, said that their findings support the view that board structure affects value. “Firms that were required to make the most drastic changes to their boards also suffered the largest negative returns. …constraining the selection of board members has a large negative impact on value”

Ahern and colleague Amy Dittmar point out that this is not because of the gender of the new board members but because of their lack of experience and young age. The constraint imposed by the 40% quota led firms to recruit women board members that were younger and with different career experiences. Dittmar says “when firms were free to choose directors before the rule they tended to choose women who were similar to men directors”. Recent research suggests women perform less well than men in competitive situations so could that have a bearing on it as well?

With a large demand and a small supply firms were forced to select directors they wouldn’t otherwise have chosen. And one newspaper report said that one women had ended up on 14 different boards.

Perhaps this research should give everyone a pause for thought. What’s good for diversity is not necessarily good for the company’s performance.  I’m sure women want to be in top jobs on merit and with more women than men graduating you might think it’s only a matter of time before we see more of them up there and the number of women on boards has increased lately in the UK.

However the number of women in senior management positions seems to have dropped – to around 20% globally, according to the Grant Thornton International Business Report. And in privately held businesses the number with no women at all in senior management has increased to 38%. Recent UK research shows that women managers are more critical of  organisations so does that influence women in deciding whether or not to go for promotion?

Whatever the reason with fewer women in senior management how will they provide succession at board level?

And should we really be worrying about gender imbalance. Don’t shareholders want the best person for the job irrespective of gender?

FYI the country with the most women in senior management positions is Thailand (which also has most female CEOs with 30%), followed by Georgia, Russia, Hong Kong and the Philippines. Not what you might have expected? But probably no surprise to find India, Japan and the UAE have less than 10% of women in senior management.

Update March 2013

In contrast to the US research a study of the French blue-chip CAC Index found that companies with at least a third of females in management positions had a 30% higher return than others over the last 6 years.

Professor of the management of human resources at Geneva University, Michel Ferrary, found that the CAC 40 had lost 35% of its value between since 2007 but the 10 companies which employed at least 35% of women managers (dubbed the Femina Index)  lost only 5% of their value.

The 10 companies in the Femina Index included Axa, Accor, Danone, and L’Oreal. Ferrary said that these companies were; “less discriminatory, drew their employees from a wider pool, and were more in tune with consumers.”  More diversity seemed to improve decision-making (see also:  Teams & Diversity).

The French government requires companies to have 40% women directors by 2017 but not one of the CAC 40 companies has a female CEO.

 

 

Female Managers more critical of Organisations

according to Roffey Park’s Annual Management Agenda report.

Female managers are more critical of their bosses, less impressed by their boards, and see more conflict in the workplace than men.

It seems that female managers have higher standards and expect promises to be kept and people to be honest at work.

Of course it could be that as most top managers are men they are happy with the way things are – although that will change as more women fill senior and board level posts.

Previous research has found that most employees prefer male managers, even women, but also that many companies turn to women when the company is in crisis.

Women & Teams

not always words you find together given that many women in business have reputations as either “Queen Bees”, people who make the most of their “erotic capital”, or simply aggressive. 

Then we had the research finding that said that to make a team more intelligent – simply add more women.

But the question is whether or not women like working in teams?

The Observer this  weekend reported that two academic economists (and have you noticed how economists are trespassing on research topics more typically associated with psychologists) have published results of an experiment in the Economic Journal.

They found that in competitive tasks 80% of men chose to do it as individuals compared to just under 30% of women (they were equally able on the tasks). They called this the “gender competition gap” and found that it shrank by more than half when the only option was to compete in teams. Then 67% of men and 45% of women chose to compete.

Previous research has shown that men prefer to compete more than women even when they are equally able to do the task. The economists, Andrew Healey and Jennifer Pate, say that it is the environment which is important and changing that can narrow the gender competition gap.

They point out that there are only 5 women CEOs of FTSE100 companies and think that if the emphasis was shifted away from “testosterone-fuelled gladiatorial-style competition” to an environment that focusses on their team-working ability, things could change in favour of women. We know that women are frustrated by their perceived under-representation on boards but it is improving, and some writers think that women have already won the battle of the sexes at work.

They also point out that men will apply for jobs for which they are under-qualified  whilst women do the opposite and if selection or competition was based on teamwork more women and fewer men might apply.

I posted on this issue a year ago following the publication of a management survey which showed that people trusted female CEOs more than male ones to get their company out of recession and save jobs. But women suffer more than men from “imposter syndrome” and are therefore less likely to apply for jobs unless they are highly confident they can do them, whereas men are more likely to overestimate their capability and apply regardless.

Cosmetic surgery part of staff retention policy

What can we offer you to renew your contract? Free language lessons? 5 weeks holiday? How about a free breast enhancement?

The New York Times reported that nurses in the Czech Republic were being offered such perks. One private sector nurse who opted for the cosmetic surgery had breast enhancement and liposuction, worth over £3,000, which she would never have been able to afford on her €1,ooo a month salary – less than earned by a bus driver.

There is a severe shortage of 5,000 nurses in the Czech Republic as they are attracted to Germany, Austria, and the UK and an intensive care unit in Brno had to be shut recently because of staff shortages.

As a former soviet republic the Czech Republic doesn’t suffer from political correctness (as evidenced by the recent survey on same-sex relationships) and still enjoys beauty pageants. And it seems both sexes see these perks as no different from giving cars or expensive holidays.

Of course some people are up in arms. Womens’ rights activist such as Jirina Siklova, a gender studies expert and sociologist, argues that offering nurses breast implants turns them into prostitutes.

The managing director of the private clinic referred to above says there is nothing sexist about helping women look beautiful. After struggling to attract qualified nurses applications are up 10% since the plastic surgery offer (which includes tummy tucks and face lifts) in return for which the nurses sign a 3-year contract.

There are many women around the world who believe that being beautiful is important even though that sometimes leads to them being discriminated against.

The nurse who was described in the report said; “I feel better when I look in a mirror. We were always taught that if a nurse is nice, intelligent, loves her work, and looks attractive, then patients will recover faster.” NHS take note! And it adds a whole new dimension to the idea of personal development.

And as we know from an earlier post not all academics frown on women making the best of themselves. Catherine Hakim, also a sociologist, is quite clear that women should use their erotic capital where necessary.

Women now getting on board

FTSE companies have apparently recruited more women onto their boards than ever before since the publication of Lord Davies’s report. 23 this year so far compared with 18 in the whole of 2010.

He wanted companies to double their female contingent within 4 years and they have made a good start with 30% of all appointments being women.

Also the number of blue chip companies without a female board member has dropped from 21 in December to 14. Percentage wise however this is not a big change – from 12.5% in December to 13.9% of all FTSE 100 seats and still only about 9% of FTSE 250 seats.

The UK government is unlikely to impose mandatory quotas unlike Norway which has required companies to have a 40% quota. (See “Getting Women on Board“)

According to a report in The Guardian (02/07/11) this has been a mixed blessing for Norway’s so-called “golden skirts”. It has increased the number of non-executive directors (NEDs) but not the number of female managers. And the situation there seems similar to UK where a handful of women have a handful of NED roles.

And now Helen Morrissey, 45 year-old mother of nine with a house husband, has founded the 30% club aimed at ensuring that all boards have at least 1/3 female members by 2015.

She reportedly manages £50 billion of investments and said; ” The idea that women can have a family and friends and hold down a difficult, high-octane job when both partners work full-time ….. is not impossible but it’s a bit unrealistic”.

Updated 5 September 2011: The government’s deadline for voluntary compliance with a 25% target for female board membership has passed uneventfully. Only 8 companies in the FTSE100 have announced their plans to meet this target over the next few years. These are HSBC, Anglo-American, Centrica,GSK, National Grid, Vodaphone, M&S, and Land Securities, according to research by Pinsent Masons reported in The Times. This figure is disputed by Cranfield School of Management researchers who say there are actually 15 companies which have signed up.

There are 12 companies which already have 25% female board directors – so that makes possibly 27. The number of women on boards has increased to 14% since Lord Davies’s report with 23% of new appointments since then being women. There are still 14 companies with no women at all on their boards.

Women in senior management in big companies according to Deloitte:

• Norway = 35.6&
• USA = 15.7%
• Canada = 12.9%
• France = 12.7%
• Australia = 11.2%
• Spain = 9.2%
• Netherlands = 9.2%
• Hong Kong = 8.6%
• Germany = 8.2%
• China = 8.1%
• Belgium = 7.7%
• Czech Republic = 7.6%
• Singapore = 6.4%
• Italy = 6.2%

Make a team smarter – add more women

Putting a group of highly intelligent people in a team doesn’t always produce the best results.

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and MIT Sloan School of Management have found there is no correlation between individual IQ scores and group intelligence.

Participants were first given standard intelligence tests and then randomly assigned to teams. The teams were asked to brainstorm, solve visual puzzles and one complex problem, and then each team’s collective intelligence was assessed.

The teams that had members with higher IQ scores didn’t score much higher than the average but teams that had more women in them did.

Factors such as group cohesion, motivation, and satisfaction were not predictive of the teams’ performance but gender diversity was correlated. The researchers put this down to what they call social sensitivity (which sound similar to the emotional intelligence factors of empathy and awareness of others).

Teams displaying social sensitivity would be more open to feedback and constructive criticism. Teams that had smart people dominating the discussions didn’t turn out to be so intelligent as a group.

So in theory a group of high IQ members could score better on the team tests but it would probably be because they had higher levels of social sensitivity as well. Women score higher on this than men but if you had more socially sensitive men that would work too.

The researchers also suggest that extremely diverse groups and highly homogeneous groups aren’t as intelligent as groups with a moderate degree of variety in IQ scores. They also see the potential for improving IQ at organisational level through changing the make-up of a group and rewarding collaboration, although the larger a group gets the less opportunity there is for face to face interaction.

This research is interesting because it uses collective IQ as a predictor. We know now that IQ scores can vary depending on the motivation of the individual and that when you are stressed your IQ level drops. Putting people in a more collaborative and supportive environment probably contributes to the enhanced group effect.

Source: HBR June 2011

Attractive women being discriminated against

by female recruiters! No sister act here.

Men might think that women have the advantage when job-seeking if they are attractive. Research from Israel, published by the Royal Economic Society, shows just the opposite in fact. Researchers sent out over 5,300 CVs for over 2,500 jobs. Two applications were sent for each vacancy – one with a photograph of either an attractive or plain person and an identical one without a photo.

Attractive women who sent in a photograph with their CVs were less likely to get an interview than plainer women who sent a photo and women who sent no photo at all.

For men it was the other way round. Attractive men who sent photos did better than the attractive women but plain men and those who didn’t send photos fared worse than their female counterparts. Statistically it means that an attractive male only needs to send out 5 CVs to get an interview compared with the 11 a plain-looking male needs to send. Attractive women would be better off not sending a photo as it reduces their chances of getting an interview by 20 – 30%.

The researchers at Ben-Gurion university said it was a case of “beauty discrimination” which reflected the double standards in company HR departments. They checked and found that 96% of the people who screened the CVs were female, typically 23 and 24 years old , and 70% of them were single. They theorised that these recruiters were jealous of any potential rivals in their workplace and rejected them instantly. There was less discrimination if the recruitment was being handled by an employment agency. Attractive women were no worse off than plain candidates and only slightly worse off than candidate who didn’t send a picture.

Professor Cary Cooper from Lancaster University Management School was more generous about the recruiters suggesting that unconsciously they might think that the less attractive women is the underdog and want to give her a chance. Nice thought Cary but what about the no-photo applications?

Sending photos with CVs is not common in the UK (unless applying for a job relating specifically to your appearance) but is in other parts of Europe. In Israel where the experiment was carried out it’s up to the individual. In Lithuania our colleagues who are recruiters tell us that young people often send inappropriate pictures with their CVs eg shots on a beach or other holiday locations.

Of course once you’ve got the job good looks seem to effect both men and women equally with unattractive people earning up to 15% less than their more attractive counterparts.