Traditional views of women's roles by men have implications for women's careers

As this research is out there I feel I need to comment on it, though I have a lot of questions about the sample of the population studied and details of the study. Research from the University of Florida reports that men with more traditional views of women will get higher pay than men with more gender equality views.

I would be interested to delve into their political beliefs and also the type of homes they grew up in and the roles their parents played (both working or not, single). I would also like to see information on salaries that compare women with stay-at-home husbands compared to women with working husbands. I have been surprised by how many senior women I've met whose husband are at home.

The participants in the study are between 39 and 47 years old. They had to rate statements on gender roles. The difference in salary was$8500 between men with a traditional view, and those with less traditional views.

In a less generous mood I might wonder how many women did these men step on to move on up the ladder, and how many are they blind to potential to grow after them. This does have implications for impacting women's careers but I need to see the complete study to know what we're truly discussing here.

What a Day in Politics!

I was interested to find this video from the Blogher site where Erin Kotecki Vest has been attending the Democratic National Convention. She attended a panel entitled, Cracks in the Glass Ceiling. After the panel Erin interviewed the panelists, which included Marie Wilson from the White House Project. I happen to be a huge fan of Marie's book, 'Closing the Leadership Gap'. I completely agree that it is critical to get more women into politics because that is were some fundamental decisions get made that influence everything that follows. However I was a little disappointed to hear that the panelists were so keen to push for a percentage of women in government. This is a tough debate, I am still of the opinion that pushing for a quota if qualified candidates aren't available won't help the real cause.

There was an interesting turn of events later in the morning when John McCain announced his running mate to be Sarah Palen - this is a calculated vote generating move - how it plays out will come with time.

Double Standards? Perception or Myth We Have to Deal with it

Who holds whom to a different standard? There was an article published yesterday about the removal of Chief Financial Officer, Erin Callan from Lehman Brothers from her position after the lose of $2.8B in a quarter. The male COO/President was also removed from his position. The article raises questions as to whether women are dealt with differently and need to achieve higher results or judged more harshly when they fail, however the article doesn't say that Erin was treated inappropriately, but with so few women in high positions, when one is removed from responsibilities it does rapidly reduce the percentage of women in top positions.

I read in 'Why Women Mean Business' recently and was disheartened to learn that women aren't willing to apply for a job until their skills fit almost 100% with the job descriptioni, whereas a man will apply when he has 60% of the skills (NOTE: I need to confirm the numbers, but my memory has them pegged around that order of magnitude). If that wasn't bad enough hiring managers (didn't say whether malel or female) are interested in women's resumes when they have most of the skills in the job requirement but will show interest in men's resumes when they have a lot fewer of the skills for the job requirement.

So where does that leave us?

• Have courage to apply for jobs we might not think we're suitable for.


• Be confident in our applications.


• And work our networks to get the best opportunity for filling the roles we want.

We could choose to wait for the world to become a fair place but that doesn't happen in our time frame.

I also recommend visiting http://careerwomaninc.com/ where Lisa Quast does an honest job of explaining how she has built her career to become Executive Vice President of Strategy for Royal Philips Electonics.

It's All in a Name

So what should you name yourself at work? Ambiguously, seems to be the advice of a woman called Josephine who calls herself Finn at work. Once she changed her alias at work she started to receive a different type of email that contained different insights into how the business worked, and gain insight into the back channel where the real insights get discussed on the future of the company or who's who. This is one of the insights from an article by Sylvia Ann Hewlett.

Now one problem with this strategy is with the advent of social technologies that reveal more about us. I love the feature we have at work that allows me to view the photos of people on an email thread or invited to a meeting. At a quick glance I can see who is who, or use to recall who said what in a meeting. Some people love the tool to disambiguate names so they know the gender of whom they're engaging with - why do they do that? sometimes curiosity, and sometimes to refer to that person as he or she in mail. It's complicated.

The question is long term will social technologies aid the gender gap or keep repositioning the gap. I like using facebook and linkedin as it formalizes relationships as people grow their lists of friends, but to me now I have a set of people to reach out to who invited me to their networks. I've been invited by all types of people whom I wouldn't have thought would have considered me a friend.

So while the focus group research offers the advantages of a gender neutral name, it's going to be harder to leverage that strategy in the future.

Not a Good Year for Gender Equity

I'm so frustrated when I hear about news like this. A woman finally comes forward to point out pay discrimination over a long period of time at Goodyear. She tries to settle out of court for a reasonable amount ($60K) and is unsuccessful. She then tries in court and is awarded a much larger amount ($223K), and punitive damages ($3M) which are crazy in terms of being given to her. Finally in appeal it's overturned and she's smacked with a bill for $3,165 in costs.

Fear of class action suits, fear of escalating costs, because big companies can - there seems something distorted with various stages leading to this outcome. Rather than address what should be done to a. Make a point that it's not acceptable to discriminate and to b. Compensate individuals appropriately when harm is found but not award them a lottery like figure

I'd like to think if there were a better balance of women representatives in bodies that make policies and laws that some of these crazy rules would be more sane, not only to benefit gender based cases like these but in many other such similar cases.

In the meantime I shall not be supporting Goodyear.