The subject of women in management evokes the same stifled groans these days as feminism. In the UK, the response to the latest report on gender equality — which earnestly estimates that it will take 55 years for women to achieve parity in the country’s judiciary, 73 years in boardrooms of the top 100 British companies and 200 years in parliament — ranged from an irritated “Yes, yes, we know it’s slow; it’s a matter of waiting for the culture to catch up,” to an equally dismissive, “Well, we can’t help it if women make different choices, can we?”
How very 1990s, is the subtext: Now can we move on to something that’s more, well, important.
The figures indicating that women at the top level are losing ground to men rather than gaining in 12 of 25 fields of work could be a blip. But taking them with other recent findings, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that management is as unreconstructed as ever, and that equilibrium, let alone parity between men and women, is as unlikely as finding Elvis on the moon.
Last year, for instance, researchers at London Business School’s Lehman Centre for Women in Business found that women were unlikely to thrive in organizations where fewer than 30 percent of senior executives were female — that is, most of them.
Now comes a truly extraordinary study of senior executive pay by a team from Exeter University, England, and Tilburg in the Netherlands, which throws a sharp and unforgiving light on the assumptions about the nature of men and women managers’ performance at work.
In a study presented to the annual meeting of the US Academy of Management last month, the researchers compared the pay of 96 matched pairs of men and women executive directors doing similar jobs at listed UK companies between 1998 and 2004.
They discovered not just a 19 percent gap in total pay — a median £257,000 (US$470,500) for women and £316,000 for men — which was even larger than expected; but also far more striking disparities in bonus payments. Basically, women’s bonuses change very little however well or badly the company does. Men, on the other hand, are punished much more for poor performance but rewarded much more for good.
Thus, to take the extreme cases, in the worst performing companies women did better than men in bonus terms, taking home top-ups of £71,000 compared with £32,000 for men.
But that difference was insignificant compared with the gap that opened up when performance improved. For companies moving from bottom to top of the performance table, male bonuses soared by 263 percent (to £151,000) while the increase for women was 4 percent (to £73,000). Men got nine times more benefit from improving company performance than women.
What explains this discrepancy? Many observers believe it is due to fundamentally diverging beliefs about the impact and effectiveness of male and female managers. So, put crudely, men’s dramatic bonus changes reflect traditional stereotypes of top male executives as dynamic risk-takers whose actions have a decisive effect on company performance (for both good and ill), while women’s timid additions reflect an equally stereotypical view of female passivity, low impact and weak appetite for risk.
The extent of the caricature came as a surprise to the research team.
“We expected to find that women got smaller bonuses than men,” says Michelle Ryan, one of the co-authors, “but not that they would hardly vary no matter what the company performance was. Women are credited with neither kudos nor agency.”
The danger of self-fulfilling prophecy is obvious. As salaries are proxies for credibility and expected impact and influence, low-paid women will tend to get less good jobs than their qualities warrant, the authors speculate, in turn reinforcing the gender stereotypes of nurture and communality at the expense of drive and ambition, and causing ambitious women to leave or turn off. This “organizational apathy” to women, they charge, is the very antithesis of equality.
It is hard to know what to be most depressed about in the catalogue of myth and misapprehension revealed in these findings. It’s not just about women, because gender stereotypes are equally crude.
What the bonus disparities suggest under the fake rationality of laboriously calculated pay-for-performance schemes is a Tarzan and Jane model of management in which the attributes of management manhood are as exaggerated as those of management womanhood. Mine’s bigger than yours, yours is more cuddly than mine.
As long as such Neanderthal attitudes persist, women will continue to be underrated and disappointed, men overrated and more likely to take stupid risks, and all of us will suffer the consequences.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations