Here is a new explanation for the gender gap at work: women don't show potential. Of course, that's not the truth, but it seems to be what many employers believe. A recent study claims that women need to show a proven track record of great work in order to get promoted, while men need only show the promise of potential for future greatness.
The study was undertaken by Catalyst, a non-profit research group that focuses on promoting women in business. The group looked at the careers of 3,345 “high-potential” MBA graduates from top schools around the world. These graduates were then divided into three categories: stayers, leavers, and job-hoppers.
The group found that women do better financially when they stay at one job. Men, on the other hand, profit from inter-company job changes. Women job-hoppers – those who switched companies at least twice – earned $53,472 less than women stayers (people who remained with the same company that hired them out of school). But male leavers (one job change) earned roughly $13,743 more than stayers.
The idea behind this discrepancy is that women are paid based on proven performance. By staying at the same company over time, they earn respect and trust, and reap the rewards. Researchers also found that women need to toot their own horns more than men in order to be noticed. Males, apparently, need only show up or appear to have “potential.”
Unsurprisingly, then, the study also found that men were more likely to reach senior executive or CEO positions. They also made, on average, $31,258 more than women. It is interesting to note that, while that figure is extremely large, it is not as wide a gap as the one between the female stayers and the female job-hoppers.
"Among those using the greatest strategies to get ahead, women and men are equally represented there,” Christine Silva, senior researcher and the study’s co-author, told the Toronto Sun. “We have to stop blaming women for the gender gap. We have to stop assuming the gender gap exists because of what women are or are not doing."
Does this study ring true to your own experiences? Do you think men get promoted based on potential? And is it harder for women to find those big opportunities?
Much can be done with a good intellectual, and motivated attitude. Many women possess these attributes the same as men. Women definitely need to be treated equally !
Posted by: Oohay Boo | 11/24/2011 at 05:20 PM
Men and women have general differences in personalities, both of which can be beneficial to business. Women are just better behaved than men; it's not a disparity, except for the wages of course!
Posted by: Oscar | 11/24/2011 at 05:28 PM
This review isn't the same everywhere I am now in my second factory where they refuse to promote men and only will promote women my last job had only senior supervisors over 5 years in the job anyone under that was female the same went for the team leaders out of 4 out of 5 were women my job at toyota is the same men no longer get promoted no matter how hard they work but a woman with the slightest sign she could do anything get the job.
Posted by: Dan | 11/24/2011 at 05:31 PM
1971 versus 2011. Not much has changed.
Posted by: Flower Child | 11/24/2011 at 05:37 PM
Companies are now hiring more women and so-called minorities, as well.
As a matter of fact, I have been shocked to see numerous "help wanted" ads that blatantly say: "White males need not apply."
So don't start with your archaic chattering about equality...women have had equality in the workplace for quite a few years now, as do the so-called minorities. It strikes me as though white males are now the ones being discriminated against..and quite blatantly too!!!
Posted by: Mike | 11/24/2011 at 05:48 PM
In my work experience, I moved to different jobs to FIND a better paying job, only to have females who never moved or attempted to improve their situation want my results.
That is not fair or just.
I also received 3 job offers out of university - the top 10 candidates in my class in terms of marks and work experience, etc. were males, yet the 5% of the class who were female received over 50 job offers each due to "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY" practices.
I have experienced reverse discrimination, but I also appreciate that many male bosses can be biased, as that is the world they grew up in. We do need to change, but let's not just blame all males and practice reverse discrimination blindly, regardless of behaviour, experience, and a collection of other intangibles that can make a business successful.
Posted by: Playing fair is a two-way street | 11/24/2011 at 05:54 PM
I was pushed out of a male-dominated work environment for being too 'aggressive'. I saw my male cohorts doing the same sales tactics and getting kudos. I quit when my former boss started asking colleagues if they knew I was job-hunting. I gave him my two weeks that day.
Posted by: CW | 11/24/2011 at 06:03 PM
women don't get ahead because take time off work to reproduce..leave work to get their spawn to doctors appointments and pick up after school..men stay late and work
Posted by: btaylor | 11/24/2011 at 06:05 PM
It's irrelevant for the time being anyway, considering that simply to get a job a women must dye her hair red. Seriously, a woman is 50percent more likely to be hired if her hair is red. It'd be nice to think that studies like this, when shown to the right people, can make a difference. I believe that these problems will only stop when the population of women to men is 2 to 1.
Oh yeah, and to "Mike," BAAHAHAHAHAHahaha "the white man" has it SOOOO hard. People like you make me sad. That's like saying that Americans have it tough on a global scale for being discriminated against. It's true, they are, but booo f'n hooo right?
Posted by: Person | 11/24/2011 at 06:05 PM
Regardless of any 'study', if one is white, male and English he is on the bottom rung as far as job selection or promotion are concerned. Even when he is the most qualified by far. Fact.
Posted by: Steve | 11/24/2011 at 06:09 PM
I am surprised that companies haven't woken up and adopted modern management and hiring practices. If you are ignoring a broad talent base of individuals based on the fact that they are women, then you are denying your companies ability to grow and improve at high levels. A persons ability and potential are the most important qualities; Other factors are irrelevant.
Posted by: Cory | 11/24/2011 at 06:12 PM
Articles like this make me very happy that I decided to become self-employed 3 years ago. These issues no longer have any relevance for me. I am hired by my clients based on what I have shown I can do, as should everyone who is employed or wants to be. I dictate my pay rate. If clients want my services, they pay what I ask. No quibbles. I recommend it for anyone above senior management level in any line of business. You'll have all the work you can handle, good pay and a LIFE, too.
Posted by: Carol S. | 11/24/2011 at 06:22 PM
I work with a large number of women that are useless and only retain thier jobs because they are women. The equality scale has tipped in favour of females and minorities.
Posted by: All Knowing | 11/24/2011 at 06:25 PM
Has anyone ever considered that men are simply more competent than women?
Posted by: CraigW | 11/24/2011 at 06:25 PM
The truth is, white males are the one's getting discriminated these day's because of politically correctness. And also, a study found that the reason women don't get paid as well or get promoted is because, women take more day's off and work less hours then men, and also tend to retire earlier. Women can't have their cake and eat it too, by working less hours and still getting paid as the man working lots of overtime.
Posted by: Roro | 11/24/2011 at 06:34 PM
This is very true. I have personally experienced this time and time again. Company new males inexperienced and less educated hires are looked up to, trusted and paid more than their females employees who have a track record with the company, higher education and more years of experience. It doesn't matter if the boss is male of female. Both male and female bosses look down to female employees. Male bosses favor male employees no matter how unskilled and incompetent he may be.
Posted by: john | 11/24/2011 at 06:36 PM
I don't know.
I'm a woman and I'd shoot myself if I had to be the CEO of a company, anyway. Let someone else do that work.
Posted by: Anna | 11/24/2011 at 06:37 PM
@roro
I completely agree. And women usually tend to focus on families too, not wanting to work more than 40 hrs a week in order to spend more time with their children. This being the case, they definitely DON'T deserve the same salaries.
Posted by: Anna | 11/24/2011 at 06:39 PM
Unfortunately my opinion is that the last generation of white males
had a case of lazy. Sitting in their office and getting promotions. They were not educated or ambitious. Women were often given the money and promotions. I retired in 1993 after having experienced this. These male employees of the 80's
gave the white male their
image.
Posted by: shirley | 11/24/2011 at 06:41 PM
When women can be conscripted they will have a right to complain about fairness in the workforce.
Men have been fighting and dying for our rights and freedoms, but you will never hear a feminist complain about the inequality in military selection.
Why?
Posted by: Ukiah | 11/24/2011 at 06:44 PM
@Anna, I agree that women want to spend more time with there families. But I think that they DO deserve the same salaries if they are doing the same work. I also think that many women work hard to become CEO and be promoted.
Posted by: Jane | 11/24/2011 at 06:47 PM
Study by "a non-profit research group that focuses on promoting women in business". Enough said.
Posted by: ConcernedCitizen | 11/24/2011 at 06:52 PM
Obviously, very few experience age discrimination and I am not referring to the under 30 crowd, I'm talking about the over 50 group that, with their experience can still pull their weight.
I for one, still work in a physically-demanding environment and can out-perform 2 people half my age. My employer is happy because he saves on wasted salaries.
Unfortunely, employers will not hire 'older' men and frankly, I'm tired of being inverviewed by incompetant children of the X-generation.
My house is paid for and I have all the toys.
Eat your hearts out kiddy-bosses !
Perhaps you'll actually learn to 'work' for a living.
I'll be turning 60 soon and I'm not about retire any time soon.
Be well and take care.
Posted by: Stephen Kornblum | 11/24/2011 at 06:56 PM
There isn't a gender wage gap. That is a myth that was busted a week after it was stated by the person who stated it.
Of course there is a gap between a CEO and a part time worker at Tim Horton's. That difference comes down to choice. If you work hard and mercilessly maneuver your way to the top, then you too can be a CEO. Most people choose an easier, less stressed life.
You can't compare a CEO to a part time worker, but that is exactly what women's groups do when they bring up the wage gap. They add up all the men's income and all the women's income and ta-da 75 cents on the dollar.
Many women choose to work part time, many choose not to work at all, but they are all captured in the data and impact the mythical wage gap. Men work longer hours, which is not taken into consideration. If you were to compare wages based upon $/hour worked, women actually make more than men. But, that does not sell the "women as a victim" story so many self interest groups need for government funding.
Men and women working the same job get paid exactly the same amount. Get over it.
Posted by: ConcernedCitizen | 11/24/2011 at 07:05 PM
I have experienced this directly, working for a brokerage firm, downtown Toronto, one summer during university. I was doing accounts payable, and also redoing the traders' papers. I couldn't believe how many errors their papers had. I figured if I was constantly fixing their mistakes, then why couldn't I too work towards doing the same job, with better pay, and better hours (they left by 4 pm, while we at the desk often stayed til 5:30 or 6.
I actually helped a boyfriend at the time get a job there, who had no experience and barely even high school.
They were paying for him to get his securities course. I decided to get mine on my own and then approach them, as I had already been informed that they just didn't hire women to be traders.
I approached one of the executives and he told me to come see him when I was done my course.
Then, the female head of admin, called me in to ask why I went to him and not her? She had no decision-making power. So, why would I go to her? Then she told me how she had to work her way up from watering plants...etc...and it took her 7 years to get to a position like mine, so I should be grateful!?
In that case, I experienced the limitations from both male and female bosses. That particular brokerage firm had specific roles for their men and women, and one wasn't supposed to move out of them-no matter how capable.
As for reverse discrimination, I think the white male may feel that way, as it can look that way, but, the hiring process is trying to level the work environment. Certain levels in the workforce are still dominated by the white male.
Men and women should be taking more equal roles in the parenting realm, so that not just women are seen as more able to take time off their lower-paying and thus, less valuable work, in order to deal with sick children, doctors & dentists appointments, after school stuff...
Why should someone be penalized for parenting? Women need to be included in decision-making roles that will allow for part-time flexible schedules, so that they have a voice in decisions too. Job-sharing could help here.
Also, there was a study done a number a years ago, which found that for every $1000 more a woman's salary went up past 50K at the time, the proportion of women who had a family (i.e., husband and children) went down proportionately, while for men it was the reverse, such that by the time, a male reached 100K 95% had a family (i.e., a wife to look after the kids and home, and support him in his job), while 95% of the women in that salary bracket (100K +) didn't have a family.
Is that personal choice? Or simply a factor of becoming a successful career woman? Seems it's still a challenge for a female to have both successfully. If she's a CEO, often she is seen as neglecting her family, and aggressive at work. While a man can be assertive and successful at work, and have a wife and kids too!
Maybe we all need a wife to take care of the home and kids?
Posted by: JustIz | 11/25/2011 at 12:03 AM