By George Anderson
A new white paper from the Network of Executive Women (NEW), Leveraging Management Diversity for Competitive Advantage, says companies in the retailing and consumer goods industries have made some strides bringing more women into the managerial and professional levels of the workforce, but that is not translating into a greater presence at the most senior levels.
According to NEW (http://www.newonline.org/), women made up 50 percent of the managerial/professional workforce but only 19 percent of senior executive positions in 2002. The current percentage of women in senior executive positions is especially striking when you consider that in 1990, the percentage of women in similar positions was 32 percent.
In a released statement, Kimberly Betts, NEW's president and communications director of Ahold USA, said, "Management diversity is a business imperative, especially in light of the fact that three-quarters of the American population and nearly two-thirds of the nation's workforce is comprised of women and minorities. This report presents the business case for diversity in clear and concise terms."
The benefits, according to NEW, are clear. Greater gender diversity expands the executive talent pool, increases input into decision making, aligns companies more closely with their primary customers, improves productivity, morale and employee retention rates while reducing grievances against employers.
Ms. Betts said, "Most executives are on board with diversity. They just don't know how to get there from here. This white paper is part of NEW's effort to assist our industry partners by presenting the business case for management diversity and a concrete action plan they can follow."
The white paper offers a specific action plan for companies to follow. Among the steps needed to increase gender diversity is top-level support for such an initiative, creating a formal gender diversity master plan, internal training and programs focused on promoting from within, support networking, mentoring and affinity programs, and create benchmarks to measure results.
"Imagine the talent and creativity lost when women employees don't reach their full potential," said Ms. Betts. "Gender diversity could be worth billions to American business."
Moderator's Comment: What do you see as "the business case" for gender diversity at the senior executive level? How would you recommend companies "get
there from here" on achieving greater gender diversity at the most senior levels?
Companies interested in acquiring a copy of the white paper, Leveraging Management Diversity for Competitive Advantage, can contact NEW president
Joan Toth via email at jtoth@newonline.org or by phone at 312.373.5682. -
George Anderson - Moderator
What are your thoughts on this subject?
Take the Instant Poll - See Instant Results!
Comments... Send in Yours!
There is only one business case for gender diversity at senior executive levels -- it is the fact that some women are better senior executives than some men. The rest of this sounds like all the rest of the "formal diversity programs"-- and they haven't shown much result in "forcing change" at all.
-
Ben Ball- BrainTrust Panelist
If all the benefits stated about gender diversity (expands the executive talent pool, increases input into decision making, aligns companies more closely with their primary customers, improves productivity, morale and employee retention rates while reducing grievances against employers) were true, then we would already be there.
I have no idea what percent of women should comprise senior executive positions. The stated 19% is probably in reality 10% since, from what I see, about half of the positions are non-essential "make work" jobs like "communications director" that were created for political correctness purposes.
In the end, if you just follow the money, it will lead you to the truth. How far a person goes in life is only limited to their own barriers they create - not what their gender is. We have Martha Stewart and a multitude of female executives, governors, mayors, etc that have advanced on their own merits. If you can't go through the glass ceiling, then go around it. Companies shouldn't worry about "getting there." Women who want to "go there" bad enough will accomplish this for them.
Women have fared much better in the corporate environment compared to the real world of self employment. From what I have read, females will make about 85% of what a man earns in the corporate environment compared to about 40-50% in private practice/self-employment positions. In professional sports, it gets worse. I personally have hired an all female support staff of outside contractors (CPA, attorney, financial planner, Web and IT support). I get top notch professional services at about 40% of what it would cost to pay a male for the same services. I don't know all the reasons why that is, but every one of them has the same story ---- they were working for some company and had to quit to care for their children.
-
David Livingston- BrainTrust Panelist
I agree with Ben. But does anybody have thoughts on why there are fewer senior level female execs now than in 1990? That floored me, and it doesn't match my anecdotal experience. I'm likely wrong, and would love it if anybody has clear thoughts on why this might be the case.
-
Warren Thayer- RW Commentator
It makes for good business when your retail staff is a representation of your customer base. And it makes for good business when your executive team is a representation of your staff. Company boards and senior executives need to just continue to make this a higher priority.
I was part of a senior executive consumer electronics retail team that was 6 women and 2 men and it was an incredible team. Because of this, we also had more women on the retail floor than most CE retailers.
-
Doug Fleener- BrainTrust Panelist
David...I fail to see how holding up the examples of Martha Stewart and other successful female execs disproves the argument for company gender diversity initiatives. Yes, I agree, these people prove that one can pull oneself up by one's bootstraps. That doesn't excuse the backwards-thinking, "good ol' boys club" mentality that is retarding the growth and competitiveness of many retail companies. We spend so much time on RW handing out advice to grocers, for example, on how to stay relevant with consumers. That would be a whole lot easier, it seems to me, if you had a stronger representation in the board room of the gender that does most of the shopping. These companies can wait for women to fight their way through the glass ceiling, or they can do themselves so good and give them a leg up.
As Scanner so aptly put it in yesterday's discussion about minority-run suppliers, "Just make sure that you are allowing all to come to the table. Racism is quiet and it's done at the access level, not at the decision level."
In order to provide fair access to the boardroom, pressure needs to be exerted on people who are typically resistant to change. Otherwise, yes...the natural course of events will, I believe, see more women in retail company board rooms at some point...those that are still around in ten years. Wisely run organizations will put that evolutionary process into the fast lane. (Or, perhaps, not believing in evolution, they'll take an Intelligent Design approach to make it happen more quickly.)
-
Rick Moss- RW Commentator
I built my (former) sales career on what I assumed was a disadvantage - I was a female rep in a sea of garmento guys. Many times when I opened a new account or started in a new position, buyers would greet me with "Oh! Thank God you're a woman!" I won their loyalty yet found that the women back at the office (many of whom I actively helped and mentored) were often my worst enemies. Some women (not all) maintain a competitive scarcity mentality - that if another woman is recognized or promoted, it leaves "less" for them. The reasons are complicated and even justifiable but how I wish it weren't so. As a consultant, I've worked with a few full-on grrrl power companies. I've listened as company principals confide that they live in terror of hiring and promoting young women (since they will get pregnant), and yes, I still see women sabotaging other women more often than I'd like. Complicated issue!
-
Carol Spieckerman- BrainTrust Panelist
It is imperative, but indirectly. The imperative is to get the best minds and the best talent possible, wherever it may come from.
- mfbenson
Rick, giving women a "leg up" for the sake of just putting females at the top level would be a slap in the face and huge putdown to every female who has made it to the top by their own merit. No one would give this type of executive any respect. It's hard enough for the women to get respect now who are already in the "make work" VP positions created through this "leg up" mentality. Forceful, qualified, competitive women will get to the top if they choose.
-
David Livingston- BrainTrust Panelist
True David - perhaps "leg up" was the wrong expression to use. If women are being effectively barred from access to opportunities given males, then setting things right is hardly giving them a leg up. But again, I think your logic is flawed. If women who had to fight discrimination in order to rise in the ranks are insulted because the injustices in the system are corrected, giving deserving women a fair shot -- I think they'll just have to live with that. (Sort of like when you've waited in a long checkout line for 20 minutes and they open another lane. Are you going to be angry with the customers behind you that jump to the new line? And are those customers undeserving of speedy service because they didn't have to suffer along with you?)
-
Rick Moss- RW Commentator
True diversity is achieved when all who seek have equal access and have equal evaluation - these being void of stereotypes and unrealistic expectations based simply on a status, appearance, race, etc.
I am not sure how we get there. I think it's a matter of the heart actually, not of statistical measurement. If it were so easy to measure by statistics, then we wouldn't be combining 'women and minorities'. Because, according to the percentages, they aren't a minority.
Simple observations, like them or not, give women more options. How do you statistically account for women specifically remaining out of the workforce? Also, how can that be done without discounting the value of that choice as being equal to the choice to enter the workforce? It could be argued that that choice reduces the 'pool' of women available. I won't make it, but it could be made.
My point is mostly, as I did say yesterday, it's about access, fair consideration...a clear heart, etc.
- Scanner
For Pete's sake - do (most of) you really believe that it is simply lack of desire that keeps women from the boardroom? I hope none of you have daughters who hope to earn a fair living some day. I even more fervently, but hopelessly, hope that you could spend one month working as a woman in business and experience for yourselves the reality.
Martha Stewart is the exception that proves the rule - and, by the way, she started her own company, and did not do so because she was pregnant. Most women entrepreneurs - at least if scientific studies are to be considered here - start their own companies because of a lack of specific opportunities elsewhere. If the boys won't play with us, we'll start our own game.
Programs, or simply policy, that treats men and women equally through all of the stages of their career would make a difference. But honestly, I expect that nothing will truly change until a new generation is at the top. Subtle discrimination (or, not so subtle, in many cases) is pervasive and insidious. (Just read this discussion for a sample.)
It may take a critical mass of people who were raised in a different time - for example, when men start taking more responsibility for raising their own children, instead of assuming they can dedicate all of their time to work while women mind the hearth, and women are forced to tend to both - before we will see true gender equity.
-
Karen Kingsley- RW Commentator
This was one of the discussions that I had to sit and wait out so I hope people are still reading it. I expect one or two were possibly surprised that I had been so quiet. But it is wonderful to see Rick and David punching it out yet again. As Karen so rightly pointed out, some of the comments on this site, whenever gender comes up, enable people to show their real colours. It is sad but not surprising how little has changed over the past 20+ years.
I don't think that white papers, or yellow, blue, green or orange ones make any difference at all. I would almost like to say that there are inherent, genetic biases against women in business although I don't really think that that's true. There are too many women now who want to play an active role in business and corporate life, although this was never a choice I would have made and I regret that they have to struggle so hard to achieve what they are after. The entire work/life balance argument is based on the fact that women have to juggle all their different roles and preferences. The phrase never would have been coined if women just stayed quietly at home, or settled for part time jobs for a little bit of pin money while looking after the kids, elderly relatives and domestic chores galore.
The business case for diversity seems obvious to me and not just in relation to gender. As to the route from here to there, education could contribute
quite a lot. But, as has already been said, it may be more a matter of time and waiting until a younger and less biased generation takes over the running
of the world. Certainly we will have to wait for David and those who see women as cheap, bargain, labour to retire unless his "support" team get together
and strike for a reasonable rate of pay.
- Bernice
Hurst- RW Commentator
---
To participate in the RetailWire.com discussion forum entitled "It's
Not Loyal to Stop Shopping" go to: http://www.retailwire.com/In_Depth/Sngl_Discussion.cfm/10397
###
About RetailWire.com
RetailWire is a unique online news analysis and discussion forum, which launched in February 2002. RetailWire goes beyond conventional
headline news reporting. Each business morning, RetailWire editors pick news topics worthy of commentary by its "BrainTrust" panel of industry experts, and
the general RetailWire membership. The results are virtual round tables of industry opinion and advice covering key dynamics and issues affecting the retailing
industry.
Membership to RetailWire is free to all qualified retail industry professionals. Over two-thirds of members are in top executive
or senior management positions, representing a broad cross section of retail channels and the companies that supply them.
RetailWire is supported via sponsorships by leading retail suppliers and service organizations. Sponsorship packages take the
form of information-rich "In-Sites"...mini-web-sites within the RetailWire domain...and frequently updated "Business TIPS" and "Category TIPS". Current sponsors
include Campbell Soup, ACNielsen, Georgia-Pacific, Procter & Gamble, Unilever HP and Rodale.
For general business inquiries, contact:
Rick Moss
845-353-5586
moss@retailwire.com
For sponsorship information, contact:
Al McClain
203-609-0557
amcclain@retailwire.com
Editorial inquiries, contact:
George Anderson
908-709-1690
geoanderson@retailwire.com
