Care Setting Environmental Analysis

Credo Reference Promoting Equality in Management

Many companies today just seem to focus on meeting diversity in entry-level positions through equal employment opportunity (EEO) regulations, however that is where it ends. According to the 2011 Catalyst census women have made no significant inroads into management positions and are no further along the corporate ladder than they were six years ago. From the report:

Women held 16.1% of board seats in 2011, compared to 15.7% in 2010.

Less than one-fifth of companies had 25% or more women board directors.

About 10% companies had no women serving on their boards.

Women of color still held only 3% of corporate board seats.

Women held 14.1% of executive officer positions in 2011, compared to 14.4% in 2010.

Women held only 7.5% of executive officer top-earner positions in 2011, while men accounted for 92.5% of top earners.

Less than 20% companies had 25% or more women executive officers and more than 25% had no women executives.

White men held 74.5% of board seats on the 500 largest publicly traded companies, versus 5.7% for African American men and 1.9% for African American women.

By 2012, the percentage of African American male directors declined to 5.5%, while the percentage of African American female directors remained flat. White men continued to hold roughly 95% of board chair positions and 86% of lead director slots. McKinsey & Company, an international management consulting firm, found that in 2012 women accounted for 53% of entry-level jobs and made it to “the belly of the pipeline” in large numbers. But then female presence fell off a cliff, to 35% at the director level, 24% among senior vice- presidents and 19% in the executive suite (Barsh & Yee, 2012). These percentages are intriguing as they punctuate the problem with the leaking pipeline with a downward trend from 37% in 2012 to 28% women-to-men ratios at the director and vice-president levels respectively the prior year (2011). The gender gap was even wider for women of color. Among African American employees, both men and women expressed an above-average desire to advance to the next level. McKinsey's study (Women in the Economy, 2011), for example, found that 81% of African American men and 86% of African American women aspire to advance, compared with 74% of all men and 69% of all women, but only 35% of the African American women believed they will have a chance to move up, compared with 41% of all women. Black men felt even more empowered than whites as 49% believed they will move up, compared with 43% of men on average.

As members of two devalued identities, African American women face a very unique experience of dual discrimination. In the early 1970s, discrimination based on sexism and racism was termed “double jeopardy” to denote that the minority woman's experience in society is manifested simultaneously on the two fronts of gender and ethnic prejudices (Beale, 1970). This term is still applicable as no significant change to the presence of African American women in executive suites or boardrooms has recently been recorded. In 2013, 30% of the 250 largest corporations did not have a single African American director indicating that corporate boards have become less diverse over the past several years (Black Enterprise, 2013).

Barriers to Promotion and Participation

One of the most serious issues regarding the scarcity of women in top management teams (TMTs) and corporate boards is the perseverance of gendered leadership. Symptomatic to gender leadership is the use of negative stereotyping, discrimination, and prejudice, which traverse from traits (women are friendly, cooperative, relational, inclusive) to consequences (women are dominated and opportunities for upward mobility are blocked), creating a chilling effect discouraging and deterring women from reaching the top (Carnes & Radojevich- Kelley, 2011; McEldowney, Bobrowski, & Gramberg, 2009). High-potential women advance more slowly in both pay and career progression than men even though they are on par in employing career management strategies. Due to the expanded female stereotypes in the workplace, women may forgo applying for higher positions in a company.

Barsh and Yee (2012), who conducted a study of 60 leading Fortune 500 companies, found that diverse leadership programs in these organizations triggered stronger business results. They went on to suggest that other companies should get “closer to unlocking the full potential of women at work” (p. 2). However, these 60 companies had nearly 140,000 mid-level women managers but only about 7,000 (5%) became vice-presidents, senior vice-presidents, or members of the C-suite. The fact remains the same—regardless of their enormous value to the management of organizations, women are underrepresented in TMT positions and still have a long way to go before achieving parity with their male counterparts in the workplace.

Alice Eagly and Linda Carli (2007) describe the problem of gendered leadership and accessibility as labyrinth leadership. Ultimately, women who seek top management positions must weed through culturally formed stereotypes and at the same time avoid crossing culturally generated barriers. They work against a centripetal force, invariably unicursal, moving in a curvilinear path that is directed inward, keeping women from reaching upper-level positions. The prevailing gap between women's education and workforce participation has continued to persist, too: “In an era when women have made sweeping strides in educational attainment and workforce participation, relatively few have made the journey all the way to the highest levels of political or corporate leadership” (Pew Research Center, 2008, p. 3).

Organizational and cultural barriers converge with stereotypical biases, preconceptions of roles and abilities, and misrepresentation of the commitment to personal and family responsibilities as an inability to meet tough schedules (primarily for women) to block women's access to top positions. Furthermore, the systematic exclusion from informal networks of communication, lack of opportunities to assume line roles, and limited access to visible and/or challenging assignments prevent women from advancing to higher-level positions at the same rate as men. High-potential women are less likely to promote themselves as well as men, have less mobility within the organization, and are more dependent on formal advancement procedures than are men (Lyness & Thompson, 2000). This is especially true in highly male-dominated or masculine settings where women are challenged to act tough and exercise competitive styles to gain acceptance into influential networks (Timberlake, 2005). Unfortunately, it was found to be true also in academic settings.

Sarsons (2015) set out to explore whether bias arising from collaborative work helps explain the gender promotion gap in academic institutions by testing whether coauthored publications matter differently for tenure by gender. While solo-authored papers send a clear signal about one's ability, coauthored papers do not provide specific information about each contributor's skills. She found that female authors often suffered a “coauthor penalty” when they coauthored with men. The penalty was lower when coauthorship involves no men. The results provide suggestive evidence that gender bias exists in academic promotion decisions. The bias occurs when reviewers make a judgment on the part of the employer as to which author has made the greatest contribution to the paper. Figure 3.1 shows that when women solo-author, they also signal their abilities explicitly and therefore have roughly the same chance of receiving tenure as a man, but women who coauthor most of their work have a significantly lower probability of receiving tenure.

Figure 3.1 Relationship Between Composition of Papers and Tenure

Source: Sarsons (2015).

Employers update their beliefs upward as more solo signals are generated until both men and women are believed to be high types. The gap in tenure rates, therefore, should be smaller or eliminated as more solo-authored papers are produced by women. However, bias, whether conscious or subconscious, can have significant implications for the gender gap in promotion decisions. Table 3.1 shows that while 77% of the men in the sample study received tenure, only 52% of the women received tenure. There is no statistically significant difference in the number of papers that men and women produced although men have slightly more papers in high-ranked journals. Sarsons (2015) concluded that if women are tenured at lower rates because of such productivity differences, controlling for the number and rank of publications should explain the tenure gap.

Table 3.1 Summary Statistics

Source: Sarsons (2015).

Self-promotion and the Ability to Network

Women are still perceived as “risky” appointments for line roles that are often staffed by decisions of male-dominated committees (Herminia, Carter, & Silva, 2010). Successful completion of high-risk assignments typically comes with public recognition that is often translated into top positions. High-potential women have less access to challenging projects (e.g., international assignments) and high-risk assignments that also lead to visibility, so important for advancement to senior executive positions (Belasen, 2012). However, while men tend to place a high priority on visibility and recognition, women with a track record of success depend on peer support to advance their career. Paradoxically, just when women are most likely to need active mentoring or even sponsorship—as they aim for positions of power—they may be least likely to find it. Women executives are concentrated into certain types of jobs—mostly staff and support jobs—that offer little opportunity for getting to the top (Feminist Majority Foundation, 2014).

Women have limited access to or are excluded from informal networks in the workplace. These networks are vital during socialization processes, decision making communications, and conflict resolutions. Limited access can also make it more difficult for women to create willing or supporting alliances, negotiate their “cards” more aggressively, or become “go to” leaders. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that often human-resources officers may emphasize the positive skills that women possess, but may not actually follow through on

supporting women's advancement. Existing training and development programs tend to focus on current competencies and short-term performance expectations rather than long-term strategic goals putting women at an obvious disadvantage.

When you ask women, 77% of them will tell you they believe promotions are driven by a combination of hard work, long hours, and education credentials. However, 83% of men will readily acknowledge that “who you know” counts for a lot, or at least as much as “how well you do your job” … Hard work alone is not enough to get you promoted if nobody knows and acknowledges it. Many women work hard and expect their boss to realize it and it's just not enough. If you aren't standing up for yourself, who will?

(Halter, 2015)

Frustrated by the uphill battle and the injustice and without opportunities for self-promotion, women increasingly assume staff roles (as opposed to line roles) where there is little opportunity for advancing to the top. Reportedly (Belasen, 2012), by 2010, the largest proportion of women managers was in healthcare and social assistance (70%), educational services (57%), financial activities (50%), and leisure and hospitality (45%). A 2012 report by McKinsey (Women in the Economy, 2011) indicates that women, in general, opt at far higher rates than men for staff roles, not executive line positions. Some 50% to 65% of women at the vice-president level and higher are in staff roles, compared with only 41% to 48% of men. Contrast the siloing of women into strategic or line roles with significant profit and loss responsibilities, which are often reserved for men, with staff roles that limit women's upward mobility aspirations

RECOUNT BY A STUDENT IN PROFESSOR BELASEN'S LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, APRIL 2016

I was in the field operations organization that consisted almost entirely of men. There were a few female supervisors and technicians and only one female mid-level manager. Female employees were generally placed in sales and human resources. For years, the company placed new hires in what they perceived to be appropriate for their gender. Women were not expected to be able to perform field jobs as well as a man could because it was more physical and “rough.” Women were given office positions where it was believed they were better suited. Advancement in the company, however, depended on field operations experience. There was a common belief that to move up in the company you had to be able to manage a field team. Since women were rarely placed in field positions, their opportunities for advancement were very limited or confined to just their business department.

By denying women field experience, the male-dominated culture continued to thrive in upper management. Some managers would communicate in a hostile and hyper-aggressive manner. These managers viewed feedback or opposing opinions as push back or as obstruction to their goals. Employees would not voice their opinions or ideas in fear of being berated or viewed as incompetent. Upper management was mostly male dominated and this type of management style was accepted and even encouraged through targeted promotion.

The culture took a swing when the company made a concerted effort to diversify its management and non-management teams across all departments. More females were placed in field supervisor and tech positions. Lower level managers were now included in decision making processes. Diversity and harassment training were mandatory and frequent. How employees communicated started to change. Terms like manpower were changed to workforce to reflect the reality. More importantly, female employees were now gaining needed experience to advance. In fact, at one point I reported to a female director who reported to a female regional vice president who herself reported to a female senior vice president. This was not only empowering and rewarding for employees, but it also created a sense of cohesion and trust.

Family Pulls and Work Pushes

High-ranking female role models are relatively scarce in middle management and executive positions remain elusive for most women. Known as the “leaky pipeline,” this has significant implications for succession planning and the perpetuation of unreachability due to the limited pool of potentially qualified women successors who are being left behind. Take Google as an example, in a report to the EEOC, Google indicated that of its 36 executives and top-ranking managers, just three are women (Google, 2013). Anecdotally, managers at Google invest time and effort to persuade women engineers to nominate themselves for promotion (Shellenbarger, 2012).

Barsh and Yee (2012) reported that women in their sample of Fortune 500 companies opted to take staff roles, got stuck in middle management, or simply left their organization. For example, about 50% of the mid-level women managers indicated that they are both the primary breadwinners and primary caregivers. And yet, only 3% of the male and female managers worked part time and less than 1% of the senior executives worked part time, making the balance of work and family quite challenging for women. Consequently, women appeared to slow their careers or downshift to less important roles to reduce uncertainty or lessen travel constraints.

Indeed, even among the successful women we interviewed, more than half felt they held themselves back from accelerated growth. Most said they should have cultivated sponsors earlier because a sponsor would have pushed them to take opportunities. These women said they did not raise their hands or even consider stretch roles. And when surveyed, more women than men reported that they would likely move next into support roles.

(Barsh & Yee, 2012, p. 7)

The pipeline, in effect, continues to suffer from leaks and blockages. Indeed, Kurtulus and Tomaskovic-Devey (2012) confirmed that an increase in the share of female top managers is associated with subsequent increases in the share of women in mid-level management positions. The four barriers to women's promotion—structural obstacles, lifestyle choices, institutional barriers and individual mindsets—have traditionally been intensified by the lack of sponsorship, limited flexibility and unconscious biases. They also restrict the movement of women into influential executive positions (see Figure 3.2).

Early in the pipeline, women and men are distributed across line and staff roles at similar levels, but women begin a steady shift into staff roles by the time they reach the director level. Structurally, women do not have the same opportunities to benefit from sponsor discussions, and so they lack support to stay in the line. Line jobs are less flexible than staff jobs, so as women form families, staff jobs look more appealing. Well intentioned leaders often do not even ask mothers to consider a tough assignment. And women know that line jobs carry greater pressure. The more issues like this we explored, the more we found the four barriers working in combination to make the problem impenetrable.

(Barsh & Yee, 2012, p. 6)

Hard Choices

Many women report that to be successful, they need to demonstrate consistent levels of commitment, higher levels of technical proficiency, show adherence to bottom-line results, have demonstrated competency in strategic thinking and decision making, be creative, have effective conflict resolution skills, and cope effectively with change and uncertainty—all coupled with long hours at work. What's more, women have to deal with the inconsistency of their own sense of success and the way organizations measure it. Women also experience cross- pressures for their time and the constant need to balance competing priorities across life and career goals that are different for men (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2006; O'Neil & Bilimoria, 2005). Consequently, many women choose to work part-time or not at all so they can attend to their families at home. Others telework from home, most commonly on a part-time basis. Indeed, Ruderman and Ohlott (2004) reported a higher turnover rate for women than male counterparts in executive positions with at least 10 years of experience.

Figure 3.2 Women Opt Out of Line Roles Fairly Easily

Source: Barsh and Yee (2012, p. 6).

EXTREME WORK DEMANDS CAN DRUM WOMEN OUT

The extreme demands of many 24/7 work corporate environments today represent an impasse to many women who wish to prioritize life outside of work more highly. I've written before and believe this wholeheartedly – women are not less ambitious than men. It is the COST of ambition – and the struggle women face in pursuing their professional ambitions – that is at the heart of why we have so few women leaders today, and why women are achieving less and not reaching as high as men in corporate America. As Betsy Myers, President Clinton's senior adviser on women's issues shared with me recently, women tend to view their work as only one piece of the pie that represents their total life experience. If they're forced to focus 24/7 on work for a majority of their professional lives, most women will choose not to pay that price.

(Caprino, 2013)

The majority of women, nonetheless, plan to return to work after a certain period of “leave of absence” but even if the break is only for a few months it becomes difficult to continue the intended career path or climb the senior leadership ladder. So the continuity of career advancement becomes a crucial factor for reaching the top of the pyramid. Any interruptions in working life reduce the likelihood to reach the highest positions in a company. And companies, aiming at frictionless flow, facility, and optimization rather than accommodating talented women seem to stay on course. For example, one study found that only 4% of companies surveyed even attempted to put women on a growth path towards becoming CEO (Oakley, 2000). And much of the buzz about the appropriate ways for “opted out” women to re-enter the workforce is met with a tough reality. JP Morgan and its “Workforce Re-entry Program”, which was launched in 2013, focused on recruiting out-of-work talent who once worked in financial services, but left the challenge of raising children or caring for the elderly to others. The program started with the asset management division and expanded to the legal and investment bank divisions in 2014 (Schonberger, 2015).

Today, however, family happiness, relationships, and balancing life and work, along with community service and helping others, are much more on the minds of Generation X and Baby Boomers. When the researchers asked respondents to rate the importance of nine career and life dimensions, nearly 100%, regardless of gender, said that “quality of personal and family relationships” was “very” or “extremely” important …. Whereas about 50% to 60% of men across the three generations told the researchers they were “extremely satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their experiences of meaningful work, professional accomplishments, opportunities for career growth, and compatibility of work and personal life, only 40% to 50% of women were similarly satisfied on the same dimensions.

(Ely, Stone, & Ammerman, 2014)

Some organizations, however, offer on-site daycare as well as flex-time where an employee can choose to work four days a week for 10 hours rather than five days a week for eight hours. The Johnson & Johnson (J&J) Finance Vice-President Kendall O'Brien stated:

If J&J hadn't had on-site daycare, if I hadn't had a supervisor supportive of my working flexible hours, if I weren't part of an organization that's cognizant of the talent pipeline and that recognized I didn't want to leave, I wouldn't be here today.

(Spence, 2010, p. 5)

Organizations must not only recognize the barriers that exist which prevent women from fully committing to work, but also offer support to help women balance their contradictory roles. Work–life integration and the willingness to relocate provide flexibility that can make women's talents and contributions both competitive and attractive for employers.

Diversity as a Source of Competitive Advantage

Inclusive leadership and participation of women on TMTs help boost companies’ public image and reputation through support of social responsibility and philanthropic programs. They add value to the company with unique adaptability skills and are masters in creating positive work climates based on inclusion and diversity. Not only does greater diversity help the business—and possibly creates a competitive advantage—it also creates an actively engaged workplace culture, which typically indicates satisfied employees, a win–win situation (Baldoni, 2013). Women-friendly organizations typically have a stronger moral orientation and project more social sensitivity than other organizations, a necessary attribute for a socially accountable company's board. It is not that women and men compete in a zero-sum game—it is that women bring something new and different to the table for an organization. Understanding consumers’ shopping habits and buying decisions is a good example. Women notoriously spend more time shopping and therefore purchase a greater amount of goods, whereas men tend to be more focused and just grab what they need and intended to purchase. Marketers need to focus on both genders but place more emphasis on women as

women make more than 85% of the consumer purchases in the United States, and reputedly influence over 95% of total goods and services purchased. Women as a whole are considered more sophisticated shoppers than men, taking longer to make a buying decision.

(Lewis, 2013)

Roy D. Adler, Professor of Marketing at Pepperdine University, conducted a comparative analysis involving the effects of women's presence on TMTs on firm performance. Data from Fortune 500 companies for the 1980 to 1998 period were collected to measure firm profits as a percentage of revenues, assets, and stockholders’ equity (Adler, 2001). A fourth measure of profitability was used to determine whether each firm was higher or lower than its relevant industry median. These results showed a clear pattern. Fortune 500 firms with a high number of women executives outperformed their industry median firms on all three:

On the measure of profits as a percentage of revenues, the subject firms outperformed the corresponding industry medians by 34%. The women-friendly firms averaged 6.4% while the average of their industry medians was 4.8%. When taken individually, almost two-thirds of the subject firms (66%) outperformed their median counterparts.

On the measure of profits as a percentage of assets, the subject firms out-performed the industry medians by 18%. The women-friendly firms averaged 6.5% while the average of their industry medians was 5.5%. When taken individually, 62% of the subject firms outperformed their median counterparts.

On the measure of profits as a percentage of stockholders’ equity, the 25 firms outperformed the industry medians by 69%. The women-friendly firms averaged 26.5% while the average of their industry medians was 15.7%. When taken individually, 68% of the subject firms outperformed their median counterparts.

DIVERSITY A SOURCE OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

Vanessa Torres, Head of Group Investments and Value Management, BHP Billiton—Women in Energy and Resources Leadership Summit

At BHP Billiton, we are working very seriously in order to reduce the time we need to achieve an inclusive environment and an optimal diversity balance which will make our organization not only better in terms of our workforce satisfaction, but also more and more productive through time. And, at BHP Billiton, it starts with our CEO, Andrew Mackenzie, who named diversity and inclusion as one of the strategic priorities in his message that informs business planning for the whole organization. As one of our business priorities, this focus translates in initiatives such as:

1. Assessment of our own data to support the business case, as our 2013 Employee Perception Survey showed that increased inclusion correlates with increased performance;

2. Establishment of Inclusion and Diversity councils throughout our organization;

3. Deployment of unconscious bias training in large scale, which has already started with our Group Management Committee and will be ultimately delivered to all our leaders and employees;

4. Indigenous representation targets throughout our businesses;

5. Identifying qualified women in succession plans for key leadership roles as well as piloting senior executive female sponsorship program;

6. Company-wide female retention and recruitment targets for each financial year, including a focus on recruiting female Graduates;

7. And, finally, by establishing inclusion and diversity as KPIs in the scorecards of all leaders across the company.

Importantly, inclusion is one of the themes of our Leadership Development Program which will ultimately reach 10,000 leaders in BHP Billiton. By investing in our leadership, we will be creating more inclusive environments where our employees feel valued and heard.

(Torres, 2015)

Successful female executives who have gone through accelerated career choices also enjoyed the benefit of a sponsor, have the know-how to build relationships, and step outside their comfort zone to fuel their personal and professional growth. High-achiever women adapt better to the male environments in their executive circles and have the ability to overcome the extraordinary challenges of meeting a variety of expectations through endurance, sponsor relationships, and high stamina. They are perceived by their male counterparts as having high work ethics, relentless focus on performance and results, are resilient to change, and are persistent in getting constructive feedback for self-improvement. These women managers are inspirational, collaborative, and inclusive, highly competent, and very effective team leaders.

The “Asking Advantage”

Babcock and Laschever (2007), co-authors of Women don't ask, found that male graduate students starting out in their first job earn 7.6% or almost $4,000 more than female grads. It turned out that only 7% of the female students had negotiated their starting salaries as compared to 57% of men who had asked for more money than they were offered. The most striking finding, however, was that the students who had negotiated (most of them men) were able to increase their starting salaries by 7.4% on average—a figure nearly matching the gender gap between men and women's starting salaries. This has implications as to why and how the gender pay gap is created and sustained due to socio-psychological forces that reinforce gender differences. White female physicians, for example, earn 40% less than white men. Women also tend to assume they will be offered compensation that is fair for the job —an assumption that sabotages future attempts at negotiation (Ly, Seabury, & Jena, 2016). Changes, however, have begun to take shape as millennials are now asking for (and getting) more pay than men. Women in technology, sales, or marketing with two years’ or less experience actually got salary offers that were 7% higher than those received by equally inexperienced men (Sahadi, 2016).

Girls are taught from early childhood to build relationship capital by focusing on what they need rather than what they're worth. Women are satisfied with relatively less pay. Both sexes subscribe to powerful stereotypes that keep women from asserting themselves—even if they repudiate the stereotype or feel immune to it. Women are more likely to experience barriers due to the masculinity of the negotiation process, which is not congruent with their authentic or prototypical behaviors. If they don't force their desired outcome, they'll be completely overlooked, and if they do, they'll be resented or even thwarted because they will be perceived as self-serving.

Women have traditionally adapted to such environments in a few different ways. One is “going along to get along,” in which females play along with locker-room talk in particular and do not report it. Another is to become “more male” by shedding traditionally “female” attributes such as empathy. The problem is that once women adopt the going along to get along style, they lose their authenticity and prototyped behavior. As Caprino (2013) suggested: “Whole-self authenticity is a must-have for many women, yet still impossible in many corporate environments.” The idea that authenticity and transparency, and being who women really are—and being recognized and appreciated for that—is a vitally important criterion for women's career success.

Consequently, women don't ask for what they want or feel they deserve because they're fearful they will not be liked, whereas men perceive asking as a useful means to achieve greater gains. This is what sociologists call “accumulation of disadvantage.” The bottom line is that even if women were asking for comparable things and were equally successful at getting what they ask for, this simple difference in the “asking propensity” of men and women inevitably leads to men having more opportunities in accumulating more resources. The net result is a sustained gender pay gap. Behaviorally and cognitively, women must understand, at a very deep level, the forces that shape their beliefs, attitudes, and impulses. Simply telling women what they should do differently without helping them understand the root causes of their behavior will not help them achieve meaningful change.

Gender Gap in Executive Pay

Shin (2012) analyzed a sample of 7,711 executives (of which 6% were women and 94% men) employed by 831 publicly traded US firms from 1998 to 2005 examining the relationship between female representation in compensation committees, the presence of female CEOs, and the reduction of wage disparities. Findings included:

In real dollar terms, men in the sample study were paid $1,443,607 (in 2000 dollars) on average, while women received $1,018,107 (in 2000 dollars) on average, or 42% less than men.

Having a greater proportion of women on compensation committees was found to reduce inequality in salaries paid to women compared to their male counterparts. The increase in the representation of women was not correlated with any adverse impact on salaries paid to male executives.

An overwhelming 81% of the firms in the sample had no female representation in their compensation committees, while only 10% of the firms had equal gender representation in compensation committees.

Firms with one woman on the compensation committee experienced an average total compensation (including annual salary, bonuses, stock options, and other long-term incentive pay) increase for women by $302,000, up 34%. Adding another woman to the compensation committee was correlated with yet another 38% jump in salaries for women, to an overall average of $1,635,000. Firms with at least two women on compensation committees (which is usually comprised of four members) eliminated salary disparities altogether.

Among top positions, females were more likely to hold lower-ranking positions of executive vice-president, senior vice-president, counsel, and secretary. Male executives typically landed the positions of CEO, chief operating officer (COO), president, and chairman.

Overall, the presence of female CEOs was not associated with a reduction in wage discrimination faced by other women executives in the same company.

Why is there no strong linkage between the presence of female CEOs and executive compensation for women (Shin, 2012)? One explanation is associated with the limited active mentoring relationships. For top managers who need to juggle demanding job requirements and performance pressures, developing effective mentoring relationships may be a challenge. Some female executives might succumb to the Queen Bee Syndrome (see Chapter 1), relegating the need to act as a supportive mentor to other women. This syndrome places a woman executive in the strained position of wanting to integrate herself with her network of associates but at the same time feeling pressured to separate herself from her female colleagues at lower ranks (Knight, 2011). In some cases, isolation, marginalization, and vulnerability to judgment of others create complex chain of mutually reinforcing events that cause women to gradually and subconsciously become risk-averse, overly focused on details, and prone to micromanagement (Kanter, 1993; Kram & McCollom-Hampton, 1998). Eventually they lose sight of the larger purpose as leaders and are framed into existing or known stereotypes (Ely, Ibarra, & Kolb, 2011). Unfortunately, if women have to hide their own values and submit to organizational pressure to mold into current norms and practices, their motivation to remain with the organization for a long period of time is lessened (Ruderman & Ohlott, 2004).

The US EEOC[1]

The US EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. Most employers with at least 15 employees are covered by EEOC laws (20 employees in age-discrimination cases). Most labor unions and employment agencies are also covered.

The laws and regulations apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits. The EEOC has the authority to investigate charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. The Commission's role in an investigation is to fairly and accurately assess the allegations in the charge and then make a finding. If it finds that discrimination has occurred, the Commission will try to settle the charge.[2] If unsuccessful, EEOC has the legal authority to use its judgment and in some cases file a lawsuit to protect the rights of individuals and the interests of the public. The EEOC, however, works to prevent discrimination before it occurs through outreach, education, and technical assistance programs.

The EEOC provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of the federal government's EEO program.[3] EEOC assures federal agency and department compliance with EEOC regulations, provides technical assistance to federal agencies concerning EEO complaint adjudication, monitors and evaluates federal agencies’ affirmative employment programs, develops and distributes federal sector educational materials and conducts training for stakeholders, provides guidance and assistance to Administrative Judges who conduct hearings on EEO complaints, and adjudicates appeals from administrative decisions made by federal agencies on EEO complaints.

COMMENT SUBMITTED IN PROFESSOR BELASEN'S CLASS, FALL 2015

In my previous employment, there was one department that notoriously poached/hired friends they had worked with in other organizations—they all looked alike, thought alike, behaved alike, etc. As HR [human resources], my role was not to make the actual selection; rather, it was to ensure the applicants forwarded to the hiring manager met the minimum requirements for the job. However, once I noticed the pattern (during the third hiring process), I started forwarding blind resumes (i.e., redacting all names/addresses/phone numbers— anything that would directly identify a candidate—I would even redact and categorize current and/or previous employer names—i.e., multinational Fortune 500 company, local non- profit organization, state-level government agency, etc.) so that the hiring manager could only compare applicants based on the qualifications listed on the resume. Certainly, this was not fool-proof, and categorizing the current/previous employer names was a bit drastic, but given the circumstances, it helped level the playing field for all applicants and minimized the risk of wrongful hire or other discrimination-based lawsuits. For standard external hires (or even first round internal promotions), organizations could use blind resumes to help initially level the playing field for all applicants. Once it goes to the interview round(s), it may or may not change the end result, but at least the qualified applicants have a fighting chance.

Inconsequential Enforcement of Equality Laws

Some concerns about the inability of the EEOC to fulfill its mission of handling employment discrimination complaints due to limited resources and inadequate budget were raised in 2001 and again a decade later. While EEOC developed a priority system in 1995 to facilitate the processing of cases, the huge backlog of unresolved complaints were piling up with extraordinary variation across offices in categorization practices and outcomes in resolving cases (Moss, Burris, Ullman, Johnsen & Swanson, 2001). A decade later, in 2011, the problem of unfunded mandate has continued to limit the EEOC ability to provide adequate resolutions to claims. In fact, the Evaluation of the Management of the EEOC's State and Local Programs (EEOC, 2011) showed clearly that from 2000–2008, as a result of declining appropriation levels and hiring freezes, EEOC lost approximately 25% of its full-time employees and its case backlog increased.

The evaluator concluded that

EEOC has not established any performance goals or objectives related to the Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPA) performance. Without any performance goals and objectives, the EEOC is not holding itself accountable for achieving program results. We recommend that management develop and implement strategic performance goals and objectives that are reflective of the program; are measurable and in accordance with the requirements of Government Performance and Results Act; and that the goals and objectives are included in the annual performance and accountability report.[4]

CENSUS BUREAU

Mom Is Designated “Parent,” Dad Is “Childcare Arrangement”

In a move that should frustrate advocates, mothers and fathers alike, the Census Bureau's recently compiled “Who's Minding the Kids?” report counts fathers staying home with their children as a “child care arrangement.” This puts fathers looking after their children—or what most people call parenting—in the same category as a working mother hiring a babysitter or sending her kids to day-care.

(Women's Law Project, 2012)

Employers’ Common Mistakes

During the Annual Meeting of the American Corporate Counsel Association in fall 2002, in her speech, EEOC Chair Cari Dominguez placed some of the burden of nonconformance issues on “judgment lapses” or common mistakes made by employers when dealing with EEOC regulations. She also offered ways to minimize conflict with EEOC (Dawson, n.d.; Shea, 2003):

Employers underestimate EEOC. Many employers and their counsel underestimate the competence and professionalism of the EEOC staff primarily to preconceived notions of a pro-employee bias by the Commission. Dominguez suggested that employers become prepared and stay out of EEOC's line of vision by playing fair and having a respectful work environment.

Employers do not communicate. Many employers and their attorneys fail to stay in touch with the EEOC while an investigation is taking place. Once the complaint has been initiated, the employer has the burden to show actions were nondiscriminatory. Proactive communication with the EEOC investigator builds credibility for the company and for the attorney who represents it.

Employers are dismissive. Apparently, too many on the employer's side assume that the EEOC will not litigate due to shortage of resources. Although litigation (rather than a dismissal and notice of rights) is definitely the exception, the EEOC has been known to go to court—especially when class relief is possible. The EEOC is generally a hard- working and effective adversary for any employer when they believe discrimination exists.

Employers retaliate. Retaliation charges count for about 28% of all of EEOC's charges. Even if the original charge is unfounded, the employer could still be found guilty of retaliation discrimination.

Employers avoid mediation. Employers tend to believe that EEOC mediators would not give them a fair shake. In many cases, the mediators are generally quite fair and savvy and have facilitated very economical resolutions for companies. Not every case is suitable for mediation, but more cases are mediation worthy. Passing up mediation, when offered, can suggest that you have no intention of resolution or to even listen to the employee(s).

Employers wait. Employers employ delay tactics in an attempt to weaken the EEOC. Employers should realize that once an employee files a charge, the statute of limitations on the federal antidiscrimination claims stops running until the EEOC disposes of the case. If found guilty, the liability, e.g., back pay, continues to accrue until the case is closed.

Employers act inappropriately. Employers do not always take corrective action when problems arise, and without an effective EEO policy and procedures to process EEO complaints of discrimination they fail to take proactive or preventive approaches to tackle discrimination issues. When EEO procedures are implemented and followed consequentially, they also help develop a good culture and expected norms of behaviors.

Employers prevaricate. To the extent that employers provide non-coercive advance preparation for their employees before EEOC interviews, or obtain legal representation before responding to charges, this is all perfectly legitimate and more than fair. However, employers who try to improperly conceal witnesses or evidence, falsify documents, threaten potentially adverse witnesses with discipline or discharge (or blacklisting), lie to the EEOC, or engage in other improper activity should watch it—they are hurting no one but themselves. Things will only get worse when employers are not open and honest with the EEOC.

Employers do not calibrate. Employers often fail to monitor the demographics of employment activity or enforcement of EEO procedures. This is the EEOC's top complaint. Many employers are not proactive with EEO laws, waiting until the risk becomes the problem. If you are a medium to large employer (over 50 employees), keep EEO and harassment policies up to date; have good processes in place for employees to complain if they believe that they have been treated unfairly; and provide effective management training on employee relations, discipline and discharge, discrimination, reasonable accommodation, retaliation, and harassment. It is also advisable to monitor legal actions filed against the company (including lawsuits and administrative charges), even if frivolous, because heavy activity may indicate serious morale or perception issues if not bona fide discrimination issues.

TOP FEMALE PLAYERS ACCUSE US SOCCER OF WAGE DISCRIMINATION

US Soccer, the governing body for the sport in America, pays the members of the men's and women's national teams who represent the United States in international competitions. The men's team has historically been mediocre. The women's team has been a quadrennial phenomenon, winning world and Olympic championships and bringing much of the country to a standstill in the process.

Citing this disparity, as well as rising revenue numbers, five players on the women's team filed a federal complaint … accusing US Soccer of wage discrimination because, they said, they earned as little as 40% of what players on the United States men's national team earned even as they marched to the team's third World Cup championship last year. The five players, some of the world's most prominent women's athletes, said they were being shortchanged on everything from bonuses to appearance fees to per diems.

The case, submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination, is the latest front in the spreading debate over equal treatment of female athletes. A tennis tournament director was forced to resign recently after saying that female players “ride on the coattails of the men,” and the N.C.A.A. has drawn scrutiny for the financial disparities between the men's and women's basketball tournaments.

(Das, 2016)

Best Practices for Employers and Human Resources/EEO Professionals

The following propositions and means to avert inequality, encourage diversity, and reinforce equity and civility in organizations are offered on the EEOC site.[5]

General

Train human resources managers and all employees on EEO laws. Implement a strong EEO policy that is embraced at the top levels of the organization. Train managers, supervisors, and employees on its contents, enforce it, and hold them accountable.

Promote an inclusive culture in the workplace by fostering an environment of professionalism and respect for personal differences.

Foster open communication and early dispute resolution. This may minimize the chance of misunderstandings escalating into legally actionable EEO problems. An alternative dispute-resolution program can help resolve EEO problems without the acrimony associated with an adversarial process.

Establish neutral and objective criteria to avoid subjective employment decisions based on personal stereotypes or hidden biases.

Recruitment, Hiring, and Promotion

Recruit, hire, and promote with EEO principles in mind, by implementing practices designed to widen and diversify the pool of candidates considered for employment openings, including openings in upper-level management.

Monitor for EEO compliance by conducting self-analyses to determine whether current employment practices disadvantage people of color, treat them differently, or leave uncorrected the effects of historical discrimination in the company.

Analyze the duties, functions, and competencies relevant to jobs. Then create objective, job-related qualification standards related to those duties, functions, and competencies. Make sure they are consistently applied when choosing among candidates.

Ensure selection criteria do not disproportionately exclude certain racial groups unless the criteria are valid predictors of successful job performance and meet the employer's business needs. For example, if educational requirements disproportionately exclude certain minority or racial groups, they may be illegal if not important for job performance or business needs.

Make sure promotion criteria are made known, and that job openings are communicated to all eligible employees.

When using an outside agency for recruitment, make sure the agency does not search for candidates of a particular race or color. Both the employer that made the request and the employment agency that honored it would be liable.

Terms, Conditions, and Privileges of Employment

Monitor compensation practices and performance appraisal systems for patterns of potential discrimination. Make sure performance appraisals are based on employees’ actual job performance. Ensure consistency, i.e., that comparable job performances receive comparable ratings regardless of the evaluator, and that appraisals are neither artificially low nor artificially high.

Develop the potential of employees, supervisors, and managers with EEO in mind, by providing training and mentoring that provides workers of all backgrounds the opportunity, skill, experience, and information necessary to perform well, and to ascend to upper-level jobs. In addition, employees of all backgrounds should have equal access to workplace networks.

Protect against retaliation. Provide clear and credible assurances that if employees make complaints or provide information related to complaints, the employer will protect employees from retaliation, and consistently follow through on this guarantee.

Harassment

Adopt a strong anti-harassment policy, periodically train each employee on its contents, and vigorously follow and enforce it.

Develop a clear explanation of prohibited conduct, including examples.

Have a clear assurance that employees who make complaints or provide information related to complaints will be protected against retaliation.

Articulate clearly the complaint process that provides multiple, accessible avenues of complaint.

Provide assurances that the employer will protect the confidentiality of harassment complaints to the extent possible.

Have a complaint process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation.

Ensure that the employer will take immediate and appropriate corrective action when it determines that harassment has occurred.

MAVIS DISCOUNT TIRE TO PAY $2.1 MILLION TO SETTLE EEOC CLASS SEX DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT

Tire Retailer Violated Federal Law by Systemically Refusing to Hire Women in Its Field Locations, Federal Agency Charged

Mavis Discount Tire, Inc./Mavis Tire Supply Corp./Mavis Tire NY, Inc./Cole Muffler, Inc., a large tire retailer based in the New York metropolitan area, will pay $2.1 million and provide other relief to settle a class sex discrimination lawsuit by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to EEOC's lawsuit, Mavis engaged in a pattern or practice of sex discrimination by refusing to hire women for its field positions—managers, assistant managers, mechanics, and tire technicians—in the company's over 140 stores throughout Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. EEOC also charged that Mavis failed to make, keep, and preserve employment records.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 12-CV-00741) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit, entered by Judge Katherine P. Failla on March 24, 2016, provides that Mavis will pay $2.1 million, to be divided among 46 aggrieved women. Also, the decree provides for extensive safe-guards to prevent future discrimination by implementing hiring goals for women, a comprehensive recruitment and hiring protocol, and anti- discrimination policies and training. “We are pleased that as a result of this settlement, Mavis will be making concerted, verifiable efforts to hire more women at all of its field locations,” EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Raechel Adams said.

EEOC New York District Director Kevin Berry added,

This case exemplifies EEOC's commitment to remedying systemic bias. EEOC found that Mavis for years had maintained a pattern of not hiring women at its field locations. This settlement ensures that qualified women will continue to be hired in the future – and advances EEOC's first priority in its Strategic Enforcement Plan, eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring.

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said:

We are pleased that during Women's History Month, we were able to announce this settlement, which is one in a series of EEOC cases nationally to address discriminatory barriers for women. Moving forward, qualified female applicants will be judged by their talents and skill and not simply passed over because of their gender – and women who were denied positions will be compensated.

The elimination of recruiting and hiring practices that discriminate against women, racial, ethnic and religious groups, older workers, and people with disabilities is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

EEOC's New York District Office oversees New York, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and parts of New Jersey. EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

(EEOC, 2016)

Fair Pay Act

In a 2010 World Economic Forum report on corporate practices for gender diversity in 20 countries, 15% of the total set of responding companies track salary gaps between women and men, 13% track salary gaps between women and men and implement corrective measures, 54% do not track salary gaps and affirm that generally there are no gaps between male and female employees’ salaries in their companies, and, finally, 18% of the companies responded that they do not formally track salary gaps. Hence, 72% of the companies surveyed do not monitor gender pay gaps at all. The complete results are displayed in Figure 3.3.

In January 2016, President Obama renewed his call to Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would potentially close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and require employers to prove that pay gaps are due to legitimate business reasons, not discrimination. The proposal would cover more than 63 million employees—potentially providing a new

wealth of data for understanding the pay gap issue and determining whether certain workers are getting short-changed (Ortiz, 2016).

Figure 3.3 Policies on Tracking Salary Differences

Source: Zahidi & Ibarra (2010).

OBAMA MOVES TO EXPAND RULES AIMED AT CLOSING GENDER PAY GAP

President Obama on Friday moved to require companies to report to the federal government what they pay employees by race, gender and ethnicity, part of his push to crack down on firms that pay women less for doing the same work as men.

“Women are not getting the fair shot that we believe every single American deserves,” Mr. Obama said in announcing the proposal, timed to coincide with the seventh anniversary of his signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for people to challenge discriminatory pay. “What kind of example does paying women less set for our sons and daughters?”

The new rules, Mr. Obama's latest bid to use his executive power to address a priority of his that Congress has resisted acting on, would mandate that companies with 100 employees or more include salary information on a form they already submit annually that reports employees’ sex, age and job groups.

“Too often, pay discrimination goes undetected because of a lack of accurate information about what people are paid,” said Jenny Yang, the chairwoman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which will publish the proposed regulation jointly with the Department of Labor. “We will be using the information that we're collecting as one piece of information that can inform our investigations.”

The requirement would expand on an executive order Mr. Obama issued[6] nearly two years ago that called for federal contractors to submit salary information for women and men. Ms. Yang said the rules would be completed in September, with the first reports due a year later.

(Hirschfeld, 2016)

Linking Diversity with Performance and Rewards

Organizations must undergo a fundamental change in the hiring, evaluation, selection, and promotion policies and criteria used to fill top leadership positions. They need to reassess their missions and core values and remove barriers that limit or inhibit women's access to upper-level positions. Even a small increase in the percentage of female managers is expected to contribute to the implementation of successful practices, such as participative decision making, equity, and transparent communications. Furthermore, research shows that employee participation in decision making is positively correlated with superior organizational performance (Fernie & Metcalf, 1995) as also evident in the fact that many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or committees (Foote, Matson, Weiss, & Wenger, 2002). If women have preferences for specific leadership styles (i.e., democratic) that contribute to effective decisions (and outcomes), the likelihood that such styles and practices (i.e., involvement, interpersonal orientation) will become prevalent across organizational lines could also increase.

Women leaders have the capacity to be more balanced and seek out win–win solutions in their decision making. They examine causes and consequences of decisions and their potential impact on affected employees, customers, and shareholders. This big-picture thinking may help women deal more successfully with ambiguity in business (Coughlin, Wingard, & Hollihan, 2005). It is unlikely that a woman will consciously go through a logical decision making sequence to select the best option (Belasen & Frank, 2008). Instead, women, on the one hand, tend to look at details to create a bigger, more holistic picture of a situation before making a decision. Men, on the other hand, tend to gather as much information as women, but analyze it in a more linear path. Indeed, women scored higher on traits associated with conscientiousness (Belasen & Frank, 2012). Women were found to be better suited for leadership than their male colleagues when it comes to clarity, innovation, support, and targeted meticulousness (Øyvind & Glasø, 2013).

Melero (2011) found that workplaces with a higher percentage of female managers tend to allocate more time to group decision making processes and to giving and receiving feedback. In fact, Cook and Glass (2014) suggested that the integration of women into decision making roles reduces both the impact of male-to-female evaluation bias and the inclination for men to prefer hiring other men (Carrington & Troske, 1995; Cohen, Broschak, & Haveman, 1998; Ely, 1995). Managers are also more open to improving the collective performance and discussing career development opportunities with employees. When organizations include women in their management teams, they should expect above the average performance. Prejudices against female managers are also expected to become less pervasive, and the perception of tokens by peers and superiors when women participate in decision making will lessen.

Tokenism, on the one hand, is a phenomenon that leads to the informal isolation of minority members who, in turn, respond by keeping low profiles. On the other hand, participative decision making is inclusive and generates more discussions and options for solving problems as well as increases diversity and acceptance of viewpoints. Linking diversity goals with performance goals and financial incentives should be formalized through human-resources policies and reinforced through senior management commitment (Giscombe & Mattis, 2002). For example, Sodexo USA has developed a diversity scorecard (Anand, 2014) that links the human-resources cycle (i.e., recruitment, retention, development, promotion) with diversity and engagement goals, business goals, and strategies (Dolezalek, 2008). Senior executives must communicate the message that gender diversity is a business imperative and actively model the way through decisions and actions. Senior executives should also encourage performance dialogues, invest in women's leadership development, and use evidence-based discussions to spearhead best practices that drive success. Establishing a leadership priority for change has been the most successful of all diversity initiatives (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). Gender diversity should become the new organizational mantra, the DNA of successful organizations.

References Adler, R. D. (2001). Women in the executive suite correlate to high profits. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 30-32. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/publication/267822127. Anand, R. (2014). Diversity and inclusion, a strategic business imperative: The Sodexo story. Sodexo Quality of Life Services. Retrieved from

www.dsmpartnership.com/filesimages/growing%20business%20here/pdf/20141119_diforum_sodexo.pdf. Babcock, L.; Laschever, S. (2007). Women don't ask: The high cost of avoiding negotiation and positive strategies for change. Bantam Books New York. Baldoni, J. (2013, July 4). Employee engagement does more than boost productivity. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/07/employee-engagement-does-

more/. Barsh, J.; Yee, L. (2012). Unlocking the full potential of women at work. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-

insights/unlocking-the-full-potential-of-women-at-work. Beale, Frances M. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be black and female. Washington Square Press New York NY. Retrieved from

http://intellhisblackamerica.voices.wooster.edu/files/2012/03/Frances-Beale_Double-Jeopardy-To-Be-Black-and-Female1.pdf. Belasen, A. T. (2012). Developing women leaders in corporate America, balancing competing demands, transcending traditional boundaries. Praeger Publishing Santa Barbara CA. Belasen, A. T.; Frank, N. M. (2008). Competing values leadership: Quadrant roles and personality traits. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 29(2), 127-143. Belasen, A. T.; Frank, N. M. (2012). Using the competing values framework to evaluate the interactive effects of gender and personality traits on leadership roles. The International

Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 192-215. Black Enterprise. (2013, September 6). Black enterprise releases exclusive report on African American corporate directors. Retrieved from www.blackenterprise.com/news/report-

black-corporate-directors-study-boardrooms/. Caprino, K. (2013, February 12). The top 6 reasons women are not leading in corporate America as we need them to. Forbes/Leadership. Retrieved from

www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2013/02/12/the-top-6-reasons-women-are-not-leading-in-corporate-america-as-we-need-them-to/#20ba413e6d6d. Carnes, W. J.; Radojevich-Kelley, N. (2011). The effects of the glass ceiling on women in the workforce: Where are they and where are they going? Review of Management

Innovation & Creativity, 4(10), 70-79. Carrington, W.; Troske, K. (1995). The gender segregation in small firms. Journal of Human Resources, 30, 503-533. Catalyst. (2011). No news is bad news: Women's leadership still stalled in corporate America [News and announcements]. Catalyst New York NY. Retrieved from

www.catalyst.org/media/no-news-bad-news-womens-leadership-still-stalled-corporate-america. Cohen, L.; Broschak, J.; Haveman, H. (1998). And then there were more? The effect of organizational sex composition on the hiring and promotion of managers. American

Sociological Review, 63, 711-727. Cook, A.; Glass, C. (2014). Women and top leadership positions: Towards an institutional analysis. Gender, Work and Organization, 21(1), 91-103. DOI:10.1111/gwao. 12018. Coughlin, L.; Wingard, E.; Hollihan, K. (2005). Enlightened power: How women are transforming the practice of leadership. Jossey-Bass San Francisco. Das, A. (2016, March 31). Top female players accuse US soccer of wage discrimination. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/sports/soccer/uswnt-

us-women-carli-lloyd-alex-morgan-hope-solo-complain.html. Dawson, C. A. (n.d.). EEOC tales of top mistakes made by employers: Have you felt the power of Uncle Sam's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)? Retrieved

from www.multiculturaladvantage.com/recruit/eeo-employment-law/EEOC-Tales-of-Top-Mistakes-Made-by-Employers.asp. Dolezalek, H. (2008). The path to inclusion. Training, 45(4), 52-54. Eagly, A. H.; Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Press Cambridge MA. EEOC. (2011, March 10). Evaluation of the management of the EEOC's state and local programs project number 2010-09-AEP final evaluation report. Williams, Adley &

Company-DC, LLP. Retrieved from www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/oig/2010-09-aep.cfm?renderforprint=1. EEOC. (2016, March 25). Mavis Discount Tire to pay $2.1 million to settle EEOC class sex discrimination lawsuit. US EEOC [Press release]. Retrieved from

www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-25-16.cfm. Ely, R. (1995). The power in demography: Women's social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589-634. Ely, R. J.; Ibarra, H.; Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women's leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 10(3), 474-493. Ely, R.; Stone, P.; Ammerman, C. (2014). Rethink what you “know” about high-achieving women, R1412G. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 101-109. Feminist Majority Foundation. (2014). Empowering women in business: The glass ceiling: How women are blocked from getting to the top. Retrieved from

www.feminist.org/research/business/ewb_glass.html. Fernie, S.; Metcalf, D. (1995). Participation, contingent pay, representation and workplace performance: Evidence from Great Britain. Britain Journal of Industrial Relations, 33(3),

379-415. Foote, N.; Matson, E.; Weiss, L.; Wenger, E. (2002). Leveraging group knowledge for high-performance decision making. Organizational Dynamics, 31(2), 280-295. Giscombe, K.; Mattis, M. (2002). Leveling the playing field for women of color in corporate management: Is the business case enough? Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 103-119. Google. (2013). EEO-1 report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved from http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//diversity/2013-

EEO-1-consolidated-report.pdf. Halter, J. T. (2015, June 26). Women in the workplace: If women don't stand-up for themselves, who will? Huffington Post. Retrieved from www.huffpost.com/entry/women-in-the-

workplace-if-women-dont-stand-up-for-themselves-who-will_b_7656612. Herminia, I.; Carter, N.; Silva, C. (2010). Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2010/09/why-men-still-get-more-promotions-

than-women. Hirschfeld, J. (2016, January 29). Obama moves to expand rules aimed at closing gender pay gap. The New York Times. Retrieved from

www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/obama-moves-to-expand-rules-aimed-at-closing-gender-pay-gap.html?_r=0. Kalev, A.; Dobbin, F.; Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review,

71(4), 589-617. Kanter, R. (1993). Men and women of the corporation. Basics Press New York. Knight, R. (2011). Queen bee in the office: Who gets stung? http://blogs.ft.com/women-at-the-top/2011/06/27/queen-bee-in-the-office-who-gets-stung/#axzz1wFoZTOae. Kram, K.; McCollom-Hampton, M. (1998). When women lead: The visibility-vulnerability spiral. In E. Klein; F. Gabelnick; P. Herr (Eds.), The psychodynamics of leadership (pp.

193-218). Psychosocial Publishing Group Madison CT. Kurtulus, F. A.; Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2012). Do female top managers help women to advance? A panel study using EEO-1 records. The ANNALS of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 639, 173-197. Lewis, M. (2013). Men vs. women: Differences in shopping habits and buying decisions. Money Crashers. Retrieved from www.moneycrashers.com/men-vs-women-shopping-

habits-buying-decisions//. Ly, D. P.; Seabury, S. A.; Jena, A. B. (2016). Differences in incomes of physicians in the United States by race and sex: Observational study. British Medical Journal, 353, i2923.

Retrieved from www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2923.full. Lyness, K. S.; Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86-101. McEldowney, R. P.; Bobrowski, P.; Gramberg, A. (2009). Factors affecting the next generation of women leaders: Mapping the challenges, antecedents, and consequences of

effective leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2): 24-30. Mainiero, L. A.; Sullivan, S. E. (2006). The opt-out revolt: Why people are leaving companies to create kaleidoscope careers. Davies-Black Publishing Mountain View CA. Melero, E. (2011). Are workplaces with many women in management run differently? Journal of Business Research, 64, 385-393. Moss, K.; Burris, S.; Ullman, M.; Johnsen, M.; Swanson, J. (2001). Unfunded mandate: An empirical study of the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. University of Kansas Law Review, 50, 1-110. O'Neil, D. A.; Bilimoria, D. (2005). Women's career development phases: Idealism, endurance, and reinvention. Career Development International, 10, 168-189. Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 321-334.

Ortiz, E. (2016, January 29). President Obama announces rules for closing gender pay gap. NBC News. Retrieved from www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-announce-new- rules-closing-gender-pay-gap-n506941.

Øyvind, M.; Glasø, L. (2013). Character and leadership. In R. Rønning; W. Brochs-Haukedal; L. Glasø; S. B. Matthiesen (Eds.), Life as a leader. Lederundersøkelsen 3.0 (pp. 47- 72). Bergen Fagbokforlaget.

Pew Research Center. (2008). Men or women: Who's the better leader? A paradox in public attitudes. Retrieved from http://pewsocialtrends.org/2008/08/25/men-or-women-whos- the-better-leader/.

Ruderman, M. N.; Ohlott, P. J. (2004). What women leaders want? Leader to Leader, 41-47. Sahadi, J. (2016, April 12). Young women are asking for (and getting) more pay than men. CNN Money. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/12/pf/gender-pay-

gap/index.html. Sarsons, H. (2015, December 3). Gender differences in recognition for group work. (No. 254946). Retrieved from

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sarsons/files/gender_groupwork.pdf?m=1449178759. Schonberger, J. (2015, January 12). JPMorgan helps women re-enter the workforce. FOXBusiness, Career. Retrieved from www.foxbusiness.com/features/2015/01/12/jpmorgan-

helps-women-re-enter-workforce.html. Shea, R. E. (2003). Agency identifies top mistakes made by employers the EEOC's “notorious nine.” Labor & Employment Insights, Winter/Spring. Retrieved from

www.constangy.com/communications-69.html#agency. Shellenbarger, S. (2012, May 7). The XX factor: What's holding women back? The Wall Street Journal [Women in the Economy: The Journal Report]. Retrieved from:

www.womeninecon.wsj.com/special-report-2012.pdf. Shin, T. (2012). The gender gap in executive compensation: The role of female directors and chief executive officers. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 639(1), 258-278. Spence, B. (2010). 2010 NAFE top 50 companies. NAFE Magazine, 33(1), 4-14. Timberlake, S. (2005). Social capital and gender in the workplace. Journal of Management Development, 24, 34-44. Torres, V. (2015, April 22). Diversity a source of competitive advantage. Presented at the Women in Energy and Resources Leadership Summit, Perth Australia. Women in the Economy, The Journal Report. (2011, April 11). A blueprint for change. The Wall Street Journal [Special report]. Retrieved from www.womeninecon.wsj.com/special-

report.pdf. Women's Law Project. (2012, February 17). Census bureau: Mom is designated “parent,” dad is “childcare arrangement.” Retrieved from

https://womenslawproject.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/census-bureau-mom-is-designated-parent-dad-is-childcare-arrangement/. Zahidi, S.; Ibarra, H. (2010). The corporate gender gap report 2010. World Economic Forum. Geneva Switzerland. Retrieved from

www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_CorporateReport_2010.pdf.

1.

Adapted from: www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm.

2.

www.eeoc.gov/federal/adr/resolvehandbook.cfm.

3.

www.eeoc.gov/federal/fed_employees/faq_hearing.cfm.

4.

www.eeoc.gov//eeoc/oig/2010-09-aep.cfm?renderforprint=1.

5.

www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/e-race/bestpractices-employers.cfm.

6.

President Obama signs a new Executive Order to prevent workplace discrimination and empower workers to take control over negotiations regarding their pay, www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/08/taking-action-honor-national-equal-pay-day.

Citation Information:

Belasen, A. (2017). Promoting Equality in Management. In Women in Management. Routledge. Retrieved September 25, 2023, from https://search.credoreference.com/articles/Qm9va0FydGljbGU6NDgzNTIwMg==.

Copyright © 2023 Infobase. All Rights Reserved.