With female political leaders praised for their handling of the Covid-19 crisis, why are there still so few women at the top in many organisations?
The current pandemic has cast a spotlight on leaders around the world, with a number of female leaders receiving widespread praise for their handling of the crisis [1,2,3], from Angela Merkel in Germany, to Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, among others. We also know that women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions during or following a crisis – a trend known as the glass cliff phenomenon – so could this pave the way for more female leaders reaching leadership positions more generally?
Many organisations are actively searching for ways to remove the barriers hampering women’s leadership progression within their business. These barriers are complex, and largely invisible, yet their impact on female leaders’ progression keenly felt and seen in organisational data. May 2020 marks 50 years since the passing of the UK’s Equal Pay Act (1970), begging the question: why hasn’t more progress been made towards gender equality?
In this article we share evidence-based insights about why women aren’t progressing to senior roles as rapidly as we might hope, and outline ways to address the issue.
Women are more likely to work in lower-paid occupations
Despite 50 years having passed since launch of the UK’s Equal Pay Act (1970), equal pay claims continue to surface. In addition, introduction of gender pay gap reporting highlights a broader problem: collectively, the average hourly earnings for women in the UK is significantly lower than men’s. What’s more, the data reveals that this is primarily due to the fact that women are more likely to work in lower-paid occupations – specifically, they’re less likely to work as ‘managers, directors or senior officials’[4]. Why?
Gendered views of leadership are a significant part of the problem. Effective leaders are typically considered to be strong, assertive, decisive, agentic; characteristics stereotypically associated with men. Of course, women can be strong, assertive, decisive, and agentic, but when they demonstrate these characteristics, they’re judged more negatively by both men and women compared to male professionals demonstrating the same behaviours [5]. A double-bind is created for women, whereby to be seen as an effective leader they have to demonstrate these agentic traits, yet when they do they face social and economic penalties for behaving counter-stereotypically.
Women are also statistically less likely than men to succeed in negotiating a pay-rise [6], potentially because it requires self-advocacy which contrasts with the stereotype of women as communal, concerned less about themselves than others. Research shows that, mindful of the potential backlash they may receive, women hedge their assertiveness, use fewer competing tactics and get less. In contrast, when vouching for others, women achieve better outcomes as they don’t expect a clash with gender norms, so don’t engage in hedging [7].
Women are more likely to work flexible hours
More women work part-time, many changing their working patterns after becoming mothers (38% of mothers work part-time compared to only 7% of fathers) [8], which often comes at a cost to progression. Many part-time women are dissatisfied with their quality of work and promotion prospects, and feel they’re working below their potential. Almost a quarter report no chance of promotion [9]. On average, part-time workers’ negligible wage increases year on year are far below what would be expected in proportion to their full-time equivalents [10]. Importantly, it’s not the time mothers spend out of employment on maternity leave, but more what happens when they re-join the workforce part-time that explains the widening pay gap[11]. The pay gap between mothers and fathers continues to increase for years after maternity leave, reaching a difference of 21% by a child’s 20th birthday [12].