August 13, 2007
GHQ: Women’s movement
By Suzanne Vita Palazzo
Through a special arrangement, what follows is an excerpt of a current article from Grocery Headquarters magazine, presented here for discussion.
While it’s generally accepted that females make or influence 80 percent of all purchases, they only made up 16.4 percent of corporate officers among Fortune 500 companies and only 1.6 percent of the nation’s CEOs in 2005, according to Catalyst, a research and advisory organization working to promote women in the workplace. So why, if women are experts at making purchasing decisions, are they so far from being the ultimate decision makers?
It’s a question worth exploring. A study by Catalyst in 2004 showed that a group of companies with the highest representation of women on their senior management teams had a 35 percent higher return on equity.
“The bottom line impact that you see in organizations that have more women in the ranks is not just because they’re appealing to their customers better, but because they’re conducting their operations more efficiently and effectively,” said Stacy Janiak, vice chairman of retail for New York-based Deloitte.
The rates were similar in the food and drug segment, where 14.7 percent of all corporate officers were female, as well as at retail, which was at 19.9 percent.
Many see change happening for grocers, but not fast enough, especially for an industry designed to cater specifically to women. Although women make up a significant percentage of middle management positions, presenting an appealing talent pool from which to pick, few are rising further up the corporate ladder.
“Where we’ve really made a great deal of progress is that we’re better through
the middle management part of it. But we haven’t done quite as well in the
executive ranks,” said Bobbie O’Hare, chair of the executive committee for
regional development for the Network of Executive Women and vice president
of business development at Johnson, O’Hare Companies, an independent food broker.
??Explanations for the dearth of women in corporate positions are plentiful,
but many point first to ongoing gender stereotypes. A 2005 Catalyst study found
both men and women guilty of stereotyping senior leaders in similar ways. Perhaps
most detrimental, the study found that men consider women to be less adept
at problem solving, a skill considered a hallmark of an effective leader.
Other
common stereotypes associated with women include that they talk too much. But
as Alice Johnson, Butterball’s vice president of food safety, corporate policy,
government and public affairs, pointed out, women’s verbal skills can be a valuable
asset. “Females communicate more. I think we’ve always been accused of talking
too much, but I think that’s an advantage,” she
said, adding that women also tend to have more empathy for people and situations.
Beyond stereotypes, other reasons given are less networking opportunities
than men, a lack of succession planning to identify emerging leaders and set
goals for individual advancement, and not enough flexibility to enable family
planning.
?”Having women in positions of power, and having diversity as well, can help retailers not just in responding to their customers, but it can also help retailers manage their business from their vendor perspective,” said Ms. Janiak. “There are more and more women on the vendor side of the table, and women negotiate differently. Women sell and want to be sold to in a different manner.”
Discussion Questions: What do you think is preventing women from rising in the executive ranks of the supermarket industry? What do you think of some of the solutions offered to help women gain a greater management role at grocers? Do you have any of your own?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
1. I believe current MBA programs are in direct conflict with the female perspective. I believe many woman are savvy with the issues of finance, staff, customer needs, etc., and do not view them as separate issues but as interrelated aspects of doing business. Most business structures hold to divisional strategic development vs. collective strategic development.
2. I believe existing mentoring systems rely too much on old approaches such as whoever is most aggressive is the best leader, which is in conflict with true leadership.
3. Women are as mean to women as men are to women.
4. College scholarship or financial assistance is not as available to, or in the amounts of as men.
5. Companies rely on men to think and women to do.
6. Women do more on less compensation, acknowledgment and advancement opportunities.
The grocery industry is behind the times in this area. This industry is comprised of the good ol’ boys and has been a tough one for women to break through. It is happening but ever so slowly.
Companies in this industry have yet to realize that it doesn’t matter–sex or color–it’s the most qualified people and the value that each person brings to the board room. I started 20 years ago in the supply chain warehousing logistics industry when it was 99.8% male. I saw women come and go. It’s not easy breaking into an industry dominated by the male populus. It takes a strong backbone and thick skin. For companies wanting to groom and attract females, my suggestion is to build a mentoring program with other females or open minded males to support and guide. In a recent poll of CEOs in the 3PL industry, the ones that have attracted females as their distribution center managers have found those facilities are operated on a higher percentile.
Could it be the ‘good ol’ boy’ system? Or is it the culture and environment of an Industry, corporation, organization, or academia that men created?
Unfortunately, change is slow! The ‘open door’ opportunity for minorities; Congressional leadership; the executive corners; and especially, our supermarket business are entities that keep qualified and needed points of views, and sensitivity (e.g. retail grocery) afar.
Would you not think a supermarket would have a different look; format; easier consumer maneuverability; and better service?
Ryan is right! It’s the guys in this grocery world who minimize the role of women. Simple as this seems, don’t you think our meal business and catering out of supermarkets would be better, and less difficult to start up, if women were more involved?
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Studies I’ve seen reflect a comment made earlier here: when top management is more diverse the company is more successful. Diversity among the top execs may allow a broader array of ideas to be considered. Why doesn’t this happen more often? Top executives tend to want to work with people with whom they feel comfortable–that is not consistent with promoting diversity. Choosing to work closely with people who have different perspectives, different ideas, and different values may generate a greater variety of solutions but doesn’t create comfortable discussions.
Those companies that have a diverse top management have had to work hard to get employees to that point and have had to deal with making “uncomfortable” situations “comfortable.”
On the other side, the issue of balancing a family and a powerful career is also a deterrent. There are many top executives who have not been fully engaged in child rearing. That’s a choice that can be very difficult for women to make.
However, the traditional top management constraints do not have to be a deterrent. The growing number of women owned companies that are successful is a testament to the ability of women to be successful top managers.
Reasons for the low number of women in the top executive ranks are many. Companies who ignore the issues and do not take steps to increase diversity among top executives are only hurting their future.
One word: MEN
Okay, first of all, many of the men in the supermarket industry grew up through the ranks working in stores and came from backgrounds where women stayed at home. They are the same type of men who won’t vote for a female president like Hillary Clinton.
If you notice, the few female store managers usually appear to be “one of the boys.”
The home building industry is similar in that the main decision maker is female, yet the industry is run by men, mostly with construction backgrounds.
Supermarket companies would be wise to start bringing in women executives with retail or CPG experience from outside the supermarket world. That is the only way it will change.
As a woman who previously thought the corporate world was biased against women in higher-ranking positions, I have, over the past few years, had an epiphany. We are sometimes the person who holds us back.
(First let’s exempt all truly single mothers from the below. By single mothers I mean the father is not active and nowhere to be found)
I am a childless woman and as such have had to cover for extended maternity leaves, children’s doctor appointments, snow days and out of town business trips. At times I have worked until 10 pm so my female counter part could leave at 4:30. In all cases I covered for a woman. I have never in 20 years covered for a man for any of these reasons. I wonder where the husband is? If we aren’t willing to make our spouses share in the workload of having children why should a corporation? Why should your co-workers? Also careers in the new millennium require relocation. Rarely do I see husbands uprooting for their spouses. Frequently I see wives uprooting for their spouses.
We are looking for corporations to make special rules for us and our family needs. If we are truly ever going to achieve equality in the work place we need to start that equality at home. Family issues have been attributed to the needs of a female employee. They are not. When a corporation looks to attract females to their organization they immediately review the resources and expenses that will be needed to address family issues. Why is this only a need for women?
Women need to hold their spouses accountable in sharing the time off, late starts, early departures, and adjusted travel that comes with having a family. If men were burdened with the stress of having a family and a career and if corporations were losing men because they were not able to meet these demands, you would see a major shift in corporate culture. No longer would this be a women’s issue or a resource needed when hiring women.
I have always been a firm believer that affirmative action and family benefits starts at home. Consider these questions before we ask the corporate world to change society:
How many women/minority owned business do you personally support?
How often do you ask your husband to miss a day at work, go in late, leave early or cancel a business trip, for John or Sue’s cold, soccer, or play?
Just a thought from….
I used to work for a major food retailer in Chicago. In the late ’70s, they were proud of the fact that they had one female store manager. Fast forward to 2007, and the same retailer has only a handful of female store managers on their payroll. The same chain has lost considerable market share in the city. Is there a direct correlation? I have to believe there is.
The major obstacle to women rising to the corporate ranks of food retailing are the men currently running the companies. One day, a major retailer will get smart, and have only women in senior management, and create a more female user-friendly environment. It will be a great competitive advantage at the store level.
Albertsons’ board of directors, as of 2/2/2006, had 6 women and 6 men. Of the 5 most highly compensated executives, one person was female. Albertsons was one of the largest supermarket chains in the country, and they decided to sell off the company. The gender balance of the board was fairly unusual, yet that in itself didn’t lead to superior performance overall, nor did it lead to gender balance in top management. Also, if Catalyst updated their performance figures annually, their case might have greater strength.
I have but one piece of this puzzle to offer. I think in trying to promote diversity, some companies go too far–creating “walled gardens” for women that don’t let them get exposure to the experience they need. Mutual support and reinforcement is great, but it’s not the be-all end-all.
I find it detrimental when women “stick together” in the workplace. I’ve been subjected to corporate mentoring programs that tried to pair me up, either as mentee or as mentor, to other women. Personally, I found that to be extremely unhelpful. Instead, I deliberately sought out mentors that could help me succeed at my job, no matter their gender–it’s experience that counts.
I would also like to see how those middle management numbers break out across retail function, because I suspect that the number of women coming up through the ranks of store manager–a critical piece of experience in retail–is slim. The hours are killer, and the management programs often relocate people as often as every 6 months. That kind of career is very difficult to support in a 2-income family because it’s really hard on the spouse, and it’s still women more than men who as a result defer or chose to make their career the secondary consideration.
This is an easy one. What’s holding women back? I think it’s called men.
There is nothing preventing women from rising through the ranks of the supermarket industry. The percentage of women in the executive ranks represents the percentage of women who have simply made the decision to do what is needed to move up to that level. We live in a country where we are free to choose our own careers and income.
One thing I have learned about people is that if they want to do something badly enough, they will find a way to get it done. It comes down to the fact that many women simply do not have enough desire to do so. The talent and ability are there but not the desire to do whatever it takes. Our basic instincts are to be attractive to the opposite sex. Women know that being a sex object accomplishes this and men know that being a success object works for them. Men taking high level executive positions is just the 13 year old boy in them showing off for the girls. If we men weren’t so obsessed with power and success and women obsessed with being sexually attractive, maybe this would not be an issue.
I believe this issue goes much further than stereotypes and communication style. For example, which gender comes to our mind first when we think of a police person? A president? A doctor? A mayor? Who more often “inherits” the CEO-ship of the family business, the oldest daughter or the oldest son? If a marriage has an overt alpha, is it more often the man or the woman? We are a patriarchal society, where deep cultural elements of power, authority, and greater value are assigned to men and boys.
It is great to work to change these patterns in small ways and with many different approaches; after all, I doubt if we would get very far if a law were passed that said, “American society will no longer be a patriarchal one, it will be a gender-equal one.” But I also think we need to recognize that we are all steeped in a set of values and ideals that we are only vaguely aware of.
The upper ranks of all industries now require executives to be on call 24/7/365. It is impossible to combine this level of work with childbearing and childrearing. That’s why:
— 20% of American women in their 40s are childless.
— The figure for those in their 30s is likely to rise to 25%.
— The figure is 33% for women in their late 30s with graduate degrees.
— The number of women with only one child has doubled since 1976, to 18%.
— 40% OF COLLEGE-EDUCATED WOMEN ARE NOT IN THE WORKFORCE.
The cost of having children is even higher for professional women. A career interrupted for childbearing may never get back on track, while postponing motherhood raises other issues such as marriageability and infertility.
No wonder so many women prefer to work for small companies, or to start their own businesses (over 10 million have done so).
We would all like to think that we are open-minded and hold no preconceived ideas as to what a CEO should look like. We also like to think that we are at a point that men and women are complete equals when it comes to opportunity and pay. Unfortunately, it is not the case. In the Broadway show “Avenue Q,” there is a song that says, “we are all a little bit racist.” That still seems to be the case where women are concerned. As long as the boards of directors are so predominantly male, it is difficult for more women to become CEOs.
Ms. Johnson hit a critical nerve regarding the female leaning towards empathetic behavior. It is this trait that helps them climb inside the minds of shoppers and connect with them relevantly a bit more easily. And it’s this that helps them deal with emotionally charged decisions from a different perspective, sometimes with very positive outcomes. The fact that many male dominated companies don’t recognize and reward this is sad but it’s our reality today.
A challenge not brought forth is one I experienced often before starting my own company and, because I’m a female, I feel comfortable to put it out and vent about it. This is the tendency for certain women to “take” unfair treatment and not do anything about it. Let me expand.
Certain types of men chase the “alpha position” at all costs due to their competitive nature. Many brilliant women crank out amazing thinking but don’t have the moxie in their personalities to claim it and defend it voraciously. The men around them who are looking to climb the ladder at all costs are all too happy to steal their contributions and run with them. Maybe it’s because so many women are raised to play nice and make everyone happy…I don’t know.
But I’ve often practically turned purple watching a woman sit subserviently as she’s being run over by someone stealing their thinking/credit in front of an executive. And then go cry in the bathroom rather than take on the situation and put the offenders in their place!
Another example is in not setting boundaries with upper management and co-workers appropriately. At my old firm, I reported to the CEO and in my first major executive meeting (in a room full of men) he asked me if I took shorthand. Then he stated that they needed more coffee and looked at me. It was up to me to ask them all if they would like for me to fetch an admin for either duty. It didn’t happen twice.
My point is that the cold hard reality for women is that it’s still a male dominated world. We can’t change that. What we can change is how we respond to it and how we learn to play the game while still creating value in how we think, act, process and respond to the situations that hold us back. We need to take a stand, be powerful, and make sure that we matter…but in our own unique way. It’s not going to change until we do!
Recently, a few studies indicate that women aren’t choosing typical career plans, although they are more than willing to invest the time and energy required, from getting the degrees to aligning themselves for the opportunities to get a lot of real world experience as they prepare for the top job. At some point, they seem to be choosing not to go that route. Perhaps it’s exercising their true control. If they want it all, they often choose starting their own business.
The status of the executive office just doesn’t seem to have the appeal the way it does with men. Linear progression may becoming a thing of the past.
As usual, when we have a discussion on this subject, we pre-suppose that the jobs at the top are equally desirable for men and women. But what if they’re not? Has anyone done any studies on how many women apply for top jobs and don’t get them? Maybe there just aren’t as many women interested in being supermarket bosses as there are men interested in going through all the necessary stages that others have already specified.
Another theory I read for the first time today mentioned a term coined at Exeter University–glass cliff. It is used to describe high level jobs that women get but at which they are expected to fail. The argument put forward was that certain jobs are such high risk that companies use them to appear to be promoting women but in fact, as per that old Peter Principle, are simply promoting them to the level of their own incompetence. Although men do sometimes achieve similar positions, the University researchers claim that if someone is expected to fail, that job is more often given to a woman than a man. By men, of course, who probably want an excuse to announce that they told her so.
Lots of high powered executives in England have left their jobs in recent years; more often women than men. Most relevant and recent is Angela Spindler, head of Asda/Wal-Mart’s George fashion label.
I have to disagree with David Livingston’s statement that “There is nothing preventing women from rising through the ranks of the supermarket industry.” Just ask a group of female store managers or female executives. Old boy networks abound, stereotypes continue, and lack of networking opportunities exist. That’s not to say there aren’t supportive male managers who serve as mentors and great role models. There just aren’t enough of them.
Having a strong commitment from the CEO and regular accountability for analyzing progress in the advancement of women, and people of color, are essential ingredients for change.
And I have found that female shoppers love knowing that women are also involved in corporate decision making and represent their point of view. It adds to the company’s credibility and bottom line, as the Catalyst study shows.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
1. I believe current MBA programs are in direct conflict with the female perspective. I believe many woman are savvy with the issues of finance, staff, customer needs, etc., and do not view them as separate issues but as interrelated aspects of doing business. Most business structures hold to divisional strategic development vs. collective strategic development.
2. I believe existing mentoring systems rely too much on old approaches such as whoever is most aggressive is the best leader, which is in conflict with true leadership.
3. Women are as mean to women as men are to women.
4. College scholarship or financial assistance is not as available to, or in the amounts of as men.
5. Companies rely on men to think and women to do.
6. Women do more on less compensation, acknowledgment and advancement opportunities.
The grocery industry is behind the times in this area. This industry is comprised of the good ol’ boys and has been a tough one for women to break through. It is happening but ever so slowly.
Companies in this industry have yet to realize that it doesn’t matter–sex or color–it’s the most qualified people and the value that each person brings to the board room. I started 20 years ago in the supply chain warehousing logistics industry when it was 99.8% male. I saw women come and go. It’s not easy breaking into an industry dominated by the male populus. It takes a strong backbone and thick skin. For companies wanting to groom and attract females, my suggestion is to build a mentoring program with other females or open minded males to support and guide. In a recent poll of CEOs in the 3PL industry, the ones that have attracted females as their distribution center managers have found those facilities are operated on a higher percentile.
Could it be the ‘good ol’ boy’ system? Or is it the culture and environment of an Industry, corporation, organization, or academia that men created?
Unfortunately, change is slow! The ‘open door’ opportunity for minorities; Congressional leadership; the executive corners; and especially, our supermarket business are entities that keep qualified and needed points of views, and sensitivity (e.g. retail grocery) afar.
Would you not think a supermarket would have a different look; format; easier consumer maneuverability; and better service?
Ryan is right! It’s the guys in this grocery world who minimize the role of women. Simple as this seems, don’t you think our meal business and catering out of supermarkets would be better, and less difficult to start up, if women were more involved?
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Studies I’ve seen reflect a comment made earlier here: when top management is more diverse the company is more successful. Diversity among the top execs may allow a broader array of ideas to be considered. Why doesn’t this happen more often? Top executives tend to want to work with people with whom they feel comfortable–that is not consistent with promoting diversity. Choosing to work closely with people who have different perspectives, different ideas, and different values may generate a greater variety of solutions but doesn’t create comfortable discussions.
Those companies that have a diverse top management have had to work hard to get employees to that point and have had to deal with making “uncomfortable” situations “comfortable.”
On the other side, the issue of balancing a family and a powerful career is also a deterrent. There are many top executives who have not been fully engaged in child rearing. That’s a choice that can be very difficult for women to make.
However, the traditional top management constraints do not have to be a deterrent. The growing number of women owned companies that are successful is a testament to the ability of women to be successful top managers.
Reasons for the low number of women in the top executive ranks are many. Companies who ignore the issues and do not take steps to increase diversity among top executives are only hurting their future.
One word: MEN
Okay, first of all, many of the men in the supermarket industry grew up through the ranks working in stores and came from backgrounds where women stayed at home. They are the same type of men who won’t vote for a female president like Hillary Clinton.
If you notice, the few female store managers usually appear to be “one of the boys.”
The home building industry is similar in that the main decision maker is female, yet the industry is run by men, mostly with construction backgrounds.
Supermarket companies would be wise to start bringing in women executives with retail or CPG experience from outside the supermarket world. That is the only way it will change.
As a woman who previously thought the corporate world was biased against women in higher-ranking positions, I have, over the past few years, had an epiphany. We are sometimes the person who holds us back.
(First let’s exempt all truly single mothers from the below. By single mothers I mean the father is not active and nowhere to be found)
I am a childless woman and as such have had to cover for extended maternity leaves, children’s doctor appointments, snow days and out of town business trips. At times I have worked until 10 pm so my female counter part could leave at 4:30. In all cases I covered for a woman. I have never in 20 years covered for a man for any of these reasons. I wonder where the husband is? If we aren’t willing to make our spouses share in the workload of having children why should a corporation? Why should your co-workers? Also careers in the new millennium require relocation. Rarely do I see husbands uprooting for their spouses. Frequently I see wives uprooting for their spouses.
We are looking for corporations to make special rules for us and our family needs. If we are truly ever going to achieve equality in the work place we need to start that equality at home. Family issues have been attributed to the needs of a female employee. They are not. When a corporation looks to attract females to their organization they immediately review the resources and expenses that will be needed to address family issues. Why is this only a need for women?
Women need to hold their spouses accountable in sharing the time off, late starts, early departures, and adjusted travel that comes with having a family. If men were burdened with the stress of having a family and a career and if corporations were losing men because they were not able to meet these demands, you would see a major shift in corporate culture. No longer would this be a women’s issue or a resource needed when hiring women.
I have always been a firm believer that affirmative action and family benefits starts at home. Consider these questions before we ask the corporate world to change society:
How many women/minority owned business do you personally support?
How often do you ask your husband to miss a day at work, go in late, leave early or cancel a business trip, for John or Sue’s cold, soccer, or play?
Just a thought from….
I used to work for a major food retailer in Chicago. In the late ’70s, they were proud of the fact that they had one female store manager. Fast forward to 2007, and the same retailer has only a handful of female store managers on their payroll. The same chain has lost considerable market share in the city. Is there a direct correlation? I have to believe there is.
The major obstacle to women rising to the corporate ranks of food retailing are the men currently running the companies. One day, a major retailer will get smart, and have only women in senior management, and create a more female user-friendly environment. It will be a great competitive advantage at the store level.
Albertsons’ board of directors, as of 2/2/2006, had 6 women and 6 men. Of the 5 most highly compensated executives, one person was female. Albertsons was one of the largest supermarket chains in the country, and they decided to sell off the company. The gender balance of the board was fairly unusual, yet that in itself didn’t lead to superior performance overall, nor did it lead to gender balance in top management. Also, if Catalyst updated their performance figures annually, their case might have greater strength.
I have but one piece of this puzzle to offer. I think in trying to promote diversity, some companies go too far–creating “walled gardens” for women that don’t let them get exposure to the experience they need. Mutual support and reinforcement is great, but it’s not the be-all end-all.
I find it detrimental when women “stick together” in the workplace. I’ve been subjected to corporate mentoring programs that tried to pair me up, either as mentee or as mentor, to other women. Personally, I found that to be extremely unhelpful. Instead, I deliberately sought out mentors that could help me succeed at my job, no matter their gender–it’s experience that counts.
I would also like to see how those middle management numbers break out across retail function, because I suspect that the number of women coming up through the ranks of store manager–a critical piece of experience in retail–is slim. The hours are killer, and the management programs often relocate people as often as every 6 months. That kind of career is very difficult to support in a 2-income family because it’s really hard on the spouse, and it’s still women more than men who as a result defer or chose to make their career the secondary consideration.
This is an easy one. What’s holding women back? I think it’s called men.
There is nothing preventing women from rising through the ranks of the supermarket industry. The percentage of women in the executive ranks represents the percentage of women who have simply made the decision to do what is needed to move up to that level. We live in a country where we are free to choose our own careers and income.
One thing I have learned about people is that if they want to do something badly enough, they will find a way to get it done. It comes down to the fact that many women simply do not have enough desire to do so. The talent and ability are there but not the desire to do whatever it takes. Our basic instincts are to be attractive to the opposite sex. Women know that being a sex object accomplishes this and men know that being a success object works for them. Men taking high level executive positions is just the 13 year old boy in them showing off for the girls. If we men weren’t so obsessed with power and success and women obsessed with being sexually attractive, maybe this would not be an issue.
I believe this issue goes much further than stereotypes and communication style. For example, which gender comes to our mind first when we think of a police person? A president? A doctor? A mayor? Who more often “inherits” the CEO-ship of the family business, the oldest daughter or the oldest son? If a marriage has an overt alpha, is it more often the man or the woman? We are a patriarchal society, where deep cultural elements of power, authority, and greater value are assigned to men and boys.
It is great to work to change these patterns in small ways and with many different approaches; after all, I doubt if we would get very far if a law were passed that said, “American society will no longer be a patriarchal one, it will be a gender-equal one.” But I also think we need to recognize that we are all steeped in a set of values and ideals that we are only vaguely aware of.
The upper ranks of all industries now require executives to be on call 24/7/365. It is impossible to combine this level of work with childbearing and childrearing. That’s why:
— 20% of American women in their 40s are childless.
— The figure for those in their 30s is likely to rise to 25%.
— The figure is 33% for women in their late 30s with graduate degrees.
— The number of women with only one child has doubled since 1976, to 18%.
— 40% OF COLLEGE-EDUCATED WOMEN ARE NOT IN THE WORKFORCE.
The cost of having children is even higher for professional women. A career interrupted for childbearing may never get back on track, while postponing motherhood raises other issues such as marriageability and infertility.
No wonder so many women prefer to work for small companies, or to start their own businesses (over 10 million have done so).
We would all like to think that we are open-minded and hold no preconceived ideas as to what a CEO should look like. We also like to think that we are at a point that men and women are complete equals when it comes to opportunity and pay. Unfortunately, it is not the case. In the Broadway show “Avenue Q,” there is a song that says, “we are all a little bit racist.” That still seems to be the case where women are concerned. As long as the boards of directors are so predominantly male, it is difficult for more women to become CEOs.
Ms. Johnson hit a critical nerve regarding the female leaning towards empathetic behavior. It is this trait that helps them climb inside the minds of shoppers and connect with them relevantly a bit more easily. And it’s this that helps them deal with emotionally charged decisions from a different perspective, sometimes with very positive outcomes. The fact that many male dominated companies don’t recognize and reward this is sad but it’s our reality today.
A challenge not brought forth is one I experienced often before starting my own company and, because I’m a female, I feel comfortable to put it out and vent about it. This is the tendency for certain women to “take” unfair treatment and not do anything about it. Let me expand.
Certain types of men chase the “alpha position” at all costs due to their competitive nature. Many brilliant women crank out amazing thinking but don’t have the moxie in their personalities to claim it and defend it voraciously. The men around them who are looking to climb the ladder at all costs are all too happy to steal their contributions and run with them. Maybe it’s because so many women are raised to play nice and make everyone happy…I don’t know.
But I’ve often practically turned purple watching a woman sit subserviently as she’s being run over by someone stealing their thinking/credit in front of an executive. And then go cry in the bathroom rather than take on the situation and put the offenders in their place!
Another example is in not setting boundaries with upper management and co-workers appropriately. At my old firm, I reported to the CEO and in my first major executive meeting (in a room full of men) he asked me if I took shorthand. Then he stated that they needed more coffee and looked at me. It was up to me to ask them all if they would like for me to fetch an admin for either duty. It didn’t happen twice.
My point is that the cold hard reality for women is that it’s still a male dominated world. We can’t change that. What we can change is how we respond to it and how we learn to play the game while still creating value in how we think, act, process and respond to the situations that hold us back. We need to take a stand, be powerful, and make sure that we matter…but in our own unique way. It’s not going to change until we do!
Recently, a few studies indicate that women aren’t choosing typical career plans, although they are more than willing to invest the time and energy required, from getting the degrees to aligning themselves for the opportunities to get a lot of real world experience as they prepare for the top job. At some point, they seem to be choosing not to go that route. Perhaps it’s exercising their true control. If they want it all, they often choose starting their own business.
The status of the executive office just doesn’t seem to have the appeal the way it does with men. Linear progression may becoming a thing of the past.
As usual, when we have a discussion on this subject, we pre-suppose that the jobs at the top are equally desirable for men and women. But what if they’re not? Has anyone done any studies on how many women apply for top jobs and don’t get them? Maybe there just aren’t as many women interested in being supermarket bosses as there are men interested in going through all the necessary stages that others have already specified.
Another theory I read for the first time today mentioned a term coined at Exeter University–glass cliff. It is used to describe high level jobs that women get but at which they are expected to fail. The argument put forward was that certain jobs are such high risk that companies use them to appear to be promoting women but in fact, as per that old Peter Principle, are simply promoting them to the level of their own incompetence. Although men do sometimes achieve similar positions, the University researchers claim that if someone is expected to fail, that job is more often given to a woman than a man. By men, of course, who probably want an excuse to announce that they told her so.
Lots of high powered executives in England have left their jobs in recent years; more often women than men. Most relevant and recent is Angela Spindler, head of Asda/Wal-Mart’s George fashion label.
I have to disagree with David Livingston’s statement that “There is nothing preventing women from rising through the ranks of the supermarket industry.” Just ask a group of female store managers or female executives. Old boy networks abound, stereotypes continue, and lack of networking opportunities exist. That’s not to say there aren’t supportive male managers who serve as mentors and great role models. There just aren’t enough of them.
Having a strong commitment from the CEO and regular accountability for analyzing progress in the advancement of women, and people of color, are essential ingredients for change.
And I have found that female shoppers love knowing that women are also involved in corporate decision making and represent their point of view. It adds to the company’s credibility and bottom line, as the Catalyst study shows.