In America, 49.6% of the workforce is female, but less than 5% of Fortune 500 companies’ CEOs are female. I found several variables contributing to this confusing proportion. Since this is an election year and we’ve seen glaring examples of performance vs. potential, let’s focus on that variable for this discussion. A Presidential campaign is a job interview. During the democratic campaigns, the female candidates highlighted their resumes (what they did) while the male candidates promoted their plans (what they intend to do); evidence that women are judged on past performance and men are judged on potential. How does this societal inclination to evaluate a gender show up in the workforce?
This study on hiring reveals when the past performances of female and male candidates were equal, the female candidates were held to a higher standard. Unconscious bias lessened the women’s leadership potential in the hiring team’s opinion. These negative labels pervade the workforce. They’re exhausting to fight and often invisible. Let’s say Jane and Joe have the same position, the same resume, and are up for the same promotion. If Joe receives it, Jane probably won’t ask her boss if he chose Joe because he thinks Joe has more potential than she does. Instead, Jane will probably feel like she doesn’t belong at her company and look for a more welcoming environment. We have to realize unconscious bias is someone else’s opinion of us; not the truth, and have the endurance to battle it day after day. But, who has the energy to constantly validate her ideas to upper management while simultaneously doing the job?
Traditionally, when a project succeeds, a female leader shares credit with her team and a male leader assumes the credit for himself. Diluting her contribution, the female leader is easily overlooked for bigger projects. A man claiming credit gets leadership roles because no one asked how the project got done. They only saw who claimed credit for getting it done. The performance review process is a minefield of subjectivity and unconscious bias. One answer is to make the evaluation more about whether last year’s performance goals were met (this is typically how a male is evaluated), not how hard the employee had to work to meet them (this is typically how a female is evaluated). This challenges HR to rework the process using a filter of diversity and inclusion, which may require both training and a review committee. When women have to keep proving competency over and over, this slows down our advancement. How can we excel at past performance if we’re denied opportunities to perform?
Speaking of HR, in this poll of women working in the IT industry, 63% of them said the hiring process in the market is biased against female IT applicants. When women are hired, we start dropping out of the advancement track around middle management for obvious reasons: no women in next-level positions in whose footsteps we can follow, no access to casual networks (the old boys’ club), and lack of mentors (male or female) in upper management. But there’s also a not-so-obvious reason: a culture of embedded mindsets and entrenched beliefs. (E.g., men make better leaders because they’re more analytical and less emotional than women.) How much talent is wasted because of these barriers?
As usual, I have more questions than answers. If you have answers, please share your experience in the comments section.