Women have achieved equality in most areas of the workplace, but not in the executive suite. A new study from DDI’s Center for Applied Behavioral Research suggests that the problem is “the Matthew Effect” (the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer). In the early stages of a person’s career, a man is more likely to be viewed as having management potential than a woman in a similar position. This inequality widens as the person’s career progresses. The report says:
Read the full report for more details. (GW)
The Matthew Effect Hits the Glass Ceiling | The Performance Improvement Blog | Stephen Gill | 17 June 2009
News
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Facebook
Join us on LinkedIn
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
And women have not achieved pay equity for many of the same reasons (lower pay initially may mean one will never catch up).
The main issue is that there is still a bit of neanderthalism in our DNA.(gender bias,old boys clubs of all sorts)Most companies would not push deviants into management positions because they need soldiers.however, by not getting women up there the empathy factor is limited, in terms of how a company relates to its customers and in some cases, service may suffer.We all pray for equal opportunity and the non fear of folks who appear to resist the corporate DNA and do things “different”.The Matthew factor is everywhere.it’s hard wired in most organizations.
It is also possible that fewer women commit to their careers as early and as deeply as most men do, which means that men of a similar age simply have more experience and (shocking though it may seem) might actually BE more qualified for a position. Studies have shown that business success is often linked to lessons in team-work learned through playing middle-school and high-school sports, a domain where women prefer to watch rather than participate.
At university, I was denied a scholarship solely and expressly because I was male (females with lower scores than mine received scholarships). This forced me to work while at university, resulting in my having several years work experience when I graduated. This “advantage of not receiving a scholarship” has accelerated my career growth beyond females who graduated with me. Advantage begets advantage, as they say.
Perhaps if the scholarships had been granted based on merit and demonstrated ability rather then gender – I might not have been required to work during college and some female who DID have to work would have an executive position instead of me.
Maybe the anti-feminine, misandroistic, feminist movement is actually *hurting* women by demanding special treatment for them, as if they lacked the ability to compete on a level-playing field. Or maybe I’m just someone who disagrees with you, and you can dismiss me as “typical” without truly considering my statements…