Gender differences in career interests - what changes since 1990?

I always like to read anything written by Itamar Gati. So much research within careers is small scale and qualitative; these studies are of course important and provide richness and flavour to our understanding. But Gati's study provide another element. Gati does BIG STUDIES with BIG DATA and although I don't particularly agree with his approach to careers in many respects, I do love his academic rigour.

This study looked at data provided by 38,000 young adults who had filled in a career interest inventory either in 1990 or in 2010 and compared the changes over time and the differences between sexes.

The findings indicate that gender differences in career interests have narrowed during that period, but a significant gap remains. I'll go on to highlight a few interesting details, but perhaps the most important point is that the data provide some evidence that differences in career interests may be socialised rather than genetic. If differences were genetic (ie girls were just born to find caring jobs more interesting) then we would be less likely to see changes over time.

Gender differences have reduced overall, but there are a few notable examples. Women in 1990 were far less interested in professional advancement, management, authoritativeness and income than men. In 2010 the differences were much reduced suggesting that young women these days are more likely to want to climb the career ladder. This feels like great progress and with any luck this change in interests may lead to more women making their way up the career ladder to the board room.

There are some areas in which gender differences have increased and these include counselling and community service. The gender differences have increased because men are now less likely to cite these as interests. And this is not such a good thing for diversity in the work place. These were female dominated areas twenty years ago and are now even more so.

What this says about gender equality is complex, and I'm not sure that it's easy to work out. It is surely a good thing that women are now feeling that they can overtly state a desire to climb to the top of the corporate ladder. But men becoming less interested in caring professions? What does that say?

My concern is that both these changes indicate that male values and male style are becoming increasingly valued in society. The jobs and qualities that have traditionally been seen as the reserve of men are clearly valued and women now are confident enough to aspire to these arenas. But the roles that have been traditionally associated with women are becoming less valued by society and men are less likely to want to be associated with them.

I wonder if the real sign of gender equality will be not only when women make up half the board room, but when men make up half the counsellors.

Gati, I. and Perez, M. (2013) Gender differences in career preferences from 1990 to 2010: gaps reduced but not eliminated Journal of Counseling psychology 

Erotic Capital: feminist solution or hostage to fortune?

I feel it's about time for another feminist rant. I'm co-writing a  paper* about attractiveness in the work place, what advantages it confers on the beautiful and whether career practitioners should get involved in discussions around these kinds of issues.

Our starting place for this paper was a concept coined by Catherine Hakim - 'erotic capital'. We've heard of social capital and cultural capital, and Hakim suggests that erotic capital is similar, representing the advantages that can come with being attractive. She defines 'attractive' broadly, covering nice clothes, a good hair-do, posture, poise and charm as well as pure physical beauty.
Hakim is a sociologist and has written extensively on feminist issues in the past. She proposes the notion of erotic capital as a feminist one, but I'm not so sure about its long term contribution to equality. She acknowledges that women face considerable barriers in the work place, and suggests that women therefore should take full advantage of whatever assets they have. She says that research suggests that men rarely get enough sex, and therefore are often susceptible to the charms of a pretty lady.

Her point makes some sense in the short term. Women do indeed face unfair discrimination in the work place. They need to be better than their male counterparts to get the same rewards, and face prejudice in all industry areas at all levels. We've been trying for some time to get equality and haven't managed it - maybe it is time for a new approach? But I think we need to feel sure that a new approach doesn't do any damage.

One particular barrier which I think is pertinent to this debate is that women are assumed to be not as good as men in the work place. There is evidence from Neilsen and Huse (2010) that in the board room, people assume that women aren't going to make valuable contributions, and so are less likely to pay attention or rate their opinions. Schein's (1993) replication of her earlier Think Manager Think Male study (really interesting stuff - do google it if you haven't come across it before) showed that men still think that women in general don't have the skills you need to be a good manager.

So, my concern is this. If women go along with Hakim's suggestions, and make sure that they dress elegantly, spend money on expensive haircuts, and  flatter and charm male colleagues, it may indeed lead to  higher salaries and promotions. And who wouldn't want that? But what happens to all the stereotypes and prejudice in ten years time when the board rooms are full of attractive women who have got there by flashing their eyelashes and showing a well turned ankle, working side by side with men who have got their by merit? Are we not fueling the existing prejudice that women have less to contribute in the work place than men?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am concerned that this approach may compound existing prejudices in the long term.

Nelisen, S. and Huse, M. (2010) Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception European Management Review 7 16 – 29
Schein, V. E., & Davidson, M. J. ( 1993). Think manager–think male: Managerial sex typing among U.K. business students. Management Development Review, 6( 3), 24– 28

* with Tristram Hooley from iCeGs

Do you want a pay rise? Here's how...

Judge and Cable in the Journal of Applied Pscyhology last year (2011 vol 96) found some evidence to confirm all my worst fears about the relationship between women's weight and the workplace. Thin (by which I mean actively, unhealthily, under-weight) women, it seems, are paid significantly more than women at a healthy weight. The evidence suggests that for men, their pay tends to go up as their weight goes up, until their weight reaches obesity, when pay levels off and then decreases. For women, their pay goes down as their weight goes up, and does this particularly rapdily between 'thin' and 'average'. What is particularly striking about this study is that some of the data came from within-individuals. So as well as looking at the population as a whole (thin women tend to earn more than average women), they traced participants' earnings and weight throughout their careers, showing that as an individual woman's weight goes up and down, so her salary, correspondingly, is likely to go down and up.

Their explanation is all about the social desirability of body shapes. While men are thought to be undesirable both when they are too thin and too fat, a larger man, within the bounds of a healthy weight, is accorded more respect in the workplace. In contrast, for women, being actively thin is most socially desired and best rewarded.

Mother hood and part time working

I've been a bit silent on my blog for a few weeks now, but I was just doing some research in to the impact that motherhood has on women's careers and found some interesting bits to share.
One that irked, but perhaps didn't surprise me, was the evidence about part time workers. The first piece of information was about the workers themselves, and suggested that women are so very grateful at being allowed to work flexibly (or possibly so concerned to make a success of their flexible arrangements), that they put in more hours than they are paid for, and that because they don't suffer from work-fatigue, they are more productive per hour. Supervisor ratings for part time workers also tend to be higher. BUT when the researchers asked managers in general terms about part timers, they reported that they they are thought to be less committed, harder to motivate, harder to manage and less caring about their jobs, their departments and their customers. They tend to receive lower pay, fewer fringe benefits, fewer opportunities for promotion and less training and because they are less likely to be members of a Union, they have lower job security.

Managers also reported that they thought that mothers (full time or part time) were more likely to suffer from work-family conflict (e.g. having to leave work early to pick up children, taking days off when the children are sick) than either fathers or non-mothers, and that this (NB the perception not the reality) has a knock-on effect on their chances of promotion.

Humph, grump, grump etc.