Yesterday the New York Times published in its "Your Money" section a report on "How Suite It Isn't: The Dearth Of Female Bosses." The report featured the story of Carol Bartz, a 1971 UW-Madison graduate who by the early 1990s had become one of the first women to run a large corporation. But the report suggests that, even in the 21st century, Bartz is still somewhat of an anomaly:
While top business schools are churning out an increasing number of female M.B.A.’s, only about 16 percent of corporate officers at Fortune 500 companies are women, according to Catalyst, an organization that studies women in the workplace. The numbers are even sparer at the top of the pyramid: women fill only nine, or less than 2 percent, of the chief executive jobs at Fortune 500 companies.
“There have been women in the pipeline for 20 to 25 years; progress has been slower than anybody thought it ever would be,” laments Julie H. Daum, the North American board practice leader for Spencer Stuart, the executive search firm. She says she does not expect the situation to change anytime soon. “It’s not as if we’re in the beginning of something that’s going to explode and that there are going to be lots of women in the c-suite,” she said. “I think we’re still way far removed from where we should be and from where women would like to be.”
Lest anyone think the dearth of female CEOs is a product of a generation gap, check out Business Week's list of 100 CEOs under the age of 40. The younger CEOs represent a range of industries worth as much as $17 billion--you won't find many women on the list.
In Wisconsin, the situation is grim. The Center on Wisconsin Strategy in its 2006 State of Working Wisconsin report found that "Wisconsin women are less likely to work in managerial or professional positions than almost all other states."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In Wisconsin, the situation is grim. The Center on Wisconsin Strategy in its 2006 State of Working Wisconsin report found that "Wisconsin women are less likely to work in managerial or professional positions than almost all other states."
No one should be surprised by this. The relationship between education and career advancement is clear, and there is no public institution in the state that is more brazenly and unapologetically sexist than the UW System.
When you look at gender splits on things like faculty retention and promotion rates it's clear that the UW System sucks ass. Everyone knows that. But I would like to see someone take a look at things like undergraduate hiring in jobs related to majors, and hours worked in those jobs. These are things that directly impact stuff like grad school admissions and entry level employment opportunities. And I would bet anything that what you would see is numbers that skew heavily male, even in majors where performance skews female.
But I am not expecting to see anything like that anytime soon. Nobody goes looking for the embarrassing shit.
Post a Comment