Too many able and well-qualified women will continue to be under-promoted and underpaid unless more men are prepared to work part-time and accept sideways career moves, according to a leading expert on workforce development.
It is now well-known that women have overtaken men academically. Women also spend more time in adult education and training than men do. But they still earn considerably less than men, on average, and climb fewer rungs on the career ladder.
Many women are consequently working below their true level of competence – a social phenomenon that Dr Tom Schuller, a visiting professor at the Institute of Education, University of London, has termed the ‘Paula Principle’. It is the opposite of the Peter Principle, the 1960s management theory that employees (at that time, usually men) are generally promoted to their level of incompetence.
Dr Schuller believes that there are several reasons why many women do not progress as far as they should at work. Some simply choose not to seek promotion but others are held back by:
- Discrimination – either covert or overt
- Caring responsibilities – for their parents as well as their children
- Lack of self-confidence
- Insufficient contact with managers who can mentor them.
He argues that the underutilisation of women’s talents is not only unfair but economically damaging for the UK and many other developed nations
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has reported that — at the current rate of slow progress — it will be 2080 before there is an equal number of men and women directors in Britain’s top 100 companies. But Dr Schuller emphasises that the debate about gender equality should not focus exclusively on breaking through ‘glass ceilings’. The Paula Principle applies at all levels of organisational structures.
How can the problem be addressed? Dr Schuller, a former head of education research at the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, says that stronger anti-discrimination measures are needed. Affordable childcare and more career mentoring for women are also required.
However, he is now convinced that even this will not be enough to bring about the necessary culture shift. “Men’s career patterns will need to change too,” he will tell an IOE research seminar later today. “Too much of the emphasis on gender equality at work involves helping women to work more like men. It is time to enable more men to work in ways that are currently the preserve of women.
“Men need to stop thinking about a career only in terms of continuously moving up a vertical ladder and think positively about lateral moves, perhaps working part-time and, above all, choosing work which uses their competences but does not go beyond them. Not only would the country benefit if that happens, I believe that many men would be happier too.”
One practical implication is that most jobs would in future have to be routinely advertised and available on a flexible hours basis.
Dr Schuller, who is writing a book about the Paula Principle, says that radical action is required because even though the male/female pay gap appears to be closing for younger women, it is narrowing at a slower rate than the female/male competence gap is widening.
Furthermore, the apparent improvement in the pay gap may be partly illusory. He cites research based on data gathered by the IOE’s Centre for Longitudinal Studies on women born in 1958 and 1970. It shows that whilst the pay gap at the point of entry to the labour market has largely closed it widens again further along the career path.
“Worryingly, this gap is opening up at a faster rate for the 1970 cohort of women,” he points out. “That is unacceptable. If women are achieving more and more they should get the pay and career rewards they deserve.”
In the same email that led me to this blog there was another one citing research that says to ‘get on’ women often end up having to act like men. Which doesn’t help this issue.
In general I think we need a mindset shift in what constitutes ‘progress’ at work, and what ‘leadership’ really means. We all know of people (both genders) who are very good in their chosen technical competence, but in order to ‘make progress’ push for promotion and end up being once-good technical people who are not necessarily so good at either the people skills or the delegation and strategic thinking that is needed in the centre.
Maybe its time to break the myth that senior people alone determine the performance and future of organisations. (Alongside the myth that Governments really control the economy 🙂
If we accepted that organisations are more complex than that, maybe strategy and governance could become just functions in a healthily collaborating company.
We could dispense with the greasy pole altogether, and people would feel more able to aim for the role/function they were most suited to.
I realise this is something of a pipe-dream, but maybe that would help men and women be able to be themselves.
Interesting side issue. In my job I get to talk to lots of people who struggle with being themselves at work and instead invest a lot of energy into playing the game. Problem is, everyone I talk to is struggling with the same issue. I’ve never yet found the person who is setting the rules everyone thinks they have to conform to …..
The idea is good but unfortunatly not practical in the UK due to the pension system that we have here. It can only work in the rest of europe due to the pension guarentee that european workers have.
Pushing further to force change in society and companies is not the way to tackle the problem. In America, that is what they did and now women get more pay that men and better positions. Is it equality?
We keep talking about women not flourishing at work. Do men flourish at work? Women want to work more and get better positions ; Why would men be happy in these positions?
what we can see from the argument above, is a feminist trying to implement theories. Not equalitarian theorist implementing strategies.
Having worked in Education and teaching Sociology ; I can say that this argument that women do better at school is back up by theorist who argue that the school is girl friendly ; meaning that the right learning attitude mirrors female attitude and it is the reason why they do better.
We need to change the way we speak about things. Why staying at home or being part time is not flourishing?
Can we say that women who want to copy men’s attitude ; reach a model provided to them, are free to do what they want?
Just to add a little more light on the issue, take a look at this insightful doc recently aired on Canada’s CBC about women and the workforce: http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/motherload