Last year, companies were, by and large, focused on execution. It’s part of an age-old “Do It Now” philosophy that’s effective in terms of building and maintaining momentum. In times of economic downturn, it’s a good way to keep things moving forward. Now, companies all over the world are focusing on strategy. One of the most remarkable things a company can do, then, is to consider what their team members and employees are capable of and implementing ways of putting these capabilities to the test.

More and more, high-impact organizations are ensuring that their leadership development strategy is evolving to include a plan for placing women in leadership roles.  “Women in leadership roles” is a topic ringing of the past – often referred to as “the glass ceiling effect”; yet I can’t pick up a trade journal, attend a conference, or speak to an industry guru today without the discussion arising again. This past holiday weekend, I was again reminded as I reviewed this quote that was posted in a tweet to me:

“Whether there are innately female leadership styles... is not really the right question. It is more important to ask why there has been so little attention paid to women leaders over the years as well as why the styles of leading more often exhibited by women are particularly useful at this critical moment in history.”  ----- Charlotte Bunch

In looking at today’s political scene, more women are counting themselves in in order to make real change in the way our government is being led. In fact, for the first time in 220 years, three women are now serving on the United States Supreme Court. In the corporate world, the numbers are not quite so attractive. In fact, as shared by Fast Co. in September of this year, there are only 28 women CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies. And, while women make up 56 percent of the American workforce, only 2.8 percent of the Fortune 1000 companies are led by female CEOs. Years ago in the context of the ‘glass ceiling’, the issue of women and leadership most often fell in the category of “diversity and inclusion.” For many, the same still appears to be true. Yet, why is it that women are considered a “diversity” when they constitute 60 percent of university graduates in Europe and North America? How do women come to be considered a “minority” when they now make the majority of spending decisions and control about $20 trillion in consumer purchasing each year? Isn’t it time to change our paradigm and cease with the “women are a diversity” propaganda? Isn’t it time that companies explain why their strategies don’t include an equal commitment to succession planning for women as for men?

Credible and recent survey results from Columbia Business School on this topic reveal that most US companies are still not taking this issue very seriously. Consider the following North American data as shared by Columbia:

·         Overall, less than 11 percent of executive officer positions were held by women in 2008, representing no statistically significant change from 2006.

·         Seventy-one of 100 firms surveyed had no female executive officers.

·         Women represent approximately 40 percent of the MBA population, but the numbers of female representation in the executive officer pool are incredibly low.  US companies are not alone.

Consider the salary data shown here from a 2010 CIMA Global survey: 

*This statistic is from the US Labor Department, not the CIMA Global survey.

In consideration of this gender-balance research data, here’s what I take away:

·         The glass ceiling still exists - Across the globe, women are still struggling to reach the C-Suite and achieve balance with their male counterparts.  Over half (56) of companies in the S&P 100 have no female and/or minority representation in their highest paid executive positions.

·         No disclosure equal/no accountability - Only 8 companies of the S&P 100 disclose full EEO-1 data, that is, a full breakdown of the workforce by race and gender across employment categories. 

·         Integration and innovation abound – Only 34 percent of the S&P companies include gender balance measures within their compensation plans.

Above and beyond the gender balance issue, financial performance of companies that represent and embrace gender balance at the top has been documented as well. Gender-balanced companies are reporting better financial results and appear to be better positioned to generate long-term value for their shareholders.

In fact, on the CIMA Global website, McKinsey recently shared this quote: “Having more women in senior roles is linked to stronger financial performance.” Further, a study of more than 500 US businesses found that average sales revenues were more than 10 times higher for organizations with a good mix of men and women on the board. Without a pipeline of female and minority executives in highly-paid, highly responsible positions, it will be very difficult to achieve gender balance at the top and may be challenging to achieve strong financial performance.

In my next blog, I’ll share why women still aren’t making it to the top.

For now, I’m interested in your thoughts on this topic:

Do women hold positions of senior leadership in your company?  Why or why not?

Please share your thoughts by writing to me at barb.arth@bersin.com.