Women Fail to Pull Their Corporate Share

Ladies, you have apparently been slacking off at the office, and as such, you have failed to reach executive positions in the top publicly traded companies in California in the numbers you "should" have.

Okay, so I'm kidding by twisting this story around in an effort to get your attention. Nathan Olivarez-Giles reports in the Los Angeles Times that top female execs in these companies are still "rare" according to a study.

Citing "a bleak picture of the progress of women in corporate leadership" over the last five years, the report said that women held just 10.6% of executive positions and board seats at the state's biggest companies this year, a slight decline over 2008.

And yet women outnumber men as students in higher education. So what is going on? Is it sexism, or are women holding themselves back (including spending too much time in higher education), or is it just taking time for women to filter up...or is it a combination of these things?

And what are the stats on women in smaller businesses, sole proprietorships, and public sector jobs? I wouldn't be surprised if women actually hold more shares of these companies than men, especially through retirement investments such as mutual funds, as women are more likely to outlive their husbands.

The survey of California's 400 largest publicly traded companies by UC Davis and a women's advocacy and networking organization found that the number of women in top leadership positions had barely budged since the study began in 2005.

What, so in four years you expected major changes?

The reasons for the stagnation are complex, said Wendy Beecham, chief executive of the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives, which helped UC Davis produce the study.

Part of the problem, she said, is that women don't always have role models or mentors to help them advance in corporate careers.

It can be worse than that. Women I know have told me they think it typical of women they work under to stab them in the back. If women are doing this more than men, they are holding each other back.

Also, she said, people tend to hire those who are like themselves.

That's what I mentioned with the filtering up. Although, smart business people like to hire someone who has skills they don't, to fill a need.

In general, smart businesspeople care most about what a person can do for the business, not their skin color, sex, or whatever, unless that is integral to the position.

The filtering up takes time, unfortunately.

Of the companies surveyed, 15, or 3.8%, have female chief executives, up from 13 in 2008, the report said. Women hold 9.8% of the 3,252 board seats at the firms.

Almost half, 46.3%, of the companies have no female directors, and 30% had no female directors or top executives.

I know I have ladies reading this blog. What do you think?

I think we'll eventually see more women in those executive positions, but I doubt it will ever be 50/50. The fact is, women carry, birth, and nurse babies – men don't; there are also other biological and socioligical factors at play. That doesn't mean there aren't (and won’t be a lot more) excellent female executives; it just means that when you are dealing with the world as a whole (or in this case, a large state), the fact that men and women are different does have an impact. Even with truly equal opportunity, not everyone is going to take opportunities in an identical way or use them in an identical way. Throw in barriers to equal opportunity, and the disparity is even more pronounced.