Aequus Partners' Diversity and Flexibility e-newsletter, July 2008

Dear Colleagues

In this newsletter we examine gender diversity in Australia, China and the United Kingdom. In particular we highlight research on what Australian women are looking for in an employer of choice, gender inequity in (urban) China and the factors influencing women’s participation on UK Boards.

In essence each of these pieces of research identifies continued workplace inequities between men and women. What are the solutions? Given the connection between gender equity and workplace flexibility, we profile suggestions from an Australasian report launched last week on strategies to bridge the flexibility policy/practice gap.

1. AUS report -  Generation F: Attract, engage, retain.  This Australian report (published by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency) identifies the career aspirations, priorities and expectations of Generation F (female labour force participants aged between 16 and 65 years). The report provides a number of business tips and case examples about how best to support Generation F so as to become an employer of choice for women.
2. Chinese research -  Gender-based employment and income differences in urban China: Considering the contributions of marriage and parenthood.  This academic study identifies the employment related outcomes for women who are single, married or with children, in comparison to their male counterparts. The study finds a significant disparity between the earning and employment outcomes for women who are married/have children, in comparison to their male counterparts, or female counterparts who are single/childless. In essence the study concludes that work/family conflict and traditional role stereotypes help explain gender discrimination in urban China.
3. UK research -  Boards of directors and gender diversity in UK companies.  What kinds of companies are more likely to have women on their Boards? The results from this academic study suggest that a company’s size and sector play a significant role. In essence, companies which are smaller are much more likely (10:1) than larger organisations (226:1) to have a female board director.
4. AUS/NZ research -  2008 Status report on diversity and flexibility.  This research by the Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australia consolidates the hands on experiences of diversity practitioners in best practice organisations in Australia and New Zealand. The 2008 survey includes a special section on workplace flexibility, the results of which are profiled in this note. In essence the report concludes that building managerial capability to implement flexibility, and enabling managers to access flexibility, are the two key strategies to bridging the flexibility policy/practice gap.

1.  AUS report -  Generation F:  Attract, engage, retain

Larger than the widely discussed "Generation Y", the Equal Employment Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) has coined the term "Generation F", to describe all women in the Australian labour force aged between 16 and 65 years. Generation F provides 45% of Australia’s total labour force and EOWA’s report identifies the "career aspirations, priorities and expectations "of Generation F in terms of the factors they look for in an employer, as well as numerous ideas for business about being an employer of choice for women. This note provides a summary of the report highlights including statistical findings and business tips to address gender equity.

1.2  Method

Research participants comprised 1610 women and men aged between 20 and 55 years who completed an online survey in June 2006. Participants worked in one of fifty private sector organisations on a full-time, part-time or casual basis. A total of seven focus groups were also conducted in June 2006 among Australian women aged between 20-59 years. The research was conducted by Hays (a recruitment firm) in collaboration with EOWA.

1.3  Findings

Overall, the results suggest that Generation F have the same expectations and ambitions as men when job seeking and during their employment (and in particular that women are equally as ambitious as men in the workplace), yet both men and women perceive that women experience discrimination. The report made findings in relation to (i) job-seeking; (ii) gender equity perceptions; (iii) harassment; and (iv) flexibility.

(i)  Job seeking

1. Both women and men identify good pay and bonuses as the most important factor when job seeking.
2. Women are likely to consider additional factors while job seeking including: the availability of paid maternity leave, promotion and support for women, flexible working conditions and women in senior positions.

(ii)  Gender equity perceptions

1. 25% of women and 21% of men believe that gender equality in the workplace has yet to be achieved.
2. 29% of women and 37% of men say that men in their workplace progress more quickly than women.
3. 53% of women and 56% of men believe promotions and job opportunities are not always based on merit.

(iii)  Harassment

1. 8% of women left their previous job because of bullying and harassment, while 2% left due to sexual harassment.

(iv)  Flexibility

1. 17% of women believe their workplace offers no flexibility.
2. 12% of women resigned due to a desire for greater work-life balance.

1.4  Conclusions

In order to meet the needs of Generation F, and thereby become an employer of choice for women, the report provides a number of suggestions for business in terms of (i) recruitment, creating a culture of gender equity; (iii) career development; and (iv) retention.

Some of the suggestions include:

(i)  Recruitment

1. Ensure transparency in the recruitment process including looking at the roles a business is recruiting for, organisational recruitment processes, as well as a sourced recruitment panel.

(ii)  A culture of gender equality

1. Train management to be aware of the importance of staff engagement and ensure that open communication occurs through all departments and levels of the organisation.
2. Develop a consistent scorecard for all review and promotion processes, ensuring equitable implementation by management.
3. Ensure meetings are held at times and places where staff can attend and have the opportunity to share their opinions and voice any concerns.
4. Conduct organisation wide surveys including: an induction survey; a staff satisfaction or organisational culture survey; and exit interviews.
5. Monitor and compare promotion and transfer rates of female and male employees.

(iii)  Career development

1. Benchmark salary packages and bonuses offered against those of competitors; ensure bonuses are rewarded equitably; ensure both men and women (including full and part-time staff, pregnant women and women on maternity leave) are included in pay review processes.

(iv)  Overall retention of Generation F

1. Consult with women about the nature of improvements/strategies that would assist in balancing work and life responsibilities.
2. Review vacant jobs to see if flexible working arrangements can be accommodated rather than the traditional 9-5 arrangement.
3. Ensure staff who are working flexibly are encouraged to apply for promotions and training and development opportunities.
4. Schedule meetings to ensure all staff can attend (including those with flexible work practices).
5. Introduce paid maternity leave (if not currently available).
6. Consider on-site child care centres; provide referrals to child care facilities in the vicinity of the office; provide staff with reserved places in a child care centre; enable staff to salary sacrifice child care responsibilities. These opportunities should be offered to both female and male employees
7. Create flexibility for all staff just not to parents with children.

For more information see:  "Generation F: attract, engage, retain" at www.eowa.gov.au.


2.  Chinese research - Gender-based employment and income Differences in urban China: Considering the contributions of marriage and parenthood

Past inequities have left Chinese women disadvantaged in terms of human (eg education) and political capital measures. Notwithstanding changes to China’s economy (from socialist to a more open market) and the reduced importance of political capital (eg access to networks), as well as improvements to levels of female education, recent research suggests that Chinese women continue to be disadvantaged in the labour market. Do those inequities explain women’s current experiences in terms of the employment and income disparities with men?

Researchers Zhang (Lehigh University), Hannum (Oxford University) and Wang (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) explore family and parental status in order to identify the relationship between work/family and gender inequity. They argue that pay and employment inequities between men and women cannot be explained by historical human and political capital disadvantages, but are more reflective of work/family conflict as well as underlying traditional work/family role stereotypes.

2.1  Method

Drawn from five large cities in China, a survey was completed by 25-44 year olds with a total sample of 2280. The survey was administered by the Institute for Population Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in collaboration with the National Statistical Bureau. The survey measured (i) labour market outcomes (ie employment status and earnings); (ii) human capital (eg schooling, experience and training); (iii) political capital (via communist party membership (CCP)); (iv) family structure; and (v) time use.

2.2  Findings

Overall the findings suggest for women, marriage and child-bearing have a significant impact on employment and pay outcomes. In particular married women, or women with children, are significantly disadvantaged in comparison with their male counterparts and women who are single (ie those never married, divorced or widowed) or childless. In addition, the data show that women spend more time on household tasks than men, notwithstanding that there is little difference in the time women and men spend in paid work. Specific findings are categorised in terms of (i) human and political capital; (ii) employment outcomes; and (iii) domestic outcomes.

2.2.1  Human and political capital

In terms of human and political capital, the researchers found that there continues to be disparities between men and women. In relation to human capital the differences between men and women are less about skills and educational background, and more about work experience. In relation to political capital, men are twice as likely (17.9%) to be members of the CCP than women (8.3% ) suggesting that men have significantly more political capital than women.

Critically the researchers found that these differences did not sufficiently explain the employment/pay discrepancies between women and men, given the differences within the female cohort (eg single vs married women, parents vs childless women) described below.

2.2.2  Employment outcomes

(i)  Earnings

1. Of women who were married, their earnings were only approximately 77% of those of married men. While for men, whether married or not, there was no significant earning difference.
2. Comparatively, married women earn only 67% of their single female counterparts.
3. There is also a gender gap related to parenting, namely mothers earn 25% less than fathers, and mothers’ earnings are only about 63% of those of women who have no children.
4. For women, marriage was found to have a significant negative effect on income, and having children decreased their income by 14%.

(ii)  Employment

1. Married men were more likely to be employed than unmarried men, while for women being married reduced the odds of being employed by 17%. In addition, women with children are 45% less likely to be employed than women who are childless.
2. For men, being married or even having children, did not have a negative impact on earnings or employment.

2.2.3  Domestic outcomes

(i)  Household factors

1. Working women spent more time doing household chores than working men, 36 hours versus 18 hours per week.
2. For those who are childless, women spent two more hours on housework than men every week. Among employees who had children, this difference was approximately 19 hours.
3. Marriage brought more housework hours for both men and women, up to 17.6 housework hours per week for women, compared to 9.9 hours for men.
4. Overall, women spend 21 more hours on housework than men.

2.3  Conclusion

Taking into account all measures of human and political capital, the researchers found that "women’s odds of currently being employed are still about 45% lower than men’s". After analysing the data in more detail the researchers concluded that the relevant factors contributing to this outcome are marital and parental status. While there is little gender gap between single men and women, or childless men and women, women who are married or who have children experience significant disadvantage in terms of employment and incomes in comparison to their male counterparts.

Are these outcomes explained by overt discrimination or more subtle factors in the workplace and on the domestic front? The data on domestic outcomes, and in particular the disparity in household work for men and women, allude to the endurance of traditional stereotyping and role expectations. Nevertheless the questions remained unanswered. The researchers have laid valuable groundwork for further analysis of the ways in which work/family conflict and stereotyping contribute to gender inequity in China.

For more information see:  Zhang, Y., Hannum, E. & Wang, M. (2008) ‘Gender-based employment and income differences in urban China: Considering the contributions of marriage and parenthood’ Social Forces, 86(4), 1549-1560.


3.  UK research:  Boards of directors and gender diversity in UK companies

Researchers in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US have all identified the under-representation of women at Board level as a feature of their economic landscape. Often this research has been focussed on the top 200 or 500 listed companies. This academic study furthers this global picture, not only by identifying benchmark data about the number of women on all company Boards in the UK, but also by mapping the types of companies which are more (or less) likely to include women. In summary, the researchers Martin (Birmingham City University), Warren-Smith (Harper Adams University College), Scott (Queens University Belfast) and Roper (University of Warwick) identify the size and sector of companies as critical to gender representation, i.e. smaller companies in the service sector are more likely to include women on their Boards.

3.1  Participants

Data was extracted from the Financial Analysis Made Easy (FAME) database which provides access to all companies with registered operations in Great Britain with two or more directors in 2004-05. This data comprises 564,010 companies with 1,952m Board directors. FAME provides a gender indicator for 70% of these companies, of the remaining 30% steps were taken by the researcher so identify gender (eg via salutary titles such as "Ms"). All but 2.5% of directors were assigned gender. The total sample size was 455,300 companies.

3.2  Findings

Overall, 73% of Board directors are male and 27% female. In summary whilst female directors account for approximately 1 in 4 directors in UK firms, only around 1 in 10 are likely to have a majority of female Board leadership (which reduces to 1 in 226 for larger companies). Further women led businesses tend to cluster in the business services sector and are not dispersed across all industries.

Specifically, the researchers found that:

1. Size:  The percentage of women directors tends to be largest for small firms (i.e. those with assets of less than £2.8 million).
2. Dominant paradigm:  Firms with predominantly male leadership are found in much greater numbers than those with predominantly female leadership. Approximately 10:1 overall for small firms, with the distinction even greater for larger firms (i.e. those with assets of more than £11.4 million). For every firm with a female majority on the Board of directors there are 10 firms with a male majority, among larger firms this 10:1 ratio raises to a ratio of 226:1.
3. Overall picture:  62.8% of all firms in the UK remain male dominated.

Of the registered companies in the UK the following is a breakdown of Board diversity by number of directors:

1. "Mom and pop" companies:  firms with two directors, one man and one woman - 24.9% of the sample.
2. Sisterhoods:  firms where the complete group of directors are female - 2% of the sample.
3. Brotherhoods:  firms where the complete group of directors are male - 35.2% of the sample.
4. Matriarchies:  firms with three or more directors where the number of females is greater than that of males - 10.2% of the sample.

In terms of gender representation by sectors, the researchers found that 75% of "sisterhoods" and 69% of matriarchies were in the services sector, with the majority of these services identified as "business services". Women led companies were much less likely to operate in the manufacturing sector than male led firms.

3.3  Conclusion

This research provides a much clearer picture about gender representation on Boards in the UK than research focusing on the top 200 companies. In particular the research identifies the relationship between company size, structure and sector in terms of women’s Board representation. Clearly women are clustered in smaller companies with a narrow focus on business services. Disappointingly, women are significantly under-represented on all Boards, and the Boards of large organisations in particular. The researchers concluded that given the current rate of progress, gender parity will be achieved in the year 2225.

For more information see:  Martin, L. M., Warren-Smith, I., Scott, J.M., & Roper, S. (2008) ‘Boards of directors and gender diversity in UK companies’ Gender in Management: An International Journal, 28(3), 194 -208.


4.  AUS/NZ research:  2008 Status report on diversity and flexibility

Often research about diversity (and flexibility) analyses implementation issues by canvassing the views of employees and/or the responses of employers, and very little attention is given to the perspectives of diversity practitioners – ie those Human Resource practitioners who have practical experience in linking strategy, policy and practice. In 2003, 2005 and now 2008 the Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australia (EEONA) has filled that gap by conducting the Australasian Diversity and Equality Survey (ADES). The ADES tracks the implementation of diversity through the eyes of diversity practitioners in Australia and New Zealand. Key questions concern (i) why are organisations interested in diversity? (ii) how do organisations implement a diversity agenda? (iii) what are the challenges to diversity implementation?; and (iv) how are issues/responses changing over time?

In addition to these general questions, each ADES includes a special section on a topical diversity related issue. In 2008 the ADES reported on workplace flexibility as well as diversity. This note highlights key findings and recommendations in relation to flexibility. In essence the report concludes that building managerial capability to implement flexibility, and enabling managers to access flexibility, are the two key strategies to bridging the flexibility policy/practice gap.

4.1  Aim

To identify the current status of diversity and flexibility practice in Australia and New Zealand, and, where possible, compare results from the 2003 and 2005 surveys.

4.2  Method

In March 2008 the EEONA (a not-for-profit umbrella body of EEO networks across Australia and New Zealand) asked Presidents of the networked organisations in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and New Zealand to invite members to participate in the online ADES. Diversity questions related to (i) the drivers of diversity and expected outcomes; (ii) the nature of diversity initiatives; (iii) data collection and metrics; and (iv) challenges and effective change strategies. Flexibility questions also focussed on these issues plus on the conditions for the effective implementation of flexibility.

Forty-eight members completed the survey in March 2008, representing a diverse range of small, medium and large organisations from private, government and community sectors. In total the survey respondents represented nearly one quarter of a million employees (238,580). In June 2008, twelve EEONA members (from the New South Wales, New Zealand and Victorian networks) participated in a follow-up focus group. Data were analysed by Dr Graeme Russell and Juliet Bourke (Chair EEONA) and launched on 25 July 2008.

4.3  Findings

As noted above the 2008 Status report on diversity and flexibility  makes findings in relation to the current state of play on diversity and flexibility. This note only provides findings in relation to the flexibility section of the report regarding (i) the nature of flexibility initiatives; (ii) expected flexibility outcomes; (iii) drivers of the flexibility agenda; (iv) effective flexibility implementation; (v) opinions about flexibility; and (vi) key differentiators of effective flexibility. Where available the results on the flexibility questions are compared with those for the diversity questions.

In summary, the ADES found that managers hold the key to bridging the gap between flexibility policy and practice. In particular to enable the effective implementation of flexibility, organisations need to help build managerial capability and enable managers (as well as employees) to access flexibility. The report provides specific findings on the nature of that assistance.

(i)  The nature of flexibility initiatives

The most common types of flexibility offered were: (i) part-time work (100%); (ii) flexible start and finish times (89%); (iii) time-in-lieu (88%); (iv) job-share arrangements (81%); (v) tele-working (75%); (vi) career-breaks (72%); and (vii) flexi-time (72%). There was less offering of (i) purchased leave (59%); and (ii) part-year work (29%). Overall, these data suggest that on paper at least, organisations are offering a broad range of flexible work practices.

(ii)  Expected flexibility outcomes

Why are organisations offering flexibility? The highest ranking outcomes for flexibility were (i) recruitment (92%), (ii) retention (92%), (iii) employee engagement (87%); (iv) maximising the performance of staff (87%); and (v) to be an employer of choice (79%). The report observed that survey respondents identified the link between employment outcomes and flexibility.

After comparing the results on the diversity scores vis expected outcomes with the flexibility scores, the report suggested that flexibility is more likely than diversity to be seen as also driving-bottom line benefits associated with (i) a competitive advantage (71% for flexibility compared with 50% for diversity); and (ii) customer service (61% for flexibility compared with 55% for diversity).

The report found that whilst there is still room for improvement in linking flexibility to the broad range of bottom-line benefits (eg (i) creativity and innovation (47%); and (ii) marketing and sales results (43%)), recognition of the employment and business related benefits of flexibility augurs well for the leveraging of organisational commitment to bridge the gap between flexibility policy and practice.

(iii)  Drivers of the flexibility agenda

Survey respondents were asked to identify the main drivers for the organisation’s commitment to flexibility. The highest rankings for flexibility were: (i) alignment with values (88% for flexibility and 95% for diversity); (ii) employee feedback (88% for flexibility and 65% for diversity); (iii) personal leadership commitment (83% for flexibility and 94% for diversity) and (iv) the business case (79% for flexibility and 84% for diversity).

The most interesting of the difference between the scores for diversity and flexibility was the extent to which flexibility, in contrast to diversity, is being driven by "employee pressure" (88% compared with 65% respectively), which, the focus group participants suggested, shows that flexibility is perceived by organisations to have greater relevance across all employees groups This accords with a life cycle approach to flexibility which recognises that flexibility is of value at different life stages, eg to study, to assist with child care, to take career breaks and to enable phased retirement.

Finally, the report observed that "legal compliance" is not as closely linked to flexibility (60%) as diversity (76%), and suggested that this may indicate that organisations are unaware of, or have not yet geared up for, the impact of the (Australian) National Employed Standards  or the (New Zealand) Flexible Working Arrangements Amendments.

(iv)  Effective flexibility implementation

Survey participants were asked to rate on a five-point scale (1 = not effectively at all to 5 = highly effectively) how effectively flexibility had been implemented in their organisation. Notably that the majority of respondents (81%) rated implementation as average or below average and these findings (especially that only 4% rated flexibility as having been implemented highly effectively), indicated that there is considerable room for improvement in approaches to flexibility.

(v)  Opinions about flexibility

Survey respondents were asked a range of questions about flexibility in their own organisations. These questions were designed to identify the ways in which flexibility is working well, and the implementation gaps. The ADES found that survey respondents were less likely to agree that (i) flexibility has been implemented consistently across the organisation (28%); (ii) managers have sufficient confidence to manage difficult implementation issues (35%); (iii) the development of capabilities to work flexibly has been integrated into employee training (35%); and (iv) managers are effective role models for flexible work practices (39%).

A high number of participants (71%) also perceived that the nature of work was a key barrier to the implementation of flexibility. This final result begs further investigation to determine the ambit of this barrier, and whether it is linked to the design of roles at senior levels which have traditionally required a more than full-time commitment.

More positively, 71% of respondents indicated that flexibility is promoted and encouraged, 65% that managers are committed to implementation, 61% that managers are strongly supportive of flexibility and only 29% of respondents said that an employee’s commitment to the organisation would be questioned if they used flexibility options.

(vi)  Key differentiators of effective flexibility

In order to gain a deeper level of insight into the factors which differentiate an organisation in terms of the implementation of flexibility, the sample was divided in terms of people who rated the effective implementation of flexibility as being either low, medium or high, and analyses were then conducted to determine the key differentiators of these three groups.

This analysis provides the greatest points of insight into the necessary focus of organisational strategy to bridge the flexibility policy/practice gap. For example the finding that "67% of those in the highly effective group agreed that managers in their organisation were committed to the effective implementation of flexibility, in contrast with the 5% who agreed with this statement in low functioning organisations" indicates that managerial commitment is a key component of effective implementation.

In terms of priority ranking, the key differentiators are:

1. Managerial commitment to flexibility  (67% agreement in high functioning organisations compared with 5% in low).
2. Managers are effective role models for flexibility  (67% agreement in high functioning organisations compared with 5% in low).
3. There is strong support for managers using flexible work options  (58% agreement in high functioning organisations compared with 5% in low).
4. Managers have sufficient knowledge about how to manage flexible work options  (58% agreement in high functioning organisations compared with 5% in low).
5. Managers strongly support flexible work practices  (50% agreement in high functioning organisations compared with 0% in low).
6. Managers have sufficient confidence to manage difficult implementation issues  (33% agreement in high functioning organisations compared with 5% in low).

4.4  Conclusions

The 2008 Status report on diversity and flexibility  consolidates the experiences of diversity practitioners tasked with implementing a diversity strategy, and thus provides a value resource for HR practitioners, as well as policy makers, in terms of identifying practical steps which will improve diversity and flexibility outcomes. In particular the report highlights the importance of developing specific accountabilities and rewards for managers implementing positive diversity/flexibility behaviours.

In terms of workplace flexibility, apart from confirming the gap between flexibility policy and practice, the report drew two key conclusions. Firstly  "the gap between flexibility policy and practice is less about ‘in-principle’ support for flexibility and more about perceived gaps in managerial capabilities, managerial confidence and role modelling in relation to flexibility, and consistency of implementation".  Secondly  "the key differentiators between organisations implementing flexibility effectively and those which are not, concern managers - both in terms of managers themselves accessing and role modelling flexibility, and in terms of managers’ practical support for employees using flexibility".

For more information see:  2008 Status report on diversity and flexibility  at www.eeona.org.


Regards,

Juliet Bourke and Dr Graeme Russell
Partners
Aequus Partners
www.aequus.com.au

If you do not wish to receive information from Aequus Partners via email, please let us know by emailing Juliet Bourke.