Mastodon

Tag: Gender diversity

Social Media for Social Justice: How Brands Can Promote EDI Online

As we have progressed in society, the concept of technology has begun to branch away from just a luxury that the wealthy can afford and head towards a common, everyday tool. With phones no longer being simply used for their calling feature, what it means to communicate has transformed into something more interactive, seemingly social, yet unnaturally distant all the same. Social media has become a strong force as a platform for creating and sharing content that promotes expression, facilitates communication, shares knowledge and experiences, and can bring people together just as easily as it can tear them apart.

Continue reading “Social Media for Social Justice: How Brands Can Promote EDI Online”

Understanding the Question of Gender Diversity in Power Positions

   Historically, women have been born into an assigned gender role in the workplace. 

Dating back to the 20th century, most women stayed at home completing tasks such as cleaning, cooking, and taking care of children, and they did so primarily young and unmarried. In that era, 

just 20 percent of all women were considered “gainful workers” (Yellen 2020) while their men counterparts were fulfilling the roles of managers, CEO’s, and engaging in the act of physical labor. The visually unjust barrier during this time period could further be divided by race, where African American women were more likely to be forced into unwanted labor than white women largely because of segregation and lack of people that would hire them. Women abandoning their career prospects upon marriage reflected past cultural norms, the nature of work readily available to them based on race and/or sexual orientation , and legal barriers formed by men. Women in this time were told not to attend higher education as they were taught to consider their role as a ‘homemaker’ to be their ultimate goal in life. Since the establishment of the Equal Rights Amendment where women were now seen as equivalent to men, a modern day woman has achieved countless milestones  in the workforce and in society. According to Statistics Canada, women are more likely than men to earn their high school diploma, to have a greater enrollment presence in college and university programs, and to dominate various industries such as healthcare and teaching. Despite all the progress and success of a modern day women, discrimination in the form of authority, physical ability, and wage gap are still ever so prominent when competing for roles of power in the workplace. There are many leadership qualities that women frequently display in power positions that go unnoticed, and could benefit their male coworkers if followed. We have yet to see a woman president of the United States despite past candidates having the same, if not more willpower as their male counterparts, we have a progressive, yet underwhelming presence of women in STEM and innovation fields not because a majority of these individuals do not wish to pursue a career in that field, but because of stereotypes and degradation. Women continue to face hierarchical discrimination, limiting their employment prospects and societal advancements. 

History has  reinforced the idea that women are too kind and compassionate to be leaders, but when a woman who is not particularly bubbly, and instead chooses to focus on producing more sales, and being assertive, it is viewed as humorous and not taken seriously by male counterparts. It is important to recognize that the stereotypical definition of authoritative has been hijacked by validation, appreciation, and empathy– something a workplace needs to maintain a positive culture. It is human nature to crave validation after working a ten hour shift in which an employee has put all their willpower towards. We are no longer living in a world where masculinity contest culture creates a hostile work environment and undermines the efforts of employees covered up by the simple sentence “it’s your job”. Many of the men in positions of power tend to overlook the significance of establishing genuine relationships in a well structured workforce, and instead, think of their employees as another step to achieving their company goals. Center For Creative Leadership conducted a study where individuals were asked to compare and contrast the benefits of men versus women in positions of leadership. Results showed that when there are more women as authoritative figures in the workplace, there is an increased job satisfaction rate, increased productivity rate, and allows employees to be less susceptible to burnout (Creative Leadership 2019). This is because women take the time to learn about their employees’ personal morales , passions, and strengths. 

Women brainstorm ways to integrate employees strengths into their workplaces execution style which can go a long way towards success. Toxic masculinity has structured the way men react to a woman’s authoritative manner, and how they present themselves in the workplace because that type of initiative used to be the only way to success. Women were always ranked below men on an economical scale, and many of these men have not yet adjusted themselves to workplace diversification. 

Motherhood bias is the assumption that mothers should be fully responsible for their families’ social scene, and their children without reservation. When a woman is applying for a position that requires much time and effort, the misconception that her role as a mother will compromise her role in the workplace shadows her accomplishments and capabilities. Regardless of our increasingly progressive society, a woman’s availability to her child is still guarded as an indication of her competence as a mother and the success of her child. How about the father who may even work a position less time consuming than the mother? Maybe a longtime friend or caregiver can spend time with a child for a short period of time? Ultimately, it is still viewed as the mother’s responsibility no matter the circumstances. A study conducted by the American Journal of Sociology discovered that mothers were seventy nine percent less likely to be hired for a position of power, one hundred percent less likely to be promoted, offered $11,000 less in salary, and held to higher performance standards than women without children (Breaking Through Bias 2022). This bias may not even be presented in the form of direct discrimination. A woman may be  dismissed from meetings at hours critical to a child’s needs, and may not be considered for assignments where traveling is required. This may be beneficial to a child, and considerate under the circumstances that the woman asks for time off, but for a woman wanting to advance her career, these subtle forms of dismissal only alienate her from crucial aspects of her company’s proceedings. This form of discrimination may be even more determinental to a single mother that has to support herself and her kids without external sources. A single mother may be in contention for a job of higher power simply because she needs the extra income flow, and can not afford to remain in her current position with no chance of a raise or promotion. Alongside motherhood bias, motherhood guilt is extremely prominent in the workplace. To fulfill the position of a CEO, or manager, the individual will need to perform difficult tasks and work long hours. A mother may face backlash from her coworkers with comments such as “you should be spending more time with your child” , or “you are depriving your child of a mother’s attention”. These types of comments are practically unavoidable, and possibly derive from feelings of insecurity on behalf of the commenter. As a man, displaying your commitment to your position, as well as raising a kid, you are more likely to gain the respect of your coworkers simply because men have never been obliged to be the ‘homemaker’. As a woman, you are told your priorities are not in the right place, and are excluded from valuable workplace opportunities.

Self limiting biases leave women questioning their self worth based on how they have been perceived from a societal standpoint. A woman may assume she is not a good fit for a set position because society has told her it may not be an appropriate pursuit, or she would be uncomfortable, and incapable. Stereotypes of this descent cause uncertainty when faced with tasks that you have been told are best performed by men. 80% of social workers are women but only 15% of computer engineers are (Rueters 2021). It is more than realistic to assume this statistic is based heavily on self selection. Self limiting bias leads a woman to believe that she cannot be technical, but she is good at dealing with emotions because women are emotional beings. When a woman is pushy a man is recognized as persuasive , when a woman is rude a man is direct and knows his worth , and this often pushes a woman into believing that a more tame, and flexible position is better suited for her. Women have more than enough capability to thrive in these industries, but simply choose to avoid backlash and prejudice.

Moreover, women continue to face hierarchical discrimination, limiting their employement prospects and societal advancements. When stereotyping becomes apparent, we can unconsciously behave towards women untrue to their persona. We tend to categorize women and men in different physical, mental and emotional categories, and sometimes unconsciously think a woman should be communal, warm, pleasant, caregiving and men should be strong, forceful, and aggressive. These gender roles are rooted deep in history, a time period society has not yet outgrown.  We still have a long way to go in acknowledging  and respecting a woman’s role as a leader in the workplace. 

References

Rueters, T. (2021, June 18). Gender stereotypes in the workplace: How 5 biases harm women. Andie & Al. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://andieandal.com/gender-stereotypes-biases-foster-women-workplace/ 

Burns, T. (2022, April 13). Women in the workplace 2021. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace#0 

Experteer Magazine. (2018, May 9). Why aren’t more women in power positions? Experteer Magazine. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://us.experteer.com/magazine/why-arent-more-women-in-power-positions/ 

Andie & Al. (2020, November 10). How to recognize bias against working mothers. Andie & Al. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://andieandal.com/gender-stereotypes-part-v-motherhood-biases-biases/ 

Helgesen S, Goldsmith M (2018) How Women Rise: Break the 12 Habits Holding You back From Your Next Raise, Promotion, or Job, ‎ Hachette Books (April 10, 2018)

This essay was written by summer student Bayden Summers and edited by Ilesha Prabhudesai. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

Understanding the Question of Gender Diversity in the Boardroom

The issue of boardroom diversity, and publicly traded companies’ failure to equitably represent members of minority groups on their boards, has been met with increasing concern over the past two decades. The lack of gender diversity in particular has been central to such discussions, leading to an international push to encourage the nomination of female board members through the introduction of diversity quotas and disclosure policies. Statistics show that the implementation of such policies has somewhat increased the number of women and other minorities appointed to company boards, but many insist that progress is still too slow and that the practices of a truly inclusive boardroom must be reflected in more ways than just numbers. Furthermore, many scholars have argued that research into this issue has thus far been unsatisfactory due to the ways in which it focuses upon the business benefits of appointing women to boards and relies upon gender essentialism in its arguments. Quotas may serve as a useful stepping stone to improve diversity, but the continued inequitable treatment of women who are appointed to boards, coupled with the narrow view of diversity that previous research into this issue has adopted, make it clear that more needs to be done towards establishing a gender inclusive boardroom culture. 

The first gender-based quota for board composition was established in Norway in 2003, setting a requirement for the boards of every public limited company to be composed of at least 40% female directors by 2008 (Mohsni & Shata, 2021, p. 2). Companies that did not comply with this policy risked facing legal action. Spain, France, Italy, and other countries soon followed with similar policies. In Canada, the Diversity Disclosure Requirement imposed in 2015 “enforces disclosure on whether the board has adopted a written policy concerning the employment of women directors” (Mohsni & Shata, 2021, p. 2). The number of women appointed to boards around the world has been climbing in recent years, and it would seem that diversity quotas have played a significant role in compelling companies to add women and other minorities to their boards. In the United States, for example, where many states have enforced policies that require companies to disclose their board-level diversity statistics or explain why they have failed to do so, the 2021 U.S. Spencer Stewart Board Index found that female representation on boards increased up to 30%. Those from underrepresented groups (including but not limited to women) comprised 72% of new directors at S&P 500 companies. This was a considerable improvement even from 2020, where 59% of new directors were minorities (Walsh et al., 2022). However, some agencies and policymakers argue that such quotas are not sufficient to solve the issue at hand. In Canada, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) put a similar “comply-or-explain” policy into effect in 2015, but soon found that many companies’ efforts to adhere to that rule failed to meet the desired targets. The OSC argued that some companies’ diversity reporting could be considered technical compliance at best. This led them to believe that companies were not truly treating the lack of boardroom gender diversity as an issue to take seriously (McFarland, 2015).

Indeed, as many studies have shown, an increase in the number of board seats appointed to women is not in itself a sufficient measure for how a company responds to demands for inclusivity. A study by the Harvard Business Review reported that even when women were appointed to company boards, 87% faced challenges and discriminatory treatment related to their gender (Groysberg & Bell, 2013). Chief among their complaints were that they were not listened to by their male colleagues, and that they were not being treated as equals in an exclusive “boys’ club”—trademarks of a toxic work culture that male directors are oblivious to having created. These findings led authors Groysberg and Bell to the conclusion that many boards simply do not know “how to leverage diversity” (2013). Although many boards claim to uphold the idea of inclusivity, the underlying issue of misogyny that has barred women from executive positions remains unresolved. The results of Groysberg and Bell’s study predate the widespread enforcement of disclosure requirements in the United States. However, when their findings are placed alongside policymakers’ current concerns that compliance policies are insufficient, it becomes clear that truly addressing the question of gender diversity is a complicated matter that requires more than just a numbers checklist. 

The size of a company may contribute to its ability to foster an inclusive boardroom culture. A recent study by Carleton University, which examined firms listed on the TSX index from 2010 to 2019, found that the boards of smaller firms tended to perform better and benefitted the most from gender diversity. Authors Mohsni and Shata suggest that the more complex and bureaucratic structure typical of larger firms “may lead to a wider distribution of power” and make it “more difficult for members to cooperate and reach consensus” (2021, p. 3). By contrast, smaller firms tend to have less bureaucratic structures, which facilitates communication among board members and strengthens the impact of individuals’ voices when group decisions are made. This means that at smaller companies, each director has more power at the table, offering a greater chance for women to really influence the decisions being made in the boardroom where they might otherwise be drowned out in a larger, all-male group. Larger boards must therefore commit to reassessing their communication methods and organisational structures when making group decisions and integrating female directors (Mohsni & Shata, 2021, p. 17) in order to truly make a difference in terms of gender diversity. 

The failure of companies to successfully implement gender diversity is certainly a topic that requires closer examination, but as some scholars have suggested, research into this issue has thus far been lacklustre. The bulk of existing research into boardroom gender diversity tends to be approached from what Brown and Kelan refer to as a utilitarian perspective. The utilitarian perspective makes a so-called “business case” for women to be appointed to boards on the merit that they present “an untapped pool of potential talent that can improve the way the board or company functions” (2020, p. 6). The problem is that investigations of this variety tend to draw upon “essentialist notions of gender” (Brown & Kelan, 2020, p. 9). They frame gender as a mere issue of comparison rather than addressing the structures and institutional misogyny that have historically barred women from the boardroom. As justification for why women should be appointed to boards, policymakers often draw attention to the supposedly unique qualities and intrinsic feminine traits that women can bring to the table. The notion that women have a higher emotional intelligence than men and can therefore offer a fresh, more empathetic perspective to a board (Groysberg & Bell, 2013) is just one example. Furthermore, when operating under quotas that describe women’s allegedly unique skills and characteristics, women striving for boardroom seats are still expected to possess traits associated with successful male board members in addition to conventionally female traits. They must occupy the role of the elite leader (a traditionally masculine role) while simultaneously facing pressure to meet “contradictory expectations related to notions of (respectable) femininity” (Brown & Kelan, 2020, p. 13). As Groysberg and Bell’s study showed, women are held to a much higher standard than men when board nominations are taking place because they are simply not thought of first as potential candidates. Their skills and experiences must somehow tie into their gender in order to be appointed over a male colleague with similar qualifications. This sheds light upon serious flaws in existing diversity quotas and the ways in which they are implemented. Addressing the issue of gender inequality in the boardroom will be far more challenging so long as diversity policies are themselves dependent on misogynistic assumptions. After all, if the board’s internal culture of misogyny does not change, then simply satisfying a quota is only useful in terms of external appearances.

When boardroom diversity is seen as little more than a checkbox to fill out in response to a quota, understood solely in terms of a numerical goal to be met, we fail to consider the fact that the question of inclusivity, and our understanding of gender itself, is constantly evolving and varies from culture to culture. Diversity in the boardroom is a matter far more complex than mere gender inequality, as the bulk of existing research presumes. A truly inclusive boardroom should adopt an intersectional perspective when tackling questions of inclusivity, one that examines diversity beyond the male-female binary. Some policymakers in different parts of the world have certainly pushed for the representation of other minorities, including BIPOC people, queer people, and Indigenous peoples. But there is a case to be made for the lack of representation of women of colour on company boards, not to mention those individuals who fall outside the gender binary and who remain largely neglected in existing studies about boardroom diversity. There is no clear, easy solution to the issue of boardroom diversity, and there is a pressing need for thorough, more expansive research before change can be implemented. That said, given the gradually increasing representation of women and other minorities on company boards, the impact of diversity quotas should not be dismissed outright. It is worthwhile to understand disclosure rules and similar policies not as a magic solution to the issue of gender diversity, but rather as a stepping stone to true inclusivity. As quotas are filled, and a wider range of voices are introduced to company boards, we can allow people from diverse, intersecting backgrounds to share their own perspectives about how a more inclusive boardroom can be made. That way, we can start to gain a stronger sense of the best way to move forward.

References

Brown, S., & Kelan, E. (2020). Gender and Corporate Boards. In Gender and Corporate Boards: The Route to a Seat at the Table (pp. 6–23). essay, Taylor & Francis.

Groysberg, B., & Bell, D. (2013, June). Dysfunction in the boardroom. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2013/06/dysfunction-in-the-boardroom

Johnson, G. R., & Ramchandani, R. (2019, July 10). New diversity disclosures under the CBCA effective for annual meetings in 2020. Torys LLP. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.torys.com/Our%20Latest%20Thinking/Publications//2019/07/new-diversity-disclosures-under-the-cbca-effective-for-annual-meetings-in-2020/

McFarland, J. (2015, June 10). OSC rebukes firms for lack of action on gender-diversity rules. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/osc-blasts-firms-for-lack-of-action-on-gender-diversity-rules/article24902736/

Mohsni, S., & Shata, A. (2021). Board Gender Diversity and Firm Performance: The Role of Firm Size. Carleton University, 1–35.

Sheker, M. (2019, September 3). Canada’s top firms now have to disclose figures on diversity in the boardroom, but is ‘sunlight the best disinfectant’? Rotman School of Management. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/ResearchCentres/JohnstonCentre/JohnstonCentre/2019/9/3/Canadas-top-firms-now-have-to-disclose-figures-on-diversity-in-the-boardroom-but-is-sunlight-the-bes

Walsh, D. G., Atkins, E. G., Rabin, R. J., Lander, E. G., Busching, D. E., England, E., & Leitch, A. (2022, March 3). Continued Focus on Diversifying the Boardroom. Akin Gump. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/practices/corporate/ag-deal-diary/continued-focus-on-diversifying-the-boardroom.html#:~:text=The%202021%20U.S.%20Spencer%20Stewart,of%20all%20S%26P%20500%20directors

This essay was written by summer student Cossette Penner-Olivera and edited by summer student Ilesha Prabhudesai.This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

J2DW Launches Titles and Pronouns for Transgender and Gender Diverse Individuals

Journey to Diversity Workplaces Launches Titles and Pronouns for Transgender and Gender Diverse Individuals

J2DW joins companies such as Royal Mail, the Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, and numerous others making this change.

For Immediate Release

BARRIE, ONTARIO, 10 OCTOBER 2017 – Journey to Diversity Workplaces (J2DW) is excited to announce the addition of new titles and pronouns to their online applications and databases for transgender and gender diverse individuals.

J2DW’s goal is to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace. We respect differences ethically, morally, and legally. We want a different kind of workplace where diversity is championed and so is the worker. An organization’s success and competitiveness depends upon its ability to embrace diversity and to realize the benefits of diversity.

“It is important that we respect and recognize individuals in our society in a way they wish to be addressed. By doing this, we promote out-of-the-box creativity and respect for those who explore their lives fully in a way that is right for them. We’re proud to take a stand on this.” said Peter V. Tretter, President & CEO of Journey to Diversity Workplaces.

The board of J2DW green-lit the project over the summer and immediately went into beta testing. New titles available include Ind., Mre., Msr., Mx., Myr., Pr., Sai., and Ser. New pronouns available include Ne/Nem, They/Them, Ve/Ver, and Ze/Zir.

Organizations such as Royal Mail, HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and Oxford City Council have introduced these titles since the start of 2017, and we believe J2DW is one of the first Canadian companies (for-profit or non-profit) to launch these options.

Journey to Diversity Workplaces is a Barrie, Ontario based organization formed under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act in December 2013. Find out more about us at www.j2dw.ca

— 30 —

Contact:

Peter V. Tretter, President & CEO

705-481-7784 ext 2

pe…@j2dw.ca

The Gender Wage Gap Explained

Many famous individuals have used the quote “Women earn 79 cents for every dollar a man makes”, and although this fact is statistically true, there is a lot that is unexplained in it. The above fact only compares the two median wages of men and women and does not factor into account how the wage gap plays out in individuals with different education levels, different occupations or different ages. These factors are very important to take into account if we want to ever close the gender wage gap.

To explain much of the argument on the gender wage gap, I must first state that economists have modeled wages through the Mincer Wage Equation, which can be stated as:

The equation above can be interpreted as log wages is a function of the years of schooling, plus the amount of career experience, and career experience squared, and an error term and a constant term for other unaccounted for factors. In simpler words, employers reward employees for the amount of schooling and experience they hold.

Child-bearing responsibilities

June O’Neill wrote a paper in 2003 studying the gender wage gap in the US economy by looking at two population surveys. In his conclusion, he writes, “As I have shown in this paper, the unadjusted gender gap can be explained to a large extent by nondiscriminatory factors. Those factors are unlikely to change radically in the near future unless the roles of women and men in the home become more nearly identical.”

What June O’Neill meant to convey in her conclusive remarks is that much of the gender wage gap can be attributed to the fact that females are the only sex that is biologically able to produce offspring. It is not a discriminatory attribute that women have the ability to give birth, and this ability has continuously led to the difference in the amount men and women earn.

What usually tends to happen after college graduation in today’s labour market is after holding a stable job for a few years, when women are in their mid-twenties and thirties, they usually take some time off to give birth and nurture the child after birth. In a study conducted by Bertrand, Goldin and Katz to examine the gender wage gap in MBA graduates, they state that one of the principal reasons why there exists a big gender wage gap between men and women is that in the first fifteen years post-graduation, women take on more career interruptions and work shorter weeks because of household responsibilities. The study also finds that even though some women took modest breaks from work for parental leave, the labour market penalized these breaks greatly. The discontinuity in a professional career during this age is also the prime time to build one’s career.

Such discontinuity is penalized by a lower wage, and this is quite fair because the said individual took time off during a time where they could be obtaining prime experience in their careers. June O’Neill finds that 34% of women with children under the age of six were out of the work force between the ages of 25-44 compared to only 16% of women who were out of the workforce who did not have children. Making the choice to have a child is a quite strong indication of work discontinuity which will directly lead to a loss in experience gain and a lower wage.

Career choice

The science behind the labour market is centralized around human capital theory, where employees are rewarded with wages for their ability to demonstrate their knowledge and do so efficiently.

Again, it is no secret that some careers are better paid in today’s world than others. This is a harsh reality in some underpaid occupations, but in other cases, it is quite justifiable. Rewarding an occupation like a surgeon to perform life-saving operations is very fair in my opinion.

“The expectation of withdrawals from the labour force and the need to work fewer hours during the week are likely to influence the type of occupations that women train for and ultimately pursue” – O’Neill, 2003. This statement in his paper is given by examining the career choices that women have chosen and how they came to the decisions that they did through population surveys. Women tend to lean towards occupations where there is more leniency towards career discontinuity and careers where part-time worked is more readily available. A direct example of this is the nursing versus doctor industry, where most nurses are women. Nurses hold set shifts and know exact times when they will be working and so is more favourable to a mother who has to care for a child. As an emergency doctor that can be called in at any time during the day, your shifts can vary a lot and it would make life difficult to care for a child and be on-call at a hospital.

Conclusion

Much of the gender wage gap can be explained by the two factors that are outlined above. The fact that women take breaks during their working life to nurture children and build their households, and that women choose careers that are more flexible in the hours that employees are required to work, which is a result of the time off women need to take to have children.

Although this explains a lot of the gender wage gap, there is evidence to support that some of the wage gap is purely discriminatory. But there is some good news to accompany this, Pew Research Centre conducted a study that found that “The gender gap in pay has narrowed since 1980, particularly among younger workers…” and so there is some hope that someday we will be able to eliminate the gender wage gap completely.

References

Brown, A., & Patten, E. (2017, April 03). The narrowing, but persistent, gender gap in pay. Retrieved August 11, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/

O’Neill, J. (2003). The Gender Gap in Wages. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 309-314. Retrieved August 7, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3132245

Bertand, M., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2010). Dynamics of the Gender Gap for Young Professionals in the Financial and Corporate Sectors. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 228-255. Retrieved August 04, 2017, from http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.2.3.228

This article was written by volunteer Mohammadali Saleh.

Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Journey to Diversity Workplaces.

Back Gender diversity and the leaking pipeline

by Simon Lee 

In a number of Asian countries, women make up nearly half the formal workforce, according to national labour surveys. Yet on average, less than a quarter make it into senior positions and in some countries the figure is as low as one in ten, according to the Gender Diversity Benchmark for Asia 2014 launched by Community Business last week. Companies can do much more to avoid a ‘leaking pipeline’ of female talent in their organisations.

The research draws on employee data from 32 multinationals across six key markets: China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Malaysia and Singapore. The participating companies – including sponsors Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Brown-Forman and Google, and a range of other major brands including Coca-Cola, Novartis and Thomson Reuters – together employ over 240,000 people across the six markets. Each provided data for at least four of those markets. (Read more…)