Categories
General

Women need to see themselves in a role before they can succeed

An article in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education confirms what those who have studied gender and leadership know from research — and what many women know from personal experience: women need to be able to see themselves in a role before they can succeed in it.

I assert the same is true for people of color and for first generation college graduates.  

If people can’t believe at their core that folks like them can do whatever they are setting out to do, that tiny kernel of insecurity can gnaw at their self-confidence. And guess what? They may not be able to do what they fear they can’t. It’s a tacit, self-fulfilling prophecy.

The message to educators in all this is clear: teaching skills and knowledge is not enough. Quality education is identify work and personal development, and we short change our students – undergraduates, graduate students, and executive audiences – when we design programs assuming facts, figures, and models are enough. We do students no service either when we think we know why they don’t succeed or persist.

Look at what the researchers found.

Research from Stanford’s Clayman Institute for Gender Research in the October issue of the American Sociological Review found that women who begin college intending to become engineers are more likely than men to change their major and choose another career. The interesting gender twist: they do it for lack of confidence, not competence.

Women lack what the researchers call "professional role confidence" — a term that loosely describes the outcome of a complex self-assessment on whether a person feels s/he has the right stuff for success: the core intellectual skills, the right expertise for a given profession, and a fit in interests and values with the expectations of the field’s career path.

Women’s family plans and concerns about their math skills have been traditional explanations for their low representation in engineering. The researchers, however, found otherwise.

Women’s family plans had little bearing on their career planning once they entered engineering training. Surprisingly, men were more likely to leave engineering if they had plans to start a family.

Women’s views of their math abilities were not significant predictors of persistence toward an engineering degree or entrance into the field. "Once students matriculate into this math-intensive field, more complex, profession-specific self-assessments appear to replace math self-assessment as the driving social-psychological reasons for attrition," the researchers concluded.

The authors suggest their findings about professional-role confidence may be relevant in other fields. I know they are. That’s why mentors, role models, and caring sponsors are so important.

Categories
General

Gender at Work and the Case of MIT: Progress Has its Drawbacks

12 years ago MIT acknowledged it was a hostile place for women faculty. The university became a national model in higher education for addressing gender equity. Its mea culpa encouraged other institutions to evaluate their treatment of women faculty, and the National Science Foundation and the National Academies launched major initiatives to increase opportunities for women in science.

Much has been done at MIT in the last twelve years: systematic efforts to hire women faculty have doubled their numbers; structures give women a seat on all university committees; year-long pauses in the tenure clock, full semester leaves for all with a new child in the home, campus day care, and subsidies for childcare during business travel support work-life balance; women hold important campus leadership positions (including university president); salaries, lab space, resources, research support, and teaching loads are now more equitable; and more.

Progress? Absolutely. But a recent MIT evaluation notes unanticipated consequences.

“Because things are so much better now, we can see an entirely new set of issues,” admits Hazel Sive, the Associate Dean in the School of Science who led one of the committees preparing the report.[1]

The new issues include perceptions that women’s promotions and hiring reflect affirmative action, not hard work and personal accomplishments. With so few women faculty, they can lose half their research time serving on campus committees. Tenure extensions and terms off favor male colleagues who use the time for research and lucrative consultancies, not childcare – creating new professional inequities. Lingering stereotypes keep women navigating a “narrow personality range” of not too aggressive or too soft.

What’s the learning in all this?

On gender in the workplace: we may have come a long way, baby, but we have miles to go before we sleep. Societal perceptions and organizational policies still result in unequal playing fields for women professionals. Inequity may be subtle, but it’s there. We have our head in the sand if we deny that.

On leadership, I see two key learnings. First, every leader needs strong skills in systemic thinking. Change one policy or practice, and there will be consequences elsewhere. Effective leaders anticipate the  implications of their decisions – and engage others in helping them see their own systemic blindness.

Second, strong leaders take on tough issues. We’ll never make progress on a complex issues like gender equity if leaders across organizations and sectors play it safe, or worry about making mistakes. Leadership is all about taking a stand.

MIT admitted gender inequity hasn’t been eliminated on its faculty, but there’s been progress — and there will be more. That’s something to celebrate.  


[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/us/21mit.html