Sixty percent of male managers now say they are uncomfortable participating in work activities with women - activities including socializing, mentoring, and working one-on-one. In other words, they don't participate in work activities with women. By process of elimination, it is apparent that these same managers DO participate in those work activities with men.
What happens when managers invest time in talent? Workers get better projects, better exposure to high level leaders, they are more likely to have executive ambitions, and are more exited about staying with the company. This is equally true for both men and women.
What happens when workers don't get this attention? They don't get assigned to the better projects, they don't get exposure to leaders, they hold back and back off.
Why is it a bad business decision to continue the status quo? Not only is it a terrible use of expensive recruitment spend, but also women tend to perform better, make teams more...
BREAKING: The number of women CEOs now exceeds the number of men CEOs.... named John. That's progress, you can't deny that.
Women executives comprise less than a quarter of all corporate leaders in the US.
A recent article by Bloomberg highlights why that might be shifting.
Why? Women spend their careers being promoted on past performance while men are promoted for "potential." It stands to reason that women have more experience and expertise at equal points in their careers, such as at the moment they are promoted to CFO. Women have to be better performers than their males peers, and that explains why their performance is stronger.
A research study by S&P Global Market Intelligence analyzed 6000 companies over 17 years and found that, "within 24 months of appointing female CFOs, companies saw an average 6% increase in profits and an 8% better stock return compared to performance under male...