Dienstag, Februar 12, 2008

Zuwenig Frauen in Führungspositionen – ist es DOCH die Biologie?

An Schulen und Universitäten lassen sie nicht zuletzt dank einer sehr einseitigen Ausrichtung des Unterrichts ihre männlichen Mitbewerber weit hinter sich zurück, aber trotz jahrzehntelanger Förderung scheitern Frauen danach doch immer wieder am Aufstieg in die Chefetagen. Das Online-Magazin der britischen "Times" hat der Frage, was dahinter stecken könnte, einen ausführlichen Artikel gewidmet. Nach dem Anreißer über eine Neuerscheinung auf dem Buchmarkt beginnt dieser Beitrag so:

I first found Elaine’s story in a newspaper article she had written, headlined “My glass ceiling is self-imposed”. She described herself as a female executive on the fast track to the corner office who had refused a promotion in a multinational company earning billions and felt she needed to explain why.

She detailed how her company provided every possible perk to promote women’s success, including networked home offices so they could telecommute, flexi-hours, an in-house dry cleaner and gym, an income supplement for a nanny and on-site care for sick children. It was rated one of the top 100 companies for women to work for in the United States and Europe.

Her promotion would have put her third from the top in a company of 12,000 employees with offices in more than 60 countries and on the shortlist to become the company’s chief executive within a few years. Yet she had stalled her own advancement.

I thought that Elaine just might be able to fill in the blanks about why it was becoming increasingly clear that highly capable women were pulling out of the race. Research showed that about 60% of gifted women turn down promotions or take positions with lower pay so as to weave flexibility or a social purpose into their work lives.

Woran bitte liegt es, dass Frauen nicht einmal dann Karriere machen, wenn man ihnen die Möglichkeiten dazu auf einem Silbertablett serviert? Wir lesen weiter:

She also spoke about the pressures on women to take top jobs: “The company’s desperate – they want women at the senior executive level.” To get more gender balance at the top, she told me, offers too good to refuse were being made to other deserving women, as long as they were willing to move and, if they were successful, to move again a few years later. She had known just one who had said yes – someone without a family.

Could Elaine be representative of other highly placed women? There’s plenty of evidence that many more women than men refuse promotions out of consideration for family, including women at the top of their game.

In 2006, when investment analyst Carolyn Buck Luce and economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett tried to get to the bottom of the “hidden brain drain” of female talent by surveying 2,443 women with graduate or professional degrees, they discovered that one in three American women with MBAs chose not to work full-time – compared with one in 20 male MBAs – and that 38% of high-achieving women had turned down a promotion or had deliberately taken a position with lower pay.

Instead of being forcibly barred from top positions by a glass ceiling, these women were avoiding them.

When the researchers looked at women’s motivations to work, they discovered that having a powerful position was the lowest ranked career goal of highly qualified women in every sector. For 85% of the women, other values came first: the ability to work with people they respect, to “be themselves” at work and to have flexible schedules.

Okay, wenn ich noch länger zitiere, kann ich den Artikel auch gleich komplett übernehmen. Hier geht er weiter. Die zentrale These: Schuld ist nicht das "unterdrückerische Patriarchat", schuld sind unterschiedliche Hormone bei Männern und Frauen. Wenn sich diese Annahme durchsetzt, wird ein Großteil der feministischen Ideologie hinfällig.

Labels: ,

kostenloser Counter