Women fill fewer than 10% of the top CEO jobs

[Render]

The 400 largest companies headquartered in California, representing almost $3 trillion in shareholder value, still resemble a “boys’ club” with women filling fewer than 10 percent of top executive jobs, a University of California, Davis, study has found.

The Graduate School of Management’s eighth annual UC Davis Study of California Women Business Leaders — a yearly benchmark for the Golden State’s lack of progress in promoting women business leaders — paints a dismal picture for women in leadership during fiscal year 2011-2012. Some of the best known among these top companies, or the California 400, have no women leaders.

The survey is the only one of its kind to focus on gender equity in the boardrooms and executive suites of corporate California.

This year, for the first time, the survey also looked at ethnicity among the 85 Fortune 1000 companies in California, and only one company in this subset of businesses had an ethnic woman as the CEO. Furthermore, only 13 had any ethnic women directors.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10427

[Taun]

I didn't read the article (blocked at work)... are they saying the solution is to fire 51% of all "non-ethnic" male workers and managers and appoint some random ethnic women to their places?...

Of course they will have to run a quick survey to establish the exact ethnic, gender mix of that region of the country and go strictly by those guidlines... That shouldn't take too long a day or so... And in the future no caucasian male should be allowed to apply for any job until all ethnic, gender quota's have been filled and the national committee for ethnic/gender balance in the work force approves their application...

Is that what they are saying?

All of the above was of course a bit sarcastic - and meant to be so... Seriously... What are they suggesting that corporations do? And how soon are they demanding that they do it?

[Render]

Okay, I seriously suggest you wait until you're home and can read the article. Instead of immediately let emotions get the better of you, because you are missing the point completely.

from the article:

“Companies today know they need to increase innovation,” said Marilyn Nagel, CEO of Watermark. “They need talent on top that is tuned into customer needs. They need directors and executives who are strong, capable, qualified leaders in every sense.

“However, while so many are bemoaning the lack of these qualities in candidates for their top positions — they are overlooking the women right in front of them who can deliver all of these qualities in spades,” Nagel added.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Render

[Taun]

My complaint is not with hiring women or 'ethnic' people... but my complaint is the implication that there must be quotas to reach 'perfect balance of gender and ethnicity'...

It can not be a free and equal society if there are quotas (IMO)... I've seen quota hiring and promotions before and have seen some pretty unprepared, unqualified people promoted or hired over others who were much better qualified by job performance and work history... Granted I've seen some 'quota hires' who worked out quite well, but I've seen more that didn't...

[Hasina]

What percentage of CEO's are competent at their jobs?

[Stellar]

They fill less than 10% of CEO positions? So what? Are we supposed to hire CEOs based on gender? Why is this even news?

[Lilly]

It's one thing if there aren't any qualified females for CEO positions...it's quite another thing if qualified females are being passed over simply because they are females. Personally, I suspect it's probably a combination of the two.

In the final analysis: It's still very much 'a man's world' in corporate America.

[Render]

They fill less than 10% of CEO positions? So what? Are we supposed to hire CEOs based on gender? Why is this even news?

because of this:

from the article , once again:

“However, while so many are bemoaning the lack of these qualities in candidates for their top positions — they are overlooking the women right in front of them who can deliver all of these qualities in spades,” Nagel added.

and because of this well said post:

It's one thing if there aren't any qualified females for CEO positions...it's quite another thing if qualified females are being passed over simply because they are females. Personally, I suspect it's probably a combination of the two.

In the final analysis: It's still very much 'a man's world' in corporate America.

[Stellar]

from the article , once again:

“However, while so many are bemoaning the lack of these qualities in candidates for their top positions — they are overlooking the women right in front of them who can deliver all of these qualities in spades,” Nagel added.

Says who? The reporter? The reporter knows all these women as good as their own bosses do? bull****. There's more to being in charge, being CEO than simply the degree you hold. If their bosses don't think these women have what it takes to fill the role of CEO then he should have no obligation or pressure to place them in the CEO position simply because they're women.

[tapirmusic]

Hmmm.....

In California the citizens have no control over how many Women CEO's there are?

But these same citizens do have control over how many Women Governors there are or have been.

Zero.

Bbbuttt.....Wait a minute? Meg Whitman was a Woman CEO, and could have been the Governor.

Yet, what did California citizens do? Elect another OLD WHITE MALE.

It's still very much a Man's world in the Democrat Stronghold known as Kalifornia.

* edited to add:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited December 11, 2012 by tapirmusic

[Myles]

But it is on it's way up. I am not in favor of any quotas at all.

Besides the obvious reason for mostly male CEO's (as someone said, it's a male dominated corporate world), I also think in some ways it is typical characteristics that drive this number. Men accel better in some roles just as women accel better in others. Men tend to be able to be ruthless in business a little better than most women (of course there are exceptions). Women are much better in social services and teaching than most men because of their patience and understanding. There are so many exceptions that it makes one wonder if any of what I say is true. I believe it is.

[Render]

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Says who? The reporter? The reporter knows all these women as good as their own bosses do? bull****. There's more to being in charge, being CEO than simply the degree you hold. If their bosses don't think these women have what it takes to fill the role of CEO then he should have no obligation or pressure to place them in the CEO position simply because they're women.

You clearly have no insight in this, you just appear to be fearful for some reason because you're obviously letting emotions get the better of you. Interesting to see most males immediately jump up with anxiety and agression in this thread. Which is obviously a part of the problem.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Render

[Render]

Hmmm.....

In California the citizens have no control over how many Women CEO's there are?

But these same citizens do have control over how many Women Governors there are or have been.

Zero.

Bbbuttt.....Wait a minute? Meg Whitman was a Woman CEO, and could have been the Governor.

Yet, what did California citizens do? Elect another OLD WHITE MALE.

It's still very much a Man's world in the Democrat Stronghold known as Kalifornia.

* edited to add:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you say ppl should just elect a candidate because of the gender? That's stupid.

And this is in no way implied.

It is clear that many competent women are still being overlooked because of their gender. Those are completely different things.

If you still don't understand this you should get yourself a timemachine and go back to the 19th century.

[Render]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK08XVNg7Us

the fact that many immediately go wild at this study proves that the displayed mindset in this video is still very much alive

[Stellar]

You clearly have no insight in this,

Why? Because I disagree with you?

you just appear to be fearful for some reason because you're obviously letting emotions get the better of you. Interesting to see most males immediately jump up with anxiety and agression in this thread. Which is obviously a part of the problem.

No, the "problem" is people who believe that every job, every position must be staffed with 50% males or 50% females, and any deviation is simply sexist and must be "fixed". Why is this a problem? Because then people who arent fit for the job are chosen in order to meet some imaginary "quota". Thats why. Reality check: There are certain jobs that are more attractive to men than to women. Why? Not because of sex necessarily, but because of culture. As a result, there's more of a pool of men to chose from. Thats point number 1. Point number 2: It is possible, and may just happen, that out of a pool of 50 men and 50 women, more men are deemed suitable for a certain job than women. That's reality. It's not sexist. What's sexist is accusing others of sexism simply because 40 men and only 10 women were deemed suitable for a job.

Why don't we run another study? How about women in the infantry? I know first hand that there are vastly more men in the infantry here than women, despite there being the same amount of women "qualified" for the job as men in society. Is that also the result of sexism?

[Stellar]

you just appear to be fearful

Fearful? How about frustrated? Frustrated that people are accusing/implying that others are sexist as a result of bs like the opening post.

[little_dreamer]

What is the solution? More women need to start their own companies! Starting at the top is the easiest way.

[Render]

People Prefer Leaders With More Masculine Voices, Even in Feminine Leadership Roles

Klofstad explains, "We often do not consider how our biology can influence our decision making. The results of this study show that voice pitch -- a physiological characteristic -- can affect how we select our leaders."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121212205606.htm

Again, nothing to do with competence. Something worth to think about.

[EllJay]

It's one thing if there aren't any qualified females for CEO positions...it's quite another thing if qualified females are being passed over simply because they are females. Personally, I suspect it's probably a combination of the two.

In the final analysis: It's still very much 'a man's world' in corporate America.

I think it also might be the qualities that it takes to be a CEO in today's big business - a psychotic, power-hungry, OCD-greedy, heartless, scumsucking son of a b**** that would sell his grandma for a dime and **** over anyone and anything that comes in their way.

That trait isn't too common amongst the female side of humanity, at least not that prevalent as in the male part.

[Render]

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Why? Because I disagree with you?

Nono. Because of this:

No, the "problem" is people who believe that every job, every position must be staffed with 50% males or 50% females, and any deviation is simply sexist and must be "fixed". Why is this a problem? Because then people who arent fit for the job are chosen in order to meet some imaginary "quota". Thats why. Reality check: There are certain jobs that are more attractive to men than to women. Why? Not because of sex necessarily, but because of culture. As a result, there's more of a pool of men to chose from. Thats point number 1. Point number 2: It is possible, and may just happen, that out of a pool of 50 men and 50 women, more men are deemed suitable for a certain job than women. That's reality. It's not sexist. What's sexist is accusing others of sexism simply because 40 men and only 10 women were deemed suitable for a job.

Why don't we run another study? How about women in the infantry? I know first hand that there are vastly more men in the infantry here than women, despite there being the same amount of women "qualified" for the job as men in society. Is that also the result of sexism?

You don't seem to understand it's not about this. You're trying to reduce to topic to something you think it's all about. It's not.

It's again, simply put about :

“Companies today know they need to increase innovation,” said Marilyn Nagel, CEO of Watermark. “They need talent on top that is tuned into customer needs. They need directors and executives who are strong, capable, qualified leaders in every sense.

“However, while so many are bemoaning the lack of these qualities in candidates for their top positions — they are overlooking the women right in front of them who can deliver all of these qualities in spades,” Nagel added.

Not about incompetent women that should be chosen for their gender...no point in trying to bring it back to that topic. You either understand this or you don't. I hope you do now.

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Fearful? How about frustrated? Frustrated that people are accusing/implying that others are sexist as a result of bs like the opening post.

See, you are very overemotional about this.

And it's kinda funny because you turned this into something which is waaay of the topic.

Reread the quote of the article if you do not see this, until you do.

[Render]

I think it also might be the qualities that it takes to be a CEO in today's big business - a psychotic, power-hungry, OCD-greedy, heartless, scumsucking son of a b**** that would sell his grandma for a dime and **** over anyone and anything that comes in their way.

That trait isn't too common amongst the female side of humanity, at least not that prevalent as in the male part.

Well that's also a problem. This common perception that a CEO has to be a person who qualifies the terms you propose.

It's not an absolute.

It's been said that women are better at seeing the whole instead of getting lost in the details. And are better at picking out the best person for the job because they aren't influenced that much by "wanting to choose your buddy" because they don't get lost in some kind of bromance.

Companies aren't the most efficient thing in the world, there is room for improvement. So saying you have to qualify to those terms is maybe the reason why companies aren't the best they can be.

Thinking out of the box is a good thing...

[Render]

What is the solution? More women need to start their own companies! Starting at the top is the easiest way.

That could be a solution yes. Because it is well known that children during certain ages consciously and unconsciouly look for role models. If girls would see more women at the top it could become easier to picture themselves at the top instead of at the secretary desk.

This is also a big issue of course.

[Taun]

So if 10% of California's 400 CEO's (in the study) are female, that equals 40 Female CEO's...

Lets look at Europe -

"... only four women chair the board of a European company and three are CEOs, three of these seven business leaders are found in the UK (Baroness Hogg is Chair of 3i Group; Sarah Thomson is joint CEO Thomson Intermedia and Dame Marjorie Scardino is CEO of Pearson)."

http://www.management-issues.com/2006/8/24/research/women-still-rare-in-europes-boardrooms.asp

So I would say that California is ahead of the game...

[Render]

So if 10% of California's 400 CEO's (in the study) are female, that equals 40 Female CEO's...

Lets look at Europe -

"... only four women chair the board of a European company and three are CEOs, three of these seven business leaders are found in the UK (Baroness Hogg is Chair of 3i Group; Sarah Thomson is joint CEO Thomson Intermedia and Dame Marjorie Scardino is CEO of Pearson)."

http://www.managemen...-boardrooms.asp

So I would say that California is ahead of the game...

It's not about whose doing worse ....

The whole world is guilty of this..

[Stellar]

Again, nothing to do with competence. Something worth to think about.

Irrelevant. If thats what the customer prefers, then why should the CEO chose a replacement that can't provide that?

Not about incompetent women that should be chosen for their gender...no point in trying to bring it back to that topic. You either understand this or you don't. I hope you do now.

The connotation associated with incompetent is misleading. A woman can have the "qualifications" that make her "competent" but not have other attributes that are desirable for the position, making her "incompetent" in that aspect. Similarly, you can have a pool of qualified men yet none of them will be chosen because they dont have other necessary attributes.

You keep bolding and quoting that one line from the article. How on earth does the reporter know if they're "qualified" for the jobs? And I'm not talking about simply academic qualifications, I'm talking about all attributes? Does this reporter presume to know all of these females better than their own bosses do?

Well that's also a problem. This common perception that a CEO has to be a person who qualifies the terms you propose.

It's not an absolute.

It's been said that women are better at seeing the whole instead of getting lost in the details. And are better at picking out the best person for the job because they aren't influenced that much by "wanting to choose your buddy" because they don't get lost in some kind of bromance.

Companies aren't the most efficient thing in the world, there is room for improvement. So saying you have to qualify to those terms is maybe the reason why companies aren't the best they can be.

Thinking out of the box is a good thing...

Lmfao. "Women are better at this" "Women are better at that" and yet you're complaining that more men were chosen to be CEOs because they may be "better" than women in that regard?

The whole world is guilty of this..

I don't see any reason to be guilty of anything here. Thats my point. There are imbalances between the sexes in certain jobs. That doesn't necessarily mean it's mans/society's fault for being sexist, nor does it mean that it should be fixed.

Whoever is choosing someone to be CEO should be able to do so for any reason he'd like.