By Melissa J. Anderson

According to new research, IPO firms with male CEOs get the advantage with investors, compared to those with female CEOs. This news probably comes as no surprise, but the nuances revealed by the study point to a conclusion that should be concerning to anyone who works in a field characterized by the term “meritocracy.”

More and more research is showing that gender weighs heavily on the equation when it comes to jobs, promotions, paychecks, and – in the case of the study – how much investors are willing to pour into a business.

A working paper recently released by researchers from the University of Utah and Washington University in St. Louis suggests that female led IPO firms do worse than male ones. The study says, “Despite identical personal qualifications and firm financials, female Founder/CEOs were perceived as less capable than their male counterparts, and IPOs led by female Founder/CEOs were considered less attractive investments.”

Moreover, the researchers say, even though prospective investors were presented with identical information on performance, experience, and qualifications, “Female CEOs were seen as less experienced, less able to lead, less able to resolve TMT disputes and board deadlocks, as well as a less favorable representative of the company in the eyes of the public.”

Women continue to be perceived as less capable leaders than men, simply because they are women. While many companies purport to be meritocratic in the way they reward top producers, studies like these show that we’ve got to wonder what kinds of gender biases play into sponsorship and promotion within companies, as well as investments into IPO firms.

By Melissa J. Anderson

As many recent reports have pointed out, sponsorship is how individuals move up the ladder in companies. A sponsor is a powerful senior ally who advocates for individuals they believe in. Gaining access to sponsors is critical for getting the stretch assignments that lead to advancement.

Acknowledging that these relationships are the real force behind who gets promoted, especially at more senior ranks, has led companies to develop programs to increase the sponsorship of women and minorities – people who powerful individuals within companies (usually white males) may overlook.

But the key factor is that sponsorship is all about individual relationships. It is difficult to create corporate programs that encourage individuals to build relationships that are based on trust and power. These programs seek to institutionalize relationships that have been, in the past, invisible or political.

The challenge is not simply to get one person to sponsor someone they might not normally think about – it’s to get lots of people to sponsor new faces. Scaling up sponsorship requires a cultural shift in attitudes and the acknowledgement on behalf of senior individuals that they must be part of this change.

Here are three factors that companies need to implement in order to successfully scale up sponsorship on a programmatic basis.

By Melissa J. Anderson

According to a new study by Treasury and Risk magazine, twice as many women as men in finance (80% versus 41%) see a glass ceiling for women in the corporate space.

This is only one of the notable divergences in views between men and women about gender in the corporate workplace. For example, the study also revealed that women are generally dissatisfied with corporate efforts to promote senior level diversity – only 43% of women would give their company’s initiatives an A or B grade, while 80% of men would.

But while it’s clear that more women see challenges to their advancement than men do, times are changing. In fact, the percentage of men who do acknowledge that there are unseen barriers to women’s advancement is increasing at a rapid rate. The percentage of men who do acknowledge a glass ceiling has increased significantly since just last year when it was only 29%.

Is it this just a statistical quirk, or does it mean times are changing for women in the industry? Either way, there is a big difference between male and females regarding the perception of fairness for women in the industry. Despite (or maybe because of) decades of work to promote diversity in finance, the majority of men do not believe there are hidden biases that prevent women from advancing as quickly as they do – and this could be a barrier in itself.

Is Finance Fair for Women?

When asked about their own opportunities for career advancement, men and women gave roughly equivalent answers, with men responding slightly more positively than women (37% of women and 36% of men replied “good,” 24% of women and 28% of men said “very good,” and 8% of women and 11% of men said “excellent”).

On the other hand, when asked specifically about the advancement of women, responses varied significantly between the genders. Only 56% of women said that finance is a great field for both men and women, compared with 87% of men. One reason for this may be a discrepancy in fairness.

For example, a full 90% of women in finance said that “lucrative pay packages are more often offered to men.” Only 45% of men said the same.

Similarly, the vast majority of women surveyed – 92.4%  – said they think women have to work harder to gain the same level of recognition as men, while only 34% of men agreed.

Eight percent of men said they believed companies were quicker to get rid of women executives when problems develop at a company. Over six times as many women (39.9%) said the same.

Perception of (Un)fairness

Most individuals who took the survey said they believed women face “harder choices and bigger sacrifices” than men, particularly around work life issues (91.1% of women compared with 62.7% of men).

But what most men don’t seem to see is the every-day challenges that make the workplace less welcoming to women – unequal pay, having to work harder, less career security. These issues come down to cultural fairness.

This perception of fairness on behalf of men – the majority of individuals in the finance industry – as well as their overall belief that diversity programs are working just fine, may be part of the reason that there are so few women at the top. Almost half of respondents to the survey (46.5%) said that women were less than five percent of top executives of their firms.

When such a large percentage of the finance workforce is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the uneven playing field that exists for female talent, it may make the climb to the top less attractive, or simply less tenable, for women. Encouraging senior men to own up to their own may help create the fairness that could enable companies to balance the gender equation for their workforce.

By Melissa J. Anderson

According to a new McKinsey report [PDF], not all talent pipelines are the same. Factors like industry, leadership, heritage, and more affect what the pipeline of women to senior leadership roles looks like.

When embarking on a program to develop, retain, and advance women from the entry levels to the c-suite, it’s important for leaders, diversity practitioners, and people managers to know where their company is on the gender diversity continuum.

Report authors Joanna Barsh and Lareina Yee write, “Each company’s transformation plan depends on its industry context and starting point—but wherever companies are today is a great place to start.”

By Tina Vasquez

We hear it all the time: why are women still so underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields? There are scientific fields in which women are plentiful, such as medicine, and though it’s true that women remain grossly under-represented in engineering and computing, things are changing.

Even still, women must often combat outright discrimination if they do pursue careers in these fields. That was made especially clear when Harvard’s former president and the current director of the National Economic Council for the Obama administration, Lawrence H. Summers, made some highly offensive remarks several years ago, implying that women might lack an intrinsic aptitude for math and science – which we know is not true.

It’s offensive that women’s abilities are still being called into question, requiring scientific tests to prove they’re just as capable of excelling in fields and subjects historically dominated by men. This discriminatory attitude lives on the culture of STEM – and it’s embarrassing that it continues today.

But discrimination is only part of the problem when it comes to the lack of women in these fields. The other half the equation, according to a new study by the Association of Women in Science (AWIS), is the work life challenges associated with careers in STEM.

By Tina Vasquez

There is a 23 percent wage gap between men and women in the US – women working full time still earn just 77 percent of what men earn. For years now we’ve been told that the gap narrowed considerably in the 1980’s due largely to women’s progress in education and workforce participation and that progress has since stalled, but a new study from the University of Georgia’s Jeremy Reynolds and Jeffrey Wenger has revealed some shocking results.

While writing a paper about how couples deal with health insurance arrangements when sick, Reynolds came across an interesting fact: when a spouse reports on the health of their husband, they tend to say their husband is less healthy than their husband believes himself to be and the same is true for husbands reporting on the health of their wives. This unexplainable quirk got the professors wondering about what other issues self-reporting affected.

As it turns out, it’s made much of the data about the gender wage gap seem unreliable at best.

By Melissa J. Anderson

Stereotyping continues to be a persistent factor in evaluating individuals for new jobs, new assignments, promotions, and compensation – and this can cost companies money.

When the wrong people are given jobs or responsibilities based on unfounded assumptions about individuals based on their gender, ethnicity, or other demographic status, productivity decreases and top talent goes elsewhere. Companies lose their competitive edge.

Yet stereotyping is often done unconsciously, and despite decades of work around creating inclusive workplaces, it continues to influence decisions about who gets what job.

This is the dilemma a set of Harvard researchers approach in a new working paper published last month. The study,  “When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint Versus Separate Evaluation” [PDF], offers a simple solution to the problem, which should appeal to those interested in fairness as well as those interested in maximizing cost efficiency.

According to the researchers, engaging in joint performance reviews rather than individual ones causes managers to focus on past performance and behavior, rather than on stereotypical assumptions, and can offer a corrective to unconscious bias moving forward. Here’s how.

By Melissa J. Anderson

Professional women are “lukewarm” about the effectiveness of women’s networks, according to a new study out of the Simmons School of Management. Polling over 250 attendees to last year’s Simmons Leadership Conference, researchers found that many women are unsure about the usefulness or direction of women’s networks.

In fact, 79 percent of respondents ranked their women’s networks at “somewhat effective” or “not effective.” And 84 percent described women’s networks as “somewhat effective” or “not effective” at promoting women.

But, the research shows, a there are a few factors that increase the effectiveness of women’s networks. For example, the study says, “there was a very strong correlation between those respondents who were actively involved in their network and those who felt that their network was effective.”

The good news is that they also uncovered a few critical factors that may contribute to their success.

By Melissa J. Anderson

Last week McKinsey released the fifth installment of its Women Matter research series. The report, “Women Matter: Making the Breakthrough” discusses the challenges firms face in the implementation of gender diversity initiatives.

Many companies have made significant efforts to attract and retain more female talent, writes Eric Labaye, Director of Global Knowledge and Communications for McKinsey and Company. “Nevertheless, many companies also express frustration that their efforts do not always gain traction. The truth is, putting initiatives in place does not guarantee they will be well executed.”

In the report, McKinsey looks at the specific challenges companies face in the day-to-day reality of gender programming. Additionally, it shares the characteristics of the most successful companies when it comes to gender diversity through the ranks. Labaye continues:

“The best-performing companies in terms of the proportion of senior positions filled by women all have a critical mass of initiatives in place within what our earlier research established as a supporting ecosystem. But they excel on three particular fronts: they have the highest levels of management commitment, they monitor women’s representation carefully, and they seek to address men’s and women’s mindsets the better to support gender diversity.”

According to the study, there are specific pain points that companies can address to increase the effectiveness of their initiatives.