What about studies that have found that males are more likely to sacrifice personal and family time, work longer hours, etc.? Where does that figure into the latest "gender in the business" analysis? In the five years that I have worked for my present company I have seen female coworkers leave the same positions that I have held because of things not being "fair", percieved "unreasonable expectations" from higher-ups, etc. Most of them were making a higher salary than I was, too... in a technology company where the number of female employees is higher than males in every department. As of now, the majority of my peers that continue to job-hop in seek of greener pastures are female. Perhaps gender analysis in the workplace needs to stop emhasizing so much on what women have achieved in the hopes of consoling people and begin to ask the tough questions in a world that is constantly reminded of its obligation to women in the workplace.

I don’t think the16.4 % necessarily tells us anything except that there are fewer female officers in Fortune 500 companies than men. Comparing that 16.4% to the 51% of women in the total American population means even less, because not all of the women in America either want to or are capable of running Fortune 500 companies.

Before I get myself in too much trouble, let me say that there are women of capable of doing top level executive jobs, and the ability to perform at that level has nothing to do with gender. However, of the men that make up the 49% of the US population, only a small portion have what it takes to get it done at the highest corporate level, or even get close to it.

Think about it, there are 295,734,134 people in the United States, which leaves 144,909,725 men. Now if we assume that all of them are of working age (an admittedly bad assumption, but bear with me) and that they all want a Fortune 500 CEO job (another faulty but workable assumption). That means that just under 145 million people are competing for 500 jobs. If we further assume that the labor markets for men are perfectly competitive, and the 500 guys that get chosen are the best fit for the job it means that 0.0003% (500 jobs / 145 million applicants) of all men in this country actually have what it takes to get to the top of the corporate ladder. The bottom line, it’s pretty competitive.

So what does this mean for women? It means that while there are increasing opportunities for women at increasingly prestigious positions in the corporate world, that top spots are a hard nut to crack, and it can’t happen overnight. Common sense tells us there has to be some lag between an increased female population in the workforce and more women executives, because companies don’t hire recent college graduates as CEOs.

For anyone to become an executive requires a tremendous amount of work over time. That four year 0.7 increase in female executives is not huge, but it does mean that as the professional female workforce matures, the number of top jobs women hold is growing with them.

This is a case where the statistics are so incomplete as to be ridiculous. Questions abound and it's a sorry lot of journalists covering this issue.

1) Yes, 51 percent of the U.S. population is female.
a) How much of that population chooses to not be in the work force while raising children.
b) Women live longer. How many women make up the population over 65?

2) Women are growing in the ranks of college graduates.
a) What percentage of the promotable workforce (college graduate, work experience) is female?
b) What percentage of women are working clerical dead-end jobs in relation to men doing the same? Should we take those out or have them reflect in the stats because of the very nature of those jobs?
c) What are the percentages of women in promotion track jobs at Forturne 500 companies. Those are the only ones who will wind up in the top positions.

3 How do we account for what leaving the workforce, by choice, to have children does in terms of how far women progress in top-level jobs?

Interesting that all of the comments here attempting to discount the argument of the article are written by men.

As a young, female, college graduate who is not getting married or having children anytime soon, I've still found it extremely difficult to not be pegged as a "secretary" in each position I've accepted since graduating from college -- despite my best efforts to put in overtime, accept challenging tasks, and asking for more responsibilities. I have to work twice as hard to get half the respect that my male colleagues receive at this level.

I worked in a large financial consulting firm where many practice leaders were women. But one by one, they had children, and when they came back, it was part time, and - mostly - they were happy not to have so much pressure at work.

I think they had their priorities right, and while we need more women leaders, we have to face the fact that they have different choices to men, and the statistics don't tell the whole story.

I'm a little surprised by the lack of depth from the WSJ and from my fellow Fast Co. readers - of course women have to leave the workforce, at least temporarily, to have children. Just what does it mean to be equal though? That perhaps the work environment and systems of advancement should be designed to allow all people a fair chance to compete for the most influential and powerful positions on the basis of ability? That seems like a rather basic expectation that Americans should have that is clearly not provided in our economy. Even if only half of women work, 16% is dismal. Shall we consider the percentages for minorities, or those that grew up in poverty or lower middle class families, and still try to blind ourseleves to the terribly evident inequities? Think deeper...

Haas should accept my application so I can go to work as a CSR consultant, That's how we can improve those numbers!

file search engine

photoshop keygen