It's not me it's you; person-centred versus organisation-centred explanations for the lack of gender diversity at senior levels within the international financial services - an Irish case study

Importance and Key Contribution This paper will explore the issue of gender and its impact on career progression, drawing on empirical evidence from the Irish financial services sector. According to Ogden (2006), the... [ view full abstract ]

Importance and Key Contribution
This paper will explore the issue of gender and its impact on career progression, drawing on empirical evidence from the Irish financial services sector. According to Ogden (2006), the financial services sector “…is a rather conspicuous example of the pervasively powerful and gender unequal effects a male culture can have on the careers of females” (2006: 42). Both Irish and international studies have found that the so-called ‘glass-ceiling’ of invisible barriers to women’s career progression to be prevalent in the financial services (Gammie et al, 2007; Ogden 2006; Catalyst 2002; Heard, 2001; Barker and Monks, 1998). The gender pay gap in the financial services has historically also been found to be biggest of any sector in Ireland, a finding echoed in UK (Ogden, 2006; Brennan and Nolan, 1998; Barker and Monks, 1998; CSO, 2008). Using a mixed quantitative and qualitative methodological approach – this study aimed to explore why this is. Particularly exploring whether the issues rests with women’s lack of interest in progressing, so-called ‘person-centred’ barriers, or whether organisation-centred barriers such as culture and structure remain a barrier to women’s progress.
Findings from the study confirm that there is vertical gender segregation present within the companies. Both companies have more men than women at the top, and in middle management positions; however the level of female representation and women’s satisfaction with their opportunities to progress is found to be higher in one company than the other. This paper will outline how organisational structure and culture is found to impact on the equality of opportunity to progress in these companies, and is found to be of greater significance to female progression than a lack of person-centred barriers such as ambition, commitment or motivation to advance. No significant differences were found between men and women in either company on both scale measures of ambition or commitment, or in the qualitative data gathered. Rather particular organisational characteristics emerged as key to either hindering or enabling women to progress.

Theoretical Base
When we begin to review the literature on women and the workplace, we can see that over the past two decades the competing explanations for why women are still not represented at equal levels to men in senior roles in public and private sector organisations have crystallised into two main camps. On one side are those that stress the importance of ‘person-centred’ barriers such as women’s own lack of commitment and ambition for their careers (Hakim 1995; 2002; 2006; Gammie and Gammie, 1995; 1997; Bernardi; 1998; Cross and Linehan, 2006) and on the other there are those who find that situational, structural, and normative factors remain key in inhibiting women’s progress in the workplace (Gerson, 1985; Acker, 1990; 1992, 1998, 2009; Bruegel, 1996; Ginn et al, 1996; Crompton and Harris, 1998, 1999; Fagan, 2000; Himmelweit and Sigala, 2003; McRae 2003; Duncan and Irwin 2004; Crompton and Lyonette 2005; Halrynjo and Lyng 2009)

Thus on the one hand we have theorists who give ascendency to individual preference, and choice as the key factor – the most notable of these being Hakim’s Preference Theory, (Hakim 1995, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2007), while on the other hand we have those who see it as more complex than that – viewing women’s (and men’s’) career choices as remaining constrained by a variety of situational and structural factors such as availability of childcare; organisational cultures; gendered social roles; welfare policies and labour market dynamics (Acker, 1990, 1992, 1998, 2009; Ginn, et al. 1996; Crompton and Harris 1998, 1999; McRae 2003; Crompton and Lyonette 2005; Eagly and Carli, 2007).
Drawing on these two theoretical traditions, this study sought to test which explanation is most relevant to the issue of gender and career progression within the selected sample.

Research Questions & method
This paper will examine findings from a mixed quantitative and qualitative study of male and female employees of two Dublin-based multinational financial services companies.

It will explore whether women’s under-representation at senior levels is down to their ‘choice’ not to progress as has been posited by many theorists (Pinker 2008; Cross and Linehan, 2006; Hakim, 1995; 2004; Whiting and Wright, 2001; Gammie and Gammie, 1995; 1997), or whether organisational factors play a more important role – thus providing women with what Gerson has termed ‘a series of unsatisfactory trade-offs’, which masquerade as choice (Gerson, 1985: 112).

This study used a mixed methodological approach to study a cross-section of the types of firms which operate within the financial services in Ireland. Drawing on the methodological approach of similar studies of the financial services sector in the UK (Ogden et al, 2006; Maxwell et al, 2007; Blair-Loy, 1999), quantitative and qualitative data was collected from employees of two companies operating in different areas of the financial services sector.

This included a 38-question on-line survey which was circulated to over 750 employees within the two case-study companies, and elicited 251 usable responses (51% male, 49% female), giving a response rate of approximately 35%. This was followed by in-depth semi-structured interviews with 39 members of staff in the two case-study companies. This was made up of 21 women and 18 men.

Findings
Looking at issues of ‘unconstrained choice’ versus the idea that career choices are constrained by social and organisational structural factors, this paper will outline how organisational culture is found to be a more significant barrier to progress for most people than person-centred factors such as ambition or commitment to the job.

Vertical gender segregation is found to be a key feature of these financial services organisations, however some companies are proving ‘more equal’ than others – by promoting a culture which serves to level the playing field for both men and women. A set of positive and negative organisational characteristics emerged which served to either support or inhibit women progress.

The characteristics of these ‘good’ companies will be compared with the characteristics of the companies where equality of opportunity remains elusive to many employees – men and women alike.

Implications
The findings from this study support the organisation-centred explanations for the dearth of female leadership within the financial services. Even when at the same management level as men, women were found to earn less money, have less people working for them, and to work in less powerful, less prestigious areas of the business. This occupational segregation served to reinforce a cycle which saw women working in areas which have fewer routes to senior management positions. These findings have implications across the board at both a theoretically level, at a public policy level, and at an individual level in terms of assisting both men and women to understand and navigate complex organisational structures.
References available on request.

Gender, gender diversity, career progression, financial services. [ view full abstract ]

Gender, gender diversity, career progression, financial services.