Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 22, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 28, 2008
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
April 9, 1984
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8.pdf1.81 MB
Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET Robert W. Magee TO: (Officer designation, room number, and building) ,.FORM , '- 610 uuuOPRE IOSUS''r OFFICER'S INITIALS 9 April 1984 STAT COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.) STAT Attached: is an interesting :sent to me by At least we can take some solace from the 'fact`;,that our rank situation i.s not unique to CIA. __Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 STAT STAT Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 GGN.r~?ia/COti'ER. STORY 'i5` rt`:.3^."~i1.'la"+iR. ~h. -: SauTj.:'~Tr~~7....w:'7a:PS.si,.i. .a.. i"i4-.NSX+J^'~.ry~ a'~ih-aq~t'~'. .-t?.,~...+~.,'- ~~y+~/~ ~,1.?.s'~IJCi-~~''ac.... '^iai'Mxri~yCM`L;11N . ?~i....n Mh_.- tL`i"r.-~1.aT.;t'it.:i~.ak'~..ri..~3rie15Raab?uN.. ~~:i.3P3'Jaaar.S..w7a.::z! .S'3:A1..'RT'~x. ..!Y. Mi :r~']~o-:w,.lilt"x''~~r-+rr+ti.~.i.~i9.~i~i'~?d..~tir ,i No women are on the fast track to the chief executive's job at any FORTUNE 500 corporation. That's incongruous, given the number of years women have been working in management. The reasons are elusive and tough for management to deal with. a by Susan Fraker EN YEARS HAVE passed since U.S. corporations began hiring more than token numb:ars of. women for jobs at the bottom rung of the management ladder. A decade into their.careers, how far up have these women climbed? The answer: not as far as their male counterparts. Despite impressive progress at the entry level and in middle management, women are having trouble breaking into senior management. "There is an invisible ceiling for women at that level," says Janet Jones-Parker, execu- tive director of the Association of Executive Search Consultants Inc. "After eight or ten years, they hit a barrier." The trouble begins at about the $75,000 to $100,000 salary level, and seems to get worse the higher one looks. Only one compa- ny on FORTUNE'S list of the 500 largest U.S. industrial corporations has a woman chief ex- ecutive. That woman, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post Co. (No. 342), readily admits she got the job because her family owns a controlling share of the corporation. More surprising, given that women have been on the ladder for ten years, is that none currently seems to have a shot at the top rung..Exccutive recruiters, asked to identify women, who might become presidents or chief executives of FORTUNE 500 companies, draw a blank. Even companies that have women in senior management privately con- cede that these women aren't. going to occu- py the chairman's office. Women have'only four of the 154 spots this year at the Ilarvard Business School's Advanced Management Program-a presti- ~~ >F,,ihc!! Assoc!A?r e David Kid Stevens. gious.13-week conclave to which companies send executives they are grooming for the corridors of power. The numbers aren't much better at comparable programs at Stan- ford and at Dartmouth's Tuck School. But perhaps the most telling admission of trouble comes from men at the top. "The women aren't making it," confessed the chief execu- tive of a FORTUNE 500 company to a consul- tant. "Can you help us find out why?" All explanations are controversial to one faction or another in this highly charged de- bate. At one extreme, many women-and some men-maintain that women are the victims of blatant sexism. At the other ex- treme, many men-and a few women-be- lieve women are unsuitable for the highest managerial jobs: they lack the necessary as- sertiveness, they don't know how to get along in this rarefied world, or they have chil- dren and lose interest in-or time for-their careers. Somewhere in between is a surpris- ingly large group of men and'.vomen who see "discrimination" as the major problem, but who often can't define precisely what they mean by the term. The discrimination they talk about is not the simple-minded sexism of dirty jokes and references to "girls." It is not born of hatred, or indeed of any ill will that the bearer may be conscious of. What they call discrimina- tion consists simply of treating women dif- ferently from men,. The notion dumbfounds some male managers. You mean to say-; they ask, that managerial women don't want to be treated differently from men in any respect, and, that by acting otherwise-as I was raised to think only decent and gentleman- ly-I'm somehow prejudicing their chances for success? Yes, the women respond. "Men f talk to would like. to see more women in senior management," says Ann Carol Brown, a consultant to several FOR- TUNE 500 companies. "But they don't recog- nize the subtle barriers that stand in the way." Brown thinks the biggest hurdle is.a :matter of comfort,.not competence.,; ,At sew,- nior management levels, competence is as- sumed," she says. "What. you're looking for is someone who fits, someone who gets along, someone you trust. Now that's subtle stuff. I-low does a group of men feel that a woman is going to fit? I think it's very hard." The experience of an executive at a large Northeastern bank illustrates how many managerial women see the problem. Promot- ed to senior vice presidents ' everal years ago, she was the first woman named to that posi- tion. But she now believes it will be many years before the bank appoints a woman ex- ecutive vice president. "The men just don't feel comfortable," she says. "They make all sorts of excuses-that I'm not a banker [she worked as a consultant originally], that I. don't know the culture. There's a smoke screen four miles thick. I attribute it to being a woman." Similarly, 117 of 300 women ex- ecutives polled recently by UCLA's Gradu- ate School of Management and KornlFerry International, an executive search firm, felt that being a woman was the greatest obsta- cle to their success. A common concern among women, partic- uhiriy in 1w and investment banking, is they the best assignments go to men. "Some de- 4o K)RTUNE APRIL 16.1' Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 , Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP866M000886R002100150044w8 ~cd r Executives with careers and childrenface intense pressures. Karen Gonsalves, with Michael, 2, cud Michelle, 6, quit to consull%rurn her home. } partments-like sales and trading or merg- colleagues receive, even some men acknowl- ars and acquisitions-are considered. more: edge widespread male reluctance to criticize macho, hence more prestigious," says a; . a woman. ',`There are vast numbers' of men woman at a New York investment bank. "It's who can't do it,".says Eugene Jennings, pro- nothing explicit. But, if women can't get the fessor of business administration at MIichi- assignments that allow them to shine, how gan State University and a consultant to a ~ean they advance? dozen large companies. 'A male banking exec ,_ amen also worry that they don't receive utive agrees: "A male boss' will haul a guy the same kind of coiisfrudtive' criticism that aside and just kick ass if the subordinate per- me} 4p.,,While these women probably over- forms badly in front of a client. But I heard estimate the amount of feedback their male about a woman here who gets nervous and tends to giggle in front of customers.- She's unaware of it and her boss hasn't told her. But behind her back he downgrades her for. not being smooth with customers." Sometimes the message that has to be conveyed to a woman manager is much more sensitive. An executive at a large company says he once had to tell a woman that she should either cross her legs or keep her knees together when she sat. The encounter was obviously painful.to him. "She listened Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 NMA AGI i F~~.iz'~ ~~kt~~i+?,i ~;;r ~ .,~~:'+fc~;~.~:~'~A~:~x?~'.tr ,.+a..` wtk' :eFo>r`~~'ar7t..~^^'z~.5-'#W `??,fu"r:;zid:zT~..':w -~~"~t3~trrf~8i'~,b$.~`~r3tF .;.., ? k Y P Companies send few women to Hanard'sAdvanced Manag, mentProgra'n:. `TJris 1982 photograph is used in the latest promctfonal material to me and thanked me and expres?ed shock-` and women managers at two Northeastern .",heads the Simmons College GraduateSchootl;., at what she was doing," he recalls, with a retailing?corporatioris. While their sample of .-of Managernent.~ `` That's!-,,stupid manage-':-.I-,'- touch of agony in his voice. "My God, this is companies was not large, after their results ment. We just mean the'chance to compete ' something only your mother tells you. I m a fairly direct person and a great believer in equal opportunity. But it was damn difficult for me to say this to a woman whom I view to be very proper in all other respects." , Researclt,by Anne Harlan, a human re- source manager at the Federal Aviation Ad- ministration, and Carol Weiss, a managing associate of Charles Hamilton Associates, a Boston consulting firm, suggests that the sit,; uation doesn't -necessarily improve as the .lumber of women., in an Organizatidr in- cceases:,"Their study, conducted at the Wel}esley College Center for Research on Wgmen and completed in 1982, challenges the theory advanced by some experts that when a corporation attained a "critical mass" of executive women-defined as some- where between 30% and 35% job discrimi- nation would vanish naturally as men and women began to take each other for granted. Harlan and Weiss observed the effects of different numbers of women in anorganiza- tion during a three-year study of 100 men were published, other companies said they ' equally." Again, a semantic chasm separates ' had similar experiences. Harlan -md Weiss women and men:"Wome"nike Hermig and' found that while overt resistance drops Jardim-tlimk"ot'affirmative 3c"Gori as a vigor- " quickly after the'firstiew"worZen become managers; it seems to pick up -agn as the number of tivumen reaches,15%. In one com- pany they studied; only 6% of the managers were women, compared with 19% in the sec- ond company. But more women in the sec- ond company complained of discrimination, ranging from sexual harassment to inade= quate feedback. Could something other than discrimination-very different corporate cul- tures, say-have accounted for the result? Harlan and Weiss say no, that the two coin- panics were eminently comparable. Consultants and executives who think dis- crimination is the problem tend to believe it persists in part because the government has relaxed its commitment to affirmative action, which they define more narrowly than some advocates do. "We're not talking about quo- tas or preferential treatment," says Marga- ret Hennig who, along with Anne Jar-dim, "ous eflort`dri''tlie p' of'compviies?fo ensure that. women-are`treated equ.. y.and that sex- i s - , prejudices a r e a t permitted ' t o ' operate. Nfen fimk ht e term means reverse discrimi- nation; giVufg'wcimen.pral treatment T:egislation such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 prohibits companies from discriminating against women in hiring.'. ?. The laws worked well-indeed, almost too well. After seven or eight years, says Jen- pings of Michigan State, the pressure was off and no one pushed hard to see that discrimi- nation was eliminated in selecting people for senior management. Jennings thinks' the ..':. problem began in the latter days of the Car- ter Administration, when the economy was lagging and companies worried more about.!.-:: making money than about how their women t l' ? managers were doing. The Reagan Adminis- tration hasn't made equal opportunity a pri- ority either. i.%". t?.', 42 FORTUNr APOICib. Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 ' Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 What about the belief that women fall be- hind not because of discrimination, but be- cause they are cautious, tin aggressive, and differently motivated than men-or less mo- tivated? Even some female executives be-. lieve that women derail their' careers by choosing staff jobs over high-risk," high= reward line positions. One woman, formerly with a large consumer goods company and now president of a market research firm, urges women to worry less about sexism and more about whether the'jobs they take are the right route to the top. "I spent five years thinking the only reason I didn't become a corporate officer at my former company was because of my sex," she says. "I finally had to come to grips with the fact that I overem- phasized being a woman and underempha- sized what I did for a living. I was in a staff function-the company didn't live and die by what I? did." EN AND WOMEN alike tend to believe that because women are raised differently they must man- age differently. Research to sup- port this belief is hard to come by, though. The women retail managers studied by Har- lan and Weiss, while never quarterbacks or catchers, had no trouble playing on manage- ment teams. Nor did they perform less well on standardized tests measuring qualities like assertiveness and leadership. "Women dpn'tmanage differently," Harlan says flatly. In a much larger study specifically ad- dressing management styles, psychologists Jay Hall and Susan Donnell of Teleometrics International Inc., a management training company, reached the same conclusion. They matched nearly 2,000 men and worn- en managers according to age, rank in their organization, kind of organization, and the number of people they supervised. The psychologists ran tests to assess every- thing from managerial philosophies to the ability to get along with people, even quiz- zing' subordinates on their views of the boss. Donnell and Hall. concluded, " &Iale, and female managers do not differ in the way they,manage_eheprganization's techni- cal and human resources." Data on howwomens expectations-and nd therefore, ... arguably,, .their; performance- may differ from men's are,mor&confusing. Stanford Professor Myra Strobe, studied 150 men and 26 women who graduated from the Stanford Business School in 1974. When she and a colleague, Francine Gordon, polled the MBAs shortly before graduation, they,,discovered that the,yomen_hadjmuch lower ,,expectations: for.;their peak .earnings. The top salary the women expected during their careers was only 60% of the men's. The chairman's support is crucial, says Merck's equal-employment czar Larry Branch. Four years later the ratio had fallen to 40%. Did this mean that women were less ambi- tious or were willing to take lower salaries to get management jobs? Strober doesn't think so. She says a major reason for the women's lower salary expectations was that they took jobs in industries that traditionally pay less, but which,. the women thought, offered op- portunities for advancement. Almost 20% of the women in her sample went into govern- ment, compared with 3% of the men. On the other hand, no women went into investment banking or. r eal estate development, which each employed about 6% of the men. Strober points out, however, that investment bank- ing and big-time real .estate were all but closed to women in the early 1970s. "One way people decidevhat. their,:aspirations are, she says, 'is to-look around.and see what seems realistic. If you look atfield apd seeno`women advancing, you niav modify your goals."} :.~.~ . Some of what Mary Mne Deyanna founfd .in-_her?. examination of MBAs contradicts Strober's conclusions. Devanna, research co- ordinator of the Columbia Business School's Center for Research in Career Development, matched 45 men and 45 women who graduat- ed from the Columbia Business School from 1969 to 1972. Each paired man and woman had similar backgrounds, credentials, and marital status. The star tingsalaries of the women were 98% of the mens. Usingdata collected in 1980, Devanna found a big differ- ence in the salaries men and women ultimate- ly achieved, though. In manufacturing,_the highest paying sector, women tiara}ed $41,818 after ten yea rs,vs.,$59,733. for the men. Women in finance had salaries of $42,867 vs. $46.786for_themen, The gap in 'the', service industries was smallest: $36,666 vs. $38,600. She then tested four hypotheses in seeking to explain the salary differences: (1) that women are less successful because they are motivated differently than men, (2) that motherhood causes women to divert at- tention from their career's, (3)'that women seek jobs in.low-paying industries, and (4) that women seek types of jobs-in human re- sources, say-that pay less. Devanna found no major differences be- tween the sexes- in the importance they at- tached to the psychic or monetary rewards of work. "The women did not expect to earn Approved For Release 2009/03/16 CIA RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 ._.._.. --- - ---- .. .t'1Wi~'.~'`.,~4.-Air::,~:P.adF$a'~.r,-y'.?.e54vdA~-.i,;._7 `...wr.a]SF ?~+vY - ?'. }., ::r ??. ?C Approved For Release 2009/03/16: CIA-RDP86M00886R002100150044-8 acrd even fewer-3%m-had no children. Statistics on how any women bear chit- dren and then leave the corporation are in- complete. Catalyst, a nonprofit organization that encourages the participation of women 'in business, studied 815 two-career families in 1980. It found that 37% of the new moth- ers in the study returned to work within two months; 68% were back after 41 months; 87% in eight months. To a company, of course, an eight-month absence is a long time. Moreover, the 10% or so who never come back-most males are convinced the figure is higher-represent a substantial cap- ital investment lost. It would be naive to think that companies don't crank this into their calculation of how much the women who remain are worth. Motherhood clearly slows the progress of women who decide to take long maternity leaves or who choose to work part time. Bul even those committed to working full time on h?ir return believe {fiey are.sometimes held back=-purposely or inadvertently. "Men make too. many assumptions- that women .with children aren't free to take on time-con- Karol Emmerich became pregnant, Dayton Hudson worried she'd quit, so it promoted her. less than the men," she says. Nor did she theme-a conviction that women don't take find that motherhood led women to abandon their careers seriously. Even though most their careers. Although several women took fernalemanagers were regarded as extreme- maternity leaves, all returned to work full ly competent, the men thought they would time within six months. Finally, Devanna eventually leave-either to have children or found no big differences in the MBAs' choice because the tensions of work became too of industry or function, either when they much. Both are legitimate concerns. A wom- took their first jobs or ten years later. an on the fast track is under intense pres- Devanna concluded that discrimination, sure. Many corporate types believe that she ? no't? lev'ei of motlva(ion or choice of job, ac- gets much more scrutiny than a man and coupfcd=for the pay tif1;errences. Couldrihe must work harder to succeed. The pressures pr tfenf simply hav'ficen performance- increase geometrically if she has small chil- that the women didn't manage as well as dren at home. men? Dcv,inna claims that while she couldn't Perhaps as a result, thousands of women take this variable into account specifically, have careers rather than husbands and chil- she controlled for all the variables that dren. In the UCLA-KornJFerry study, of,e should have nude for a difference in perfor- ecutive women, 52% hadnevei:. married, mince-from family background to grades in