Ambition without future

31/10/2006 1Benefits of being a MemberAmbition without future?

Ambition without future

Obstacles and incentives in the scientific careers of men and women in Micro-Optics

Elke Van den BrandtNetwork of Excellence on Micro-Optics

Vrije Universiteit Brussel


Scope

• Women remain under represented in scientific research

• Micro-Optics as case study New technology International composition

• International dimension Influence of national/local culture Influence of work place


Methods

• Data HR-databases networks

• 2 surveys Online, 8 Themes First: 245 respondents (67%) Second: 1357 respondents


Overview presentation

1.Current position

2.Career development

3.Ambition

4.Perceived discrimination

5.Working day

6.Job satisfaction and work values

7.Family situation


1. Current Position2. Career development3. Ambition4. Perceived discrimination5. Working day6. Job satisfaction and work values7. Family situation8. To conclude


Horizontal segregation

020406080

100

Naturalsciences

Engineeringand

technologies

Medicalsciences

Agriculturalsciences

Social sciences Humanities

Women

Men

0

20

40

60

80

100

Basic research Applied research Design Development Production

Women

Men

General scientific areas

Optics


Horizontal segregation (II)


Horizontal segregation (III)

• Men work more for small organizations than women (Mean rank men 440,77; women: 476,40; p<.05)

• Women are concentrated in departments with a higher female participation (Mean men: 20,2; women: 25,5; p<.001)

• More women work under a female boss/supervisor (Men: 5%; women 10%; p<.001)

• More men do not have a boss/supervisor (Men: 10%; women 4%; p<.001)


Vertical segregation:The Glass Ceiling

0

20

40

60

80

100

D C B A

Men

Women

0

20

40

60

80

100

D C B A

Men

Women

Engineering, technologyand natural sciences

Optics


Contractual segregation

• Differences in contract and policy positions

Full time/Part time- 93% of the women, 96% of the men (! p=.073)

Contract of Unlimited duration - 57% of the women, 72% of the men (excluding the PhD-students) (p<.001)

- 46% of the women, 65% of the men (including the PhD-students) (p<.001)

Wage (‘sticky floor’)- Data not applicable

Policy positions- 23% of the women, 46% of the men hold policy positions (formal positions) (p<.001)

- 41% of the women, 59% of the men have supervision power (over work of others) (p<.01)

- 21% of the women, 39% of the men have decision power (over salary/promotion of others) (p<.001)


2. Career Development

1. Current Position

3. Ambition4. Perceived discrimination5. Working day6. Job satisfaction and work values7. Family situation8. To Conclude


Career Development

• Promotion time Lower levels: No significant differences Higher levels: women move on slower

• Interruptions in the career 35% of women, 22% of men (p<.001)

- Women (mean: 14 months) : pregnancy leave- Men (mean:18 months) : military service, unemployment

Gap is larger in eastern and southern Europe than in northern and western Europe and in the US/Canada.

• Time spend abroad Long term:

- Men and women have spend a comparable time abroad- BUT: women travel for shorter periods (more but shorter visits)- BUT: women traveled more during their studies/at a younger age

Short term: no differences


3. Ambition

1. Current position2. Career development

4. Perceived discrimination5. Working day6. Job satisfaction and work

values7. Family situation8. To conclude


Ambition (I)

• Where would you like to be working in 5 years: 79% of women prefers a higher position, 62% of men (p<.001)

49% of women only wants a higher position, 33% of men (p<.001)

Pattern remains when excluding high positions or PhD-students Pattern is more explicit in higher education than in business

enterprise/industry.

Possible explanations: - Pre-selection

- Current position


Ambition (II)

• Perceived chances for getting job of first choice: When first choice implies promotion: men rate their chances

higher (p<.01)

When no promotion is implied: no significant differences

Self-confidence or perceived discrimination?Men esteem their research and teaching skills higher

(respect. p <.01 and p<.001)

Women are more skeptic about the fairness of selection and promotion procedures (cfr. infra)


Ambition (III)

• Turnover Intent to turnover is higher for women (mean 8.4) than for men (mean

7.7) (p<.000) For both sexes, the score is lower in eastern and southern Europe than

in northern and western Europe and in the US/Canada. No significant differences for different kinds of organizations/sectors


4. Perceived Discrimination

1. Current position2. Career development3. Ambition

5. Working day6. Job satisfaction and work values7. Family situation8. To conclude


Perceived discrimination (I)

• 28% of women perceived discrimination, 13% of men Lack of appreciation and recognition Promotion opportunities Salary

• Note: sex and age

Men 13

87

Yes

No

Women28

72

-

Did you encounter any discrimination in the workplace during your career?


Perceived discrimination (II)

• 56% of women beliefs in fairness of selection and promotion procedures, 75% of men Subjectivity Lack of transparence

Men

76

12

12Yes

No

I don'tknow

Women

5720

23

-

Do you think these criteria for selection and promotion are fair?


Perceived discrimination (III)

Some remarkable differences:

• Women perceive less discrimination in departments with a high participation of women

• Women perceive less discrimination when the supervisor/boss is female.

• Men perceive more discrimination when supervised by a women• Women perceive slightly more discrimination in larger organizations• Women perceive slightly more discrimination in the business

enterprise/industry than in higher education• No significant regional differences were found. Only for women in

the US/Canada a very high percentage perceived discrimination (53%)


5. Working Day

1. Current position2. Career development3. Ambition4. Perceived discrimination

6. Job satisfaction and work values7. Family situation8. To conclude


Working Day (I)

• Working hours: men work more hours/week than women (50h versus 46h) (p<.000)

• This extra time is not spend on research:

44

29

136 4 3 1

57

28

7 4 2 1 20

102030405060

Re

se

arc

h

Te

ac

hin

g

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

an

dM

an

ag

em

en

t

Se

rvin

g o

nc

om

mit

tee

s

Pro

fes

sio

na

l

gro

wth

Co

ns

ult

ing

/fre

ela

nc

ew

ork

Oth

er

Men

Women


Working Day

• Working style Men work more in group More women would like to work more in group

- NOTE: pattern remains when actual working style is taken into account

Remarkable results:– Correlated with the general satisfaction: people working in

group are more satisfied.

– Also correlated with the satisfaction on appreciation from others, contact with colleagues and collaboration with colleagues.

– Correlated with the intention to turnover: people working alone have a higher intent to turnover


6. Satisfaction

1. Current position2. Career development3. Ambition4. Perceived discrimination5. Working day

7. Family situation8. To conclude


Satisfaction

• Satisfaction (list of 20 items)

Ranking top 5 Men Women

Flexible working times 1 1

Intellectual challenges 2 3

Autonomy 3 2

Work content 4 5

Collaboration with colleagues 5 4

Ranking bottom 5 Men Women

Salary 1 1

Management of the organization 2 3

Promotion opportunities 3 2

Work load 4 4

Job security 10 ! 5


• Men are more satisfied on 16 of the 20 items• Significant differences for:

Salary Access to adequate facilities, equipment,… Promotion opportunities Job security Being useful to society Self realization

• Satisfaction on these items is correlated to - the general satisfaction, - the willingness to choose for the same career,- the ambition of a job outside the current organization.- the intent to turnover

These correlations are stronger for women!

Satisfaction (II)


• Discouraging factors: reason to change job

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Salary and careerpossibilities

Work content Working conditions Personal life Organization People at work End of contract

MenWomen

Satisfaction (III)


7. Family Situation

1. Current position2. Career development3. Ambition4. Perceived discrimination5. Working day6. Job satisfaction and work values

8. To conclude


Family situation (I)

Family situation Men Women

Single 14% 17%

Couple without children 32% 31%

Couple with children 44% 32%

Other 10% 20%

Task division within household only including respondents living with partner

Men Women

You do most of household 3% 68%

Partner does most of household 73% 6%

Household is done equally by you and partner 17% 15%

Others do most of household 7% 11%


Family situation (II)

Problems combining work and household activitiesMen Women

1 Never or less than 1/year 30% 26%

2 Several times/year 35% 31%

3 Several times/month 22% 24%

4 Several times/week 9% 11%

5 Every day 4% 8%

• This pattern appears in all countries/regions.

• No differences? People with high household responsibilities work fewer hours per week.


8. To Conclude

1. Current position2. Career development3. Ambition4. Perceived discrimination5. Working day6. Job satisfaction and work values7. Family situation


Preliminary Conclusions

• Women are underrepresented (horizontal, vertical and contractual segregation)

• Women do want to move on (ambition), but feel less satisfied and perceive more discrimination.

• Especially the lack of job security and promotion opportunities are obstacles for women.

• Combining work/family is not perceived as an important obstacle, but influences the number of working hours.

• Only few differences could be found between regions and between different kinds of organizations


Contact

Elke Van den Brandt

[email protected]

0032 485 61 63 15

Documents

Ambition without future