The Power of Working Moms

In the week’s WAPPP seminar “It Takes a Family and a Country,” Harvard Business School Professor Kathleen McGinn spoke on the importance of role models, both within the home and on the country level, and how they affect economic outcomes – and welfare outcomes more broadly – of both women and men.

McGinn started by asking a seemingly simple question: What drives outcomes between men and women? In developed countries, women on average are more educated than men, so a traditional understanding of learning or education doesn’t explain the advantage men hold over women in many areas. McGinn and her coauthors, Mayra Ruiz Castro also of HBS and Babson College, and Elizabeth Long Lingo of Mount Holyoke College, looked instead at learning in the home and from famous national figures, or what they refer to as the “role model effect.”

Their research question was “Are non-traditional gender role models in families and in societies related to national, organizational, and individual differences in (1) employment, (2) supervisory responsibility, (3) earnings, (4) allocation of household work and (5) caring for family members?

Studying this effect across 25 countries, McGinn et al used survey data from 2002 and 2012 to see changes in attitudes and outcomes over time. The data suggests that gender inequality has shrunk over the past decade, though unevenly. Women still do more work at home than men do across countries, though in more developed countries, there is less time in aggregate spent on household duties due to technological advances. Gender attitudes have also gotten more liberal over time, which counters recent research that suggests they're stagnating.

What happens when your role model at home is also a
country-level role model?

To measure the effects of gender inequality and its variations within country, McGinn et al defined role models on the micro and macro level. The study described role models at home as working mothers, defined as mothers who ever got paid for work outside the home before the respondent was 14 years old. To measure country-level role models, the study also looked at the average proportion of female parliamentarians in a respondent’s country before he or she turned 14. The focus on role models was critical because they shape what people see as appropriate behavior via exposure. Results indicated that this was especially true for role models within the family.

(1) Employment: The effect of being raised by a working mother is significant for women only. Likewise, the proportion of female parliamentarians during childhood increases women’s likelihood of employment but has no effect on men's employment.

(2) Supervisory roles: Women are generally less likely to hold supervisory positions across countries. There was no supervisory effect of having a working mother for men, but having a working mother had a significant and increasing effect for women. The effect of female parliamentarians is negative for women holding supervisory roles, though McGinn and her coauthors are still trying to understand why.

(3) Earnings: Being raised by a working mother had no effect on men’s relative incomes, while women’s incomes were higher for those raised by a working mother. This effect was mitigated by gender attitudes, however. Perhaps surprisingly, growing up during an era with a relatively large proportion of women in parliament dampens wages, and this effect is more pronounced for men.

(4) Allocation of household work: McGinn emphasized that gender inequality in the public sphere is affected by gender inequality at home, though the cycle flows both ways. Earlier research assumed that households acted as single units with shared preferences, but more recent research has acknowledged and accounted for individual preferences within households. Being raised by a working mother decreases women’s hours and increases men’s hours spent on household work, and growing up during an era with relatively large proportion of women in parliament had the same effects.

(5) Caring for family members: Being raised by a working mom increases both men and women’s role with children, and gender attitudes have no effect. A higher proportion of female parliamentarians increased just men's time spent caring for family members.

In short, having a mother who worked outside the home improved women’s outcomes in the workplace and increased men’s participation in household work. As McGinn put it, "There are few magic pills that have proven to reduce gender inequality in all of these public and private spheres, but being raised by a working mother comes close."

What Do Women Really Want? Equality, to Start

Claiming to know “What Women Want” can be a slippery slope, but fortunately, it was Professor Deborah Rhode of Yale Law School, and not Mel Gibson, making the claim at this week’s WAPPP seminar. Professor Rhode discussed the widespread and varied gender disparities featured in her 2014 book of the same title. She began by speaking about her time in law school and as a young law professor, remembering that gender was noticeably absent from the curriculum, and comments that would be considered sexual harassment today ran rampant and unchecked.

Rhode argued that changing gender disparities begins by recognizing them, though there is a gap between those who recognize such inequality and those who self-identify as feminists. When the definition of feminism is provided, between two-thirds and four-fifths of women identify as feminists, yet when the definition is not provided, only one quarter of women self-identify. This is important because identifying as a feminist is correlated with activism around gender equity issues.

Though we often discuss the harms of gender inequality anecdotally - our friend who struggles to balance her job and parenting duties, the story of a survivor of campus sexual assault in the news - Rhode made the case for just how widespread and systematic these disparities are. This unfortunate truth is exacerbated by the fact that many women who experience discrimination aren't likely to challenge it. Even individuals who have convincing evidence of bias are hesitant to challenge the institution responsible for it; many are deterred by the high psychological and financial cost of challenging their institutions, paired with the low probability of success. The recent gender discrimination law suit by Ellen Pao against a prominent venture capital firm is a prime example of this.

The statistics in many areas of professional and personal life are bleak. Women constitute over a third of MBA graduates but only 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs. Though much of the country's pay gap is driven by women being clustered in low pay industries, similarly situated women also earn less than men, even when controlling for many relevant factors.

Gender pay disparities are the most pronounced among those who opt out of the formal economy, which are disproportionately women. Less than 1% of men with kids under 15 are stay-at-home dads, and women are responsible for twice as much childcare and three times as much housework as men. The fact that the U.S. is one of three countries in the world without paid maternity leave speaks to how far our society has to go on the issue.

Rhode argued that a major way to remedy these disparities within household labor division is to protect women's reproductive rights, which include working towards making abortion safe and unnecessary. Despite the ideological divides over this issue, about two-thirds of women believe the Supreme Court should not overturn Roe v. Wade.

The intersection of economic opportunities and women's security was also highlighted. Rhode pointed out that inadequate safety nets keep women in violent relationships, and this is especially important when we consider that two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. In addition, the United States has the highest rate of partner homicide in the developed world, and women in the United States Armed Forces are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed in action.

Rhode argued that to change the agenda and move the dial on all of these issues, we must get more women into leadership roles. It's well-documented that the statistics on women in political leadership in this country is dismal. The U.S. ranks 78th in the world in the percentage women in office, below Saudi Arabia. Indeed, only 10% of American governors and mayors of major cities are female.

Rhode was quick to point out that putting women in positions of power is not the same as empowering women, however, arguing that we also need a strong women’s movement to create political support for these issues. She suggested greater dialogue between generations on strategies for activism and applauded young women tackling campus sexual assault, whose activism led to a Presidential Task Force on the subject.

When asked about the potential use of quotas in American government or corporate boards, similar to those recently instituted by European countries, Rhode expressed concern. In addition to what she deemed America's negative knee-jerk reaction to affirmative action programs, she also questioned whether appointing more women would change corporate culture. However, Rhode argued that more disclosure on the gender breakdown within organizations could be used to embarrass institutions that have large gender disparities.

In closing, Rhode made sure to remind the audience that it is difficult to know what women really want because we don’t know what preferences would be in an equal world. There are currently far too many ways in which society constructs and constrains the choices of women, so our desires might be very different in a world in which women could really choose.

Negotiating Across Gender: A Workshop

If you’ve ever found yourself in need of a better salary, a title that reflects your skill set, or a bigger staff to get the job done, then this week’s WAPPP seminar applies to you. Harvard Kennedy School Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and WAPPP Research Director Hannah Riley Bowles used the workshop to guide attendees through a research-based negotiations toolkit she recently created. Bowles argued that these main takeaways can help anyone - not just women - succeed in their professional negotiations.

1. Apply negotiations skills broadly. Bowles encouraged attendees to think about negotiation skills broadly, since academics and the media tend to focus too closely on salary negotiations. Through negotiation, employees can enhance their recognition and rewards (i.e. securing a new title or getting their name on research), seize opportunities to expand their authority (i.e. budget or who reports to them), overcome barriers, since more powerful employees are more prone to action, and make their work more personally meaningful.

The research: A recent Simmons CGO Survey of 364 female executives revealed that 80% of participants reported recent career negotiations. The most commonly cited opportunity that involved negotiations was seeking a new position or leadership opportunity, demonstrating that negotiating is about more than just salary.

2. Avoid ambiguity. Bowles encouraged attendees to consider the importance of ambiguity in negotiations. Research shows that ambiguity can lead to a heightened potential for gender-specific attributions, especially if the employees are operating in a gendered environment. There are two types of ambiguity at play here: norm ambiguity, or the degree of clarity about norms for appropriate negotiating behavior, and structural ambiguity, or the degree of clarity about zone of possible agreement and appropriate standards for agreement. When you provide employees with these standards, however, the gender gap disappears.

The research: A study that Bowles conducted on MBA graduate job market outcomes highlighted the power of ambiguity. Controlling for 30 variables that might otherwise explain the difference in income, Bowles found an overall gender gap of $5,000 (on an average salary of $100,000). In low ambiguity situations, such as investment banking and consulting, which comprised 70% of the sample, there was no gender gap difference. However, in high ambiguity situations, Bowles observed a 10% salary gap, leading to an average gender gap of $11,000 a year.

3. Be conscious of where you get your information. Bowles cautioned to make sure that our information search itself isn’t gendered, as we are likely to compare ourselves to those who are similar to us, therefore creating a self-perpetuating cycle. Since informal networks enhance access to information and advocacy channels, it’s important to reach outside of convenience networks to get information.

4. Watch out for stereotypes – both others’ and your own. There are several kinds of stereotypes in negotiation. Explicit and implicit biases might be more familiar to us; the former is easier to recognize and therefore avoid or correct, while the latter is harder to detect. There is also descriptive stereotyping (assumptions about what an individual will do) and prescriptive stereotyping (assumptions about what an individual should do). Bowles explained that self-advocacy violates society’s prescriptive stereotypes of feminine behavior, which in turn limits willingness to work with or hire the woman who violated that norm.

The research: Using a study of a fake resumes with a gender-neutral name, Bowles found that women who advocate for themselves are perceived much more negatively than women who advocate for others.

5. Enhance negotiations through relationships, and enhance relationships through negotiations. Bowles argued that explaining why what you’re asking for is legitimate in your employer's eyes will enhance your chances of getting what you’re asking for. In addition, signaling concern for your organizational relationships can mitigate the social cost of such negotiations. While some question whether teaching organizations to reward women who act relationally and don’t reward the women who don’t is helpful for women's professional prospects, Bowles asserted that the skills she encourages women to use are good practice for any employee facing a negotiation situation.