Men received 15% more promotions than women, according to a Catalyst Benchmarking Survey.

Similar numbers of “high potential” women and men were selected for lateral moves to other parts of the business.
However, men but not women, received promotions after the career-developing lateral moves.

Women’s developmental lateral moves were substitutes for actual career advancement, suggested INSEAD’s Hermina Ibarra with Nancy M. Carter and Christine Silva of Catalyst.
Similarly, women receive social accounts – or explanations – as substitutes for salary increases.

Hunter College’s Virginia Valian suggested that implicit bias may explain men’s performance is consistently overrated while women’s accomplishments are underrated by coworkers, bosses and themselves, .
Resulting discrepancies in opportunity accrue over time to create large gaps in advancement, she asserted.

In addition, women are typically evaluated in relation to a “masculine” standard of leadership, reported Catalyst’s earlier research.
Three consequences of this rating standard undermine leadership and advancement opportunities:

• Extreme Perceptions, in which women are attributed behavioral excesses, such as “toughness” or “niceness,”
• High Competence Threshold, when women leaders are held to higher standards and receive lower and fewer rewards than men,
• Competent but Disliked, when women may be perceived either as “competent” or “likeable” but not both.

Family structure can accelerate or slow career progress in unexpected ways.
Both “post traditional” mothers who have employed spouses, and “traditional” fathers whose wives are engaged in childcare only, more rapidly advanced in private sector careers than women and men with other family configurations, reported Phyllis Tharenou of Flinders University.
Somewhat surprisingly, non-parent women and men, and unmarried fathers  advanced more slowly in their careers.

Employment disruption, such as maternity leave or layoff, did not impair career advancement for women and men, but the industry sector was associated with differing rates of career advancement.

In a separate analysis, Tharenou noted that the strongest predictors of advancing in management were managerial aspirations and masculinity.
Women were more likely to advance when they received career encouragement and when organizational hierarchies included both women and men.

To explain these career advancement rate discrepancies, University of Massachusetts’ Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli of Wellesley suggested that women encounter a career labyrinth rather than a glass ceiling.

Differences in career advancement rates may be narrowed by sponsorship rather than mentorship, argued Catalyst and Center for Talent Innovation.
Male advocates can support female sponsees by focusing attention on the challenges women face at work and can advocate for organizational processes and structures that normalize equivalent competence in women and men.

• What type of “career encouragement” enable women to advance in careers at a rate similar to men?

RELATED POSTS:

• Women Get More Promotions With “Behavioral Flexibility”
• Career Advancement as Contest – Tournament and How to Win
• Role Pioneers May Encounter “The Glass Cliff”
• Women’s Likeability – Competence Dilemma: Overcoming the Backlash Effect
• Negotiation Style Differences: Women Don’t Ask for Raises or Promotions as Often as Men
• Women Balance on the Negotiation Tightrope to Avoid Backlash
• Women’s Career Development Model – Individual Action in Career Planning and the Contest and Sponsorship Pathways to Advancement – Part 1 of 2
• Women’s Career Development Model – Individual Action in Negotiation, Networking-Mentoring-Sponsorship, Skillful Self-Promotion – Part 2 of 2
• Leadership Qualities that Lead to the Corner Office?
• Three Factors Affecting Women in Corporate Leadership
• White Men can Lead in Improving Workplace Culture
• Startup Success Correlates with Women Executive Involvement
• Glass Elevator and Nine Principles for Personal Branding, Career Impact
• Hiring by Cultural Matching: Potential for Bias

©Kathryn Welds