The Equity Supply Chain:
Is it the Cause of So Few Women
in Management and Leadership Positions?
Richard G. Dudley
14845 SW Murray Scholls Dr., PMB 239, Beaverton Oregon 97007, USA
(Beaverton, Oregon USA / Bogor, Indonesia)
hp +1 503 415 9997 / hp +62 81 111 8459
richard.dudley@ attglobal.net
Abstract
Women have comprised over half of US university students since the 1980s.
Women make up 45% of the US workforce. However women are poorly
represented in senior and leadership positions both in industry and on university
faculties. Only 16% of corporate officers and only 2% of CEOs at major
companies are women. If increasing numbers of women have been in the pipeline
for over 25 years should more have emerged at the other end as leaders? A
simple model indicates that the pipeline delay hypothesis is not sufficient to
explain the relatively small numbers of women in senior and leadership roles.
Keywords: gender equity, supply chain, women, system dynamics, workforce
Introduction
The role of women as a part of the US labor force is significant and still growing. In
addition, over 50% of university students in the United States are women and this has
been the case for over 25 years. This is now true even at institutions dominated by
engineering and science curricula such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
where more than half the undergraduate science majors and more than one third of the
engineering students are women (Dean, 2006). Two well known universities in the
Boston area, MIT and Harvard, have women presidents.
Nevertheless, the proportion of women in higher positions, both in academia and in
business circles is less than what one might expect given the high proportion of female
students and the proportion of women in the workforce. Although half of the students in
fields such as medicine are women, only about 15% of full professors in social behavioral
and life sciences at top-tier institutions are women (Dean, 2006). Although women now
make up almost 45% of the workforce, they account for only about 16% of corporate
officers at Fortune 500 companies, and only 2% of CEOs (Creswell, 2006). A recent
international survey of businesses found that, in the USA, only 23% of senior
management positions were filled by women (Anon, 2007).
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
In this paper I briefly examine the apparently low proportion of women in leadership and
senior positions in order to determine if this apparent discrepancy could be due to the
time it takes for women to move up through the management hierarchy. In other words:
Is this merely a supply-chain problem? As Cresswell (2006) comments: “For decades,
the pat explanation was that women simply had not been in the work force long enough;
with patience, the pipeline would fill.”
Background
There is a significant amount of literature on the question of womens role in the
workforce, and a lot of additional information in the form of workforce statistics and
government studies of educational trends. The use of some of these data as sources fora
generic system dynamics model is problematical because the reports often are related to a
particular situation (e.g. a specific university), a specific period of years, or are otherwise
restricted to a subset of the required details. Obtaining overall summary information is
more difficult.
One interesting summary of changes in educational trends for women is provided by
Goldin et al (2006). She reports that the relative proportion of women in college,
compared to men, actually dropped during the 1930s and 40s. That is, early in the 20th
century the relative proportions of men and women at colleges were approximately 50-
50. However, at that time the proportion of the total population attending college was
also quite low -- below 10%. Between 1940 and 2000 the proportion of college students
who were women increased from about 35% to somewhat above 55% (Figure 1). In
1940 the fraction of the general population who graduated from college was
approximately 10% for men and 5% for women. By the year 2000 this had risen, more or
less exponentially, to about 30% for men and 38% for women (Figure 2).
Substantial increases in women's participation in the work force also occurred during this
period. Typically this information is reported as the fraction of each sub-population
participating in the workforce, but for our purposes this can be converted to the fraction
of the work force made up of each gender. In 1950 the workforce was composed of
approximately 27% women and 73% men. By 1998 this had changed to 45% women and
55% men (Fullerton, 1999) (Figure 3). However during this period the fraction of work
force participants who worked full time, as opposed to part-time, remained at about 75%
for women and about 90% for men.
Even accounting for the larger portion of part-time workers in the workforce the question
remains: if 45% of the workers are women then why are only 2% of CEOs, 15% of senior
faculty, and 16% of corporate officers women? We would expect a larger proportion of
women in higher positions. Wouldn't we?
Dudley Page 2
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
The model
The model is composed of 10 stocks, each subscripted for male and female. The model
follows the flow of people through the educational system (four stocks) into the basic
workforce (three stocks) and on into more senior level positions (three stocks). Starting
with students in their last year of high school, people flow through up to three possible
stages of university training, or directly into basic jobs.’ College students also move into
basic jobs, but those which lead to more rapid advancement. Graduate students and
upper level graduate students move directly into more advanced positions (Figure 4).
The nature of the flows from one stock to another is an important consideration in a
supply-chain model of this sort. A standard stock within constant fraction outflow would
allow people to move rapidly to higher positions, which we know is not the case.
Nevertheless some of the stocks should be represented this way. For example, a
promising new graduate moving into a basic job could be promoted immediately to
higher-level position.
On the other hand, outflows from some stocks must be treated as higher-level delays or
conveyors. One of these, the stock university students, is treated as a high-level delay
causing students to "graduate" in more or less 4 years. Importantly the stock people
during early career is treated as a conveyor. That is, workers in this category can not
move to the next category unless they have been in this category for a fixed number of
years: they are limited by the delay called becoming established, which is restricted by
time needed to become established. Once workers move into the next higher category,
people with established career path, they can move further up only if there are openings
in the next category: people in relatively senior and responsible positions. The same is
true when moving from that category to the final category: people in leadership positions.
The proportion of the workforce expected to be in these two senior categories has been
set at 10% for the people in responsible positions and 2% of the total workforce for
people in leadership positions. The number of positions actually open in these last two
categories is determined by retirement and, in the first case also by people being
promoted from responsible positions to leadership positions. Consequently, it is possible
for people to move up in the basic job categories fairly quickly but moving beyond
people during early career becomes more difficult (Figure 5).
In stocks representing basic job categories the situation is more straightforward, and each
is formulated as a standard stock. However, this is complicated by the fact that each has
three outflows: moving to the next category, retirement, and the process of leaving the
workforce to become a homemaker. Becoming a homemaker, in the model, can occur
from high school, from basic careers, and from post college basic careers. For the sake of
* Model runs presented here assume a constant inflow to the final year of high school of an equal number of
male and female students. An altemative, using a constant population growth of 2 or 3 percent, does not
significantly change the resulting proportions of women in the workforce.
Dudley Page 3
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
simplicity people who are in college or graduate school, and people at higher career
levels do not permanently leave the workforce to become homemakers.”
Outcomes, Modifications, and Discussion
Runs of the model reported here include a period of increasing participation by women in
the workforce covering the years 1920 to 2010. Rather than using a ramp change,
changes in the three different fraction becoming homemakers values is determined by a
goal seek approach adjusted to match the actual fraction found in the workforce. The
final fraction is the goal. The time needed to reach this goal is the difference between the
ramp start year and a ramp and year divided by four, a value sufficient to permit the goal
to be reached within the selected period. For most runs the period of change was from
1920 to 2010. Constants in the model related to becoming a homemaker were then
adjusted so that the total fraction of women in the workforce is about 20% in 1940 and
about 35% in 2005, matching information from Fullerton (1999).
Initial runs of the model appear to illustrate what we might expect anyway: compared to
initial model outcomes, real world women are underrepresented at higher occupational
levels. I say ‘we expect this anyway’ because we know that the fraction of women in the
workforce was somewhat below 30% in the 1950s but the current fraction of women at
higher levels in the workforce is only about 15% to 23% depending on what data we use.
The 50 plus years elapsed should be sufficient to allow people to move up in the
hierarchy.
Obviously other factors are at work. The most obvious factor which might account for
this difference is that the model should also account for the fact that 25% of the female
workforce works less than full-time. For all remaining model runs I have adjusted model
constants so that the model output, fraction of women in the total workforce, follows the
lower curve in Figure 3. This change allows us to be more conservative in checking to
see if the supply-chain hypothesis could possibly be correct.
This change, on its own, is insufficient to account for the lower levels of women we
currently find in management and leadership positions. Model output presented in Figure
7 shows the overall fraction of women in the workforce paralleling what we have seen in
the real world. However, the real world fraction of women in leadership and senior-level
positions is well below that seen in model output. If the real world paralleled what we
see in the model we would expect, by 2007, about 35% of leadership positions to be filled
by women.
Another realistic possibility is that the large proportion of women who become
homemakers not only prevents those women from moving through the hierarchy but also
tags women in general as "homemakers" and consequently restricts their upward
mobility in the workforce. That is, people are reluctant to hire them because they are
? In the model becoming a homemaker refers to a situation where workers permanently leave the
workforce. Because of the nature of the stocks and the exponential outflow this perhaps can include the
idea that some people are "partially removed" from the stock.
Dudley Page 4
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
perceived as people who may quit to become homemakers. This can be represented in
the model as in additional factor limiting the movement of female workers from the two
categories of basic careers into early careers. Thus the normal flow of workers into the
early career category is multiplied by an effect of homemaker fraction on the likelihood of
moving up. This has been formulated as a look-up inversely related to the fraction of
homemaker departures from the workforce from each basic career. If the homemaker
fraction is high ( for example 0.7) then the likelihood of remaining workers (of that
gender) moving out of the basic career categories will be diminished by a multiplier ( for
example 0.3).
Applying this option, however, makes relatively little difference in the outcome (Figure
8). In this case, although the proportion of women in basic careers increases
substantially during the earlier part of the period of change, the ultimate result is similar.
This is because the restriction applied increases the number of people in basic careers.
Since moving up is calculated as a fraction of those present in the stock ultimately they
will move up anyway as the stock size grows. By 2007 we would still expect
approximately 31% of the senior positions to be filled by women - not including those
who are leaders. That outcome is higher than in the real world value. The fraction of
women in senior management positions reported by USA companies is about 23%
(Anon, 2007).
Perhaps a more likely scenario is that the tag "homemaker" limits women's promotion at
all levels. Under this scenario even if women move into an established career path their
likelihood of promotion to senior positions is still limited in the same way as is their
junior colleagues’ promotion to a beginning career. A dding this limitation in the
promotion of women moving from established career to senior positions and from senior
positions to leaders produces the outcome exhibited in Figure 9. Restricting promotions
in this way would significantly lower the fraction of senior and leadership positions held
by women, although it does not lower them to the low levels seen in the USA workforce.
Obviously we can continue to limit these promotions to a point where we can match the
real data. From the model, we can not determine what factors limit promotion, but we
can reject the supply chain hypothesis. Literature on the subject discusses many potential
limiting factors including active bias, passive bias, women actually leaving the
workforce, and differences in what men and women desire from their work environment,
and their work task strengths (Anon, 2005; Campbell et al., 2004; Gneezy et al., 2003;
Hurley, 2005).
One area where women's participation has changed significantly over the period under
consideration is in education. Women students have outnumbered men at the
undergraduate level since 1980. Given this fact, the intervening 27 years, and the
continued lack of women in senior positions we may wonder what might have happened
if the boom in women’s university education had commenced earlier. That is, 27 years
ago women became more numerous than men in undergraduate programs. Some of these
individuals have entered, or will be entering, senior positions and will be moving into
Dudley Page5
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
leadership. If we had had, for example, 37 years, would we have seen a bigger change in
the leadership proportion in spite of the hypothesized bias in promotions at higher levels?
In the model the fraction entering university from high school is formulated as a lookup
function based on data from (Goldin et al., 2006). As atest we can change this lookup
function to something much more aggressive: a more rapid increase in women's
enrollment in college (Figure 11).
The results of this test are presented in Figure 12. More aggressive programs to attract
women students into university programs would have led to some improvements in the
proportion of women in senior and leadership positions. Nevertheless, such changes
would not have altered the hiring bias. The results of such a program would still have
lagged far behind an equitable hiring and promotion process. This leads to the
conclusion that to enhance women's participation in senior and leadership positions more
emphasis must be placed on promotion practices within the later stages in the
employment chain. There would appear to be, and have been for some time, sufficient
numbers of women in the supply chain at lower levels -- certainly enough to provide
candidates for women's attainment of senior positions.
As pointed out by others there is the possibility that men tend to hire men, and women
tend to hire women, on the average. This possibility was discussed by Campbell et al.
(2004), and reported by Creswell (2006) and others. If implemented in the model, this
would lead to a situation whereby all senior and leader positions would become 100% to
one sex or the other, depending which was in the majority at the start of the test. A
similar idea is that current leaders hire in patterns that conform to what they are used to
seeing around them. This approach would tend to stabilize the status quo, implying that
pushing for change is necessary, assuming that change is desired.
Fortunately, some also believe that even a relatively small number of women in senior
positions would be sufficient to remove hiring bias (Creswell, 2006). If this is true then
as more women enter positions of responsibility -- especially related to hiring -- then the
proportions of male and female workers should fairly rapidly align with those in the
supply chain.
Regardless of these possibilities, it is fairly obvious that the pipeline delay hypothesis is
not sufficient to explain the relatively small numbers of women currently in senior and
leadership roles.
Dudley Page 6
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
Literature Cited
Anon. 2005. Women “Take Care,” Men “Take Charge:” Stereotyping of U.S. Business
Leaders Exposed. CATALY ST: New Y ork
Anon. 2007. International Business Owners Survey:
http://www.gti.org/pressroom/articles/pr_03082007.asp. Grant Thronton
International
Campbell D, Hovmand PS. 2004. Is Y our Organization Collegiality-Challenged? : A
Case Study Demonstrating the Effect of Unconscious Gender Bias, 22nd
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. The System Dynamics
Society: Oxford, England
Creswell J. 2006. How Suite It Isn't: A Dearth of Female Bosses, New York Times: New
York
Dean C. 2006. Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches, New York Times:
New Y ork
Fullerton HN, Jr. 1999. Labor force participation: 75 years of change, 1950-98 and
1998-2025. Monthly Labor Review 1999(December): 3-12
Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A. 2003. Performance in Competitive Environments:
Gender Differences. Quarterly J ournal of Economics(Aug 2003): 1049-1074
Goldin C, Katz LF, Kuziemko I. 2006. The Homecoming of American College Women:
the Reversal of the College Gender Gap, Nber Working Paper Series - Working
Paper 12139: 46. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA
Hurley K. 2005. Mind the (Gender) Gap A Follow-up Experimental Analysis of Gender
Differences in Performance in Competitive Environments, Department of
Economics: 85. Stanford University
Dudley Page7
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
Figures
Percent of College Graduates who were Female
60
30 f -------------------------------------------
20
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
Year
Figure 1. Percent of USA college graduates who were female during the
past century (adapted from Goldin et al., 2006). Note that the proportion
of the population graduating from college changed during the same
period from less than 10% to almost 40%.
Fraction of Population Graduating from College
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year of Graduation
Figure 2. The fraction of the population graduating from college -- male
and female
Dudley Page 8
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
Approximate Composition of the Workforce by Gender
0.9
0.8
men accounting for women's
— __ parttime participation in the workforce
ee - SM- mas = -----------------------------------
9
B06
: 05
a
$
B04
E 0.3
——= women accounting for
part-time participation in the workforce
ee: oo
01
0
1950 1975 1998 2005
Year
Figure 3. Approximate composition of the workforce during the period 1950 through 2005. Data obtained from
several sources as cited. The lower line is calculated as 75% of the orange line reflecting the fact that about 25% of
women in the workforce are part-time workers.
Dudley Page 9
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
entering
firel year
high school
Figure 4. Basic structure of the model stocks. Yellow stocks represent educational stages, pale orange represent basic careers, darker orange represent established
careers. Pale blue represents delayed flows. See text for explanation on other restrictions on flows from one stock to another. Note that all stocks are subscripted by
gender. (Note: Denv refers to delay-conveyor).
Dudley Page 10
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
eed
aa
— eel
Beene — meg
2. es toa
n
\ : \ af / \
=
: pas
ee
retiring, “aes
= “SS
{|
Figure 5. Deiail of the last four stocks in the supply chain. Flows between these stocks are all restricted. The first is a delay
conveyor with a time constant time needed to become established. The second flow, being promoted, can only be as large as the
number of candidates needed to be recruited into the next labor pool category. ‘The same holds true for the flow picking
leadership which is restricted by the number of new leaders needed. Both of these labor pool categories are limited to a constant
fraction of the total workforce. (Note: Denv refers to delay-conveyor).
Dudley Page 11
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
<ectionbenoming
becoming
honenslers
frombigh
school
Sy
entering en 4
workforce aan | eee
extering \ rons \ | pant ice
= | = Be oe
sc
z school
entering a. es
university
an — See
Figure 6. Stocks in the model referring to educational and early career categories.
Dudley Page 12
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
Fraction of Each Work Category Who are Female
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (Y ear)
fraction of workforce who are women : SET 22 RAMP A Dmnl
fraction of people in all basic careers who are women : SET 22 RAMP A. Dmnl
fraction of people in early careers who are women : SET 22 RAMP A Dmnl
fraction of people with established career path who are women : SET 22RAMPA. ——————- Dm
fraction of senior workforce who are women : SET 22 RAMP A Dmnl
fraction of leaders who are women : SET 22 RAMP A Dmnl
Figure 7. Fraction of women in different workforce categories. This run assumes that the movement up
from basic careers to early careers is dependent only on the number of people in the workforce, and not on
other factors. Note: blue line represents fraction of women in the total workforce and model parameters
were adjusted so that this roughly matches the lower line in Figure 3.
Dudley Page 13
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
Fraction of Each Work Category Who are Female
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
4 @
0.2 Fraction of senior management positions
actually filled by women. USA 2006
0.15
0.1
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (Y ear)
fraction of workforce who are women : SET 22 RAMP A + Dmal
fraction of people in all basic careers who are women : SET 22 RAMP A+ Dmal
fraction of people in early careers who are women : SET 22 RAMP A + Dmal
fraction of people with established career path who are women : SET 22RAMPA + => Dl
fraction of senior workforce who are women : SET 22 RAMP A+ Dmal
fraction of leaders who are women : SET 22 RAMP A+ Dmal
Figure 8. Fraction of women in different workforce categories ( as in Figure 6). But in this case the
likelihood of moving out of basic careers is further directly limited by the fraction of workers within basic
careers who become homemakers. That is, even those people who did not become homemakers will be
less likely to be promoted from basic careers. The point in the lower right represents data from an
intemational survey (Anon, 2007).
Dudley Page 14
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
Fraction of Each Work Category Who are Female
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
F 03
0.25
0.2
TT
Fraction of senior management positions
actually filled by women. USA 2006
0.15
0.1 LT |
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (Y ear)
fraction of workforce who are women : as in fig 9
fraction of people in all basic careers who are women : as in fig 9
fraction of people in early careers who are women : as in fig 9
fraction of people with established career path who are women : as in fig 9
fraction of senior workforce who are women : as in fig 9
fraction of leaders who are women : as in fig 9
Figure 9. As in Figure 8, but in this case the fact that women are categorized as homemakers also limits
hiring and promotion into senior positions and leadership positions. This brings the model outcome closer
to the real world figure. This type of negative influence on promotion could explain the current situation.
Dudley Page 15
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
Composition of Female Workforce Composition of Male Workforce
078
05
05
025
0 0
1940 195019601970 1980 1990 20002010» 1940-1950» 1960 1970 19801990» 20002010
‘Time (Year) Time (Year)
Figure 10. Expected composition of the female and male workforce by work category during the period
1940 to 2010. Although women moved out of the basic career category they became locked in the early
and established categories with some limited movement into the senior and leadership categories. This
result is from the same model run as figure 8.
Dudley Page 16
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
Test Inputs Used For Fraction of Women Entering College after High School
So
ES
fraction entering college
°
°
a
enhanced
O)depeuneneunennenn ann ann ane gM ai acme aie cancun ireaaamanay @ actual ane
ee
0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Figure 11. Values used for testing the effect of enhanced recruitment of women into university
programs. The lower line represents data adapted from (Goldin et al., 2006). The upper line is
a test input assuming that we were able to recruit more women into university programs in the
past.
Dudley Page 17
Equity Supply-Chain: Women in the Workforce
Fraction of Each Work Category Who are Female
with and without an enhanced college recruitment strategy
os [Fraction of
workforce who
are women
0.45
test strategy of enhanced college
recruitment shown with dotted lines
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Year
|——fraction of
people in all
basic careers
who are women
|—fraction of
people in early
careers who are|
women
|——fraction of
people with
established
career path who
are women
|——fraction of
senior
workforce who
are women
|J——fraction of
leaders who are
women
Figure 12. The effect that a theoretical enhanced college recruitment program (dotted lines) would have had on
women in various workforce categories. Given the model as structured, enhanced college recruitment would
have created modest increases in numbers of women in higher-level positions. Note that these gains assume that
no change in male recruitment to college occurred. Compare to Figure 7 where promotion is proportional to the
proportion of each gender in the workforce.
Dudley
Page 18
The Equity Supply Chain:
Is it the Cause of So Few
Women in Management and
Leadership Positions?
Richard G. Dudley
25" Meeting of the International System Dynamics Society
Boston - July 2007
A Pipeline ISSUE? (some quotes)
“... the assumption — usually unfounded — that
there isn’t enough talent in the pipeline.”
“qualified women in substantial numbers have
been available for the academic pipeline for 20
years.”
“For decades, the pat explanation was that
women simply had not been in the work force
long enough... A look at the pipeline suggests
otherwise.”
“This dearth of women leaders, both academic
and administrative, is no longer a pipeline
issue.”
A Simple Question:
¢ Given that women make up 45% of the US
workforce but only 16% of corporate officers and
only 2% of CEOs....
* Can pipeline delays alone account for this
relatively low fraction of CEO and leadership
positions held by women?
— In other words, are the numbers of women in these
positions what we would expect...
...given historical trends of women in the overall
workforce and in college?
The Approach Taken:
¢ Supply Chain (subscripted by gender):
— Starting with last year in high school
— Three levels of university education
— Six career categories
¢ Adjust input data so that (for ~1940 — 2005):
— Proportion of female and male university students
matches real world information.
— Proportions of men and women in the total workforce
match real world information.
¢ Examine:
— fraction of male and female workers in Senior and
Leadership Positions
— under different scenarios.
Model Structure 1: Education
entering basic
career from high
school
Final Year
High School
Students eating recruiting
graduates college ee
entering work graduates
ing final force
entering final entering
year high school graduate
school
University
entering Students i
waverly continuing in
grad school
Model Structure 2: Early Workforce
6 a pipeline delay
@
retiring1 becoming a
homemaker
becoming
O° — established
People in People. x Z
Basic During Early being
Careers Career promoted
becoming a '
homemaker after pe un
college aster retiring
- = ve established
People in Post personnel
=) College Basic
Careers
Model Structure 3: Higher Positions
retiring senior
personnel
~~
People with
Established
Career Path
being
promoted
picking
leadership
retiring
leaders
Model Structure 3: Higher Positions
FRACTION NEEDED IN
i SENIOR POSITIONS
<total workforce> new senior expected move FRACTION REQUIRED
people needed to leadership IN LEADERSHIP.
POSITIONS
expected senior
retirements
fraction of
candidates to be
“\
[ BY
7 ; retiring
retiring senior leaders
personnel
being
People with promoted
Established expected
Career Path picking leadership
retirement
leadership
<total workforce>
fraction of senior \
candidates to be
4
recruited number of new
~~. leaders needed
fraction of the workforce
Some Background 1: Historical Trend - Workforce Composition
0.9
Approximate Composition of the Workforce by Gender
0.8 ;
—~ ~ Men - accounting for women's
“=~ — part-time participation in the workforce
0.7 agg
= en —r
men —_—— — + 9g
0.6
—_——___—_________g
0.5
—
0.4
women i
0.3 —_e-
a Women - accounting for
art-time participation in the workforce
02 eo p Pi Pi
014—
0 ; 1
1950 1975 1998 2005
Some Background 2: Historical Trend — Fraction with College Degree
fraction
Fraction of US Population Graduating from College
0.4
0.35 4
0.25
0.15
—®— female
0.05
1930
1940 1950 1960 1970
Year of Graduation
T T
1980 1990
2000
0.5 ‘
Fraction of Each Work Category Who are Female
0.45
0.4
fraction of wo
0.35 all basic careers
early careers
E oa
& bi
0.25
0.2
0.15 senior workforce
leaders
0.1
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (Year)
0.5
Fraction of Each Work Category Who are Female
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Dmnl
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (Year)
An Adjustment:
¢ Suppose we assume that the number of
women “becoming homemakers” tags all
women in basic careers as less suitable
for promotion.
— That is: Movement out of both “basic careers”
is limited by the perception that women are
homemakers.
as Fraction of Each Work Category Who are Female
0.15
01
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Time (Year)
An Additional Adjustment:
e Let’s also assume that the fraction of
women “becoming homemakers” tags all
women at ALL career levels as less
suitable for promotion.
— That is: Movement upward from ANY career
category is limited by the perception that
women are homemakers.
— Based on the fraction that actually become
homemakers.
Dmnl
0.5 5
Fraction of Each Work Category Who are Female
0.45
fraction of workforce ————
0.4 all basic careers
early careers
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
established career path
0.15 senior workforce
leaders
0.1
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Time (Year)
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35 > ae =
Dmnl
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Fraction of Each Work Category Who are Female
fraction of workforce ——— =
all basic careers
early careers
established career pah —$—$>=>>___ a —
— —
-_—
senior workforce ——_——
leaders
1940
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Time (Year)
Conclusions & Comments:
¢ Supply chain delays alone cannot account
for the relatively low numbers of women in
senior workforce positions in the US.
— One alternate idea, that women’s movement
throughout the employment chain is limited
because they are tagged as homemakers,
could explain the low numbers.
— But several other explanations could also
explain the bias.
Comments (continued):
— Also, if there are sufficient numbers of women
in the supply chain, then such things as
special programs for women at universities
are probably less important than are....
— Improvements in equity during promotion
along the chain of workforce categories.
Questions ?
Comments ?
Contact: richard.dudley@attglobal.net
