Women in finance – By Joris Luyendijk

Published in guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 November 2011

Twelve women give the inside view of working in the testosterone-fuelled City

Imagine you are a woman, a Guardian reader, and you work in finance. Do these people exist? Yes, they do. Would they talk about their experiences? A dozen just did. So what is it like for them, and what do they think are the chances of more women making it into finance?

Research suggests women are more likely to avoid the excessive risks that helped to produce the current financial mess. Or, as IMF director Christine Lagarde quipped: "If Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters, today's economic crisis clearly would look quite different."

Yet on the ground it seems more complicated than that. Speaking to women working in finance, the gulf between the City insider and outsider seems greater at times than that between the sexes. You get more flak from outsiders for working in finance, they say, than for being a woman in the industry itself. So the IT business analyst at a major bank in Canary Wharf says: "When I told my family I had taken this job, a silence fell over the table. Then my sister said: 'You're one of the bankers now.'"

Another woman, who is in her early 30s and works as a fundraiser at a sharia-compliant venture capital firm, says: "Some people [outside finance] need to see that you have made a pact with the devil, compromised something. They want me to be one of those lonely career women with nothing in her fridge but one bottle of champagne and a carton of milk, out of date. And then there is the moral grandstanding. You may have this great job that pays really well and which, apparently, you even enjoy. But. You. Are. Evil. And I may be an underpaid teacher. But. I. Am. Good."

I had always thought of finance as a bastion of sexism; why else do you find so few senior women there? These interviews suggest that the truth may be more subtle, but let me first explain how they came about.

Seven weeks ago I started an experimental blog on guardian.co.uk. The idea is to make the world of finance accessible to outsiders by portraying people from across the sector. The first batch of 10 interviews were all men, for the sad and simple reason that I had not found any women. Then the blog went online and within a few hours female volunteers began to appear in the jlbankingblog@gmail.com inbox. This seemed a golden opportunity; how often do you hear a woman talk in her own words about the world of finance?

Their voices help show just how vast and diverse the financial sector is. I had not even heard of a "bond pricer" before I met one for this series. All 12 women gave the same reason for participating: to contribute to a better understanding of the financial sector. All agreed that changes were needed, a few said "big changes". They also said that most people in finance don't work in the areas that caused the crisis. Most are not with institutions bailed out by taxpayers' money. Most don't make the huge amounts you find in newspaper headlines.

Our meetings often felt like clandestine journalistic blind dates. I'd sit in some coffee bar in Canary Wharf, Mayfair or around St Paul's and with every woman who came in, I'd think: is that her? We would talk and I would write up their words into a monologue, run it past them on their private email for verification and post it online. Well, most of the time. One volunteer backed out prematurely, saying: "If anyone ever found out I could be fired. And I'm fairly low in the hierarchy so can't really afford to take that chance right now."

One saw the transcript and begged to be excluded. Anything that might identify her had been purged, but no matter. I could quote only disembodied parts about her work in risk and compliance (investigating fraud and errors). Such as this: "There is a glass ceiling in finance but not in a formal sense. If you want to get to a real senior position, you have to become buddies with the senior managers, who are still all male. These men constantly hold meetings together, travel together, eat together … They need you to fit in. You need to play golf, blend in with the casual banter … When a woman joins such a team, its dynamics change. This is a very important barrier."

The fact that 12 women risked their jobs to speak to a Guardian journalist contradicts the notion that women are more risk-averse. They took the risk but seemed more aware of it – and more willing and able to acknowledge the accompanying emotions. Before an interview went online I would drop them a line. Many would respond to say how nervous they were. This never happened with the men. Either they aren't nervous (as men they are less identifiable) or they won't own up to it.

There was little bitterness or whining in these interviews, all of which can be read in full on the Guardian website. Here is the head of a marketing department for a European bank: "Anyone can do this job. What you need is self-belief. I don't have a degree in anything financial, or marketing for that matter. There's a fair amount of deadwood in this industry, what you need is determination to outshine others. How I ended up in finance? I needed to bring up my child on my own. That means I had to find a job that paid double, essentially."

Her advice to other women: "Don't make men look too stupid."

None of the women reported blunt sexism of the Mad Men kind. The stockbroker was old enough to remember those days, only 20 years ago: "On the trading floor, men would chew paper into little papier-mache balls and try to shoot them up my skirt. They'd actually reach into the aisle to throw them. If this happened now, you could sue. Those times were different."

Some even regretted the changes. The childless IT analyst says: "Banks these days are incredibly PC about motherhood. They are really trying too hard. There's always some scheme or stand promoting the next workshops for mothers-to-be. One week it's diversity week, the next it is I don't know what week…"

What's holding women back? An investment management adviser, who is in her late 20s, says: "At university, it was 50:50 male/female. You felt there was simply no difference. Then we enter the workplace and I have seen peers I knew from university change their behaviour. They were influenced by older men, and their sexism."

There is the male-bonding during strip-clubbing, football and cricket corporate events. There's the golfing, and Middle Eastern clients who refuse to deal with women. But a real killer is maternity.

The fundraiser says: "This job is not like teaching, where you can step out and back in with relative ease. When you come back, you need to be retrained because so many things have changed. If you then announce after six months you're pregnant again … How do you expect a manager to react? A colleague was offered $1m to leave, after announcing her second pregnancy. It wasn't about the money, the firm was losing so much more through the disruption."

None was in favour of quotas. "I would hate to make a promotion on my gender rather than competence," was the refrain. The chief operating officer running a 400-strong trading floor in Canary Wharf explains that any suggestion that she was not there on merit would undermine the authority on which her job depended.

The officer in risk and compliance talked about "push back" – when people flatly refuse to hand over documents: "I ask somebody for something, and they refuse it point blank. So you send them an email stating your request, and then you 'escalate'. Ask your manager to ask him. Ask your manager to ask his manager."

In games of chicken like this, women say, you can't be seen to be in your position because of quota as they'll simply push you over. Who would have thought that some of the fiercest opponents of quota for women in finance might be those already working there? The premise of quotas is that more women would want to work in finance. But, says the stockbroker: "I have sat on female recruitment committees but I warn them, this is not an easy place to work. The simple fact is that fewer women want this lifestyle than men. Women, quite rightly, often have other priorities. If a man is more committed to the job, puts in more hours and effort, then he is going to be more successful. If you want to last in this industry, you need to behave like a man."

Is that the conundrum, then? You want more women in finance because on average they are more rational. But many women opt out of such a career for exactly that same reason: they are too rational to sacrifice their life to work. It would be great to get more women, and men, to write in on this.

The crisis was caused by greed, says the consultant. But what is driving it? "I'd say the competitive macho culture, testosterone … I have to be better than the next guy, so I have to make more money than him because that is proof that I am better." How to change this? "They try it with ever more regulation. That's attacking the symptom. I genuinely have no idea."

What to Do If You’re Being Blackmailed at Work - By Juliana Weiss-Roessler

Published on October 18th, 2011                            

There are many ways that someone can blackmail you at the workplace. Maybe you made a mistake at work that someone promised to help you cover up. Or it can be a secret of a personal nature that is being used against you. Whatever error you made, you don’t deserve to pay for it over and over again. You don’t have to live in fear. You can take steps to fix the situation.

Talk to someone you trust. Is there a co-worker you are certain you can confide in? Better yet, is there is someone in a position of authority, a manager or a member of HR, you feel you can talk to? If not, consider talking to someone outside of work. Getting advice from a third-party can make a big difference. Sometimes you’re not seeing the situation as clearly as you think you are.

Get some perspective. What are the consequences if this secret comes out? Be honest with yourself. Everyone makes mistakes at work every now and then. It may be better to just come clean about whatever it is than to consider the blackmailers requests.

Don’t make things worse. It can be tempting to want to take action against the person who is blackmailing you. This is not a good idea. In the end, it can harm you just as much, if not more, than the other person. Stay calm. Don’t make any rash decisions.

Keep a record. After the initial request, make a note of what was said and when it happened. This can be valuable for making your case later. Don’t trust your memory. Get it down on paper.

Talk to your union rep. If you belong to a union, this is a valuable resource. They may be able to help you protect your interests and take action against your blackmailer.

Go to HR. It may seem like what the blackmailer is asking you to do or not do is better than the alternative, but remember, they can come back and blackmail you again. Don’t get in a cycle that you can’t get out of. Get help. Of course, if the situation is very serious, you may want to seek help elsewhere.

Go to the police. Blackmail is illegal. If you are being threatened with physical harm or being extorted for money or anything else of value, you can likely bring a legal case against your blackmailer. Not sure? Consider talking to a lawyer about your situation.

Dealing with blackmail is never easy. The best way to protect yourself is to avoid putting yourself or your company in a compromising position.

They Hire You Because They Like You - By Linda White

 Published on November 7th, 2011

All other things being equal, how do you get a job in a cutthroat, tight job economy like this one? While indeed you do need to have the skills presented in the position description and be able to fulfill the job needs, one of the most basic truths of human behavior is that the more likeable you are, the more likely it is that you will be hired.

So how do you present yourself as likeable? Well, it’s true that it is not something you can fake. The key, though, is simply to be yourself. There is no point in being nervous. Just walk in as if you are meant to be there. Presenting yourself with confidence and without negativity will get you half the way to hearing, “You’re hired.”

Think about what qualities attract you to people. What are your friends like? Are they easy-going, quick to smile, and can they articulate their thoughts well? These are the same qualities that an employer is looking for in a job candidate. Here are a few tips to help smooth your way:

Dress for success - studies show that 45% of employer decisions are based on appearance.

Present yourself well - this includes being prepared, answering questions fully without rambling, and asking good questions. Have at least five questions prepared in advance that you can ask. Answer questions with confidence.

Demonstrate that you have a sense of humor - not always possible, but be ready with a smile or even a chuckle if the situation presents itself.

Smile, look the interviewer in the eye, show interest in the company and the position. Don’t fidget, don’t play with your hair or look at the floor or the ceiling, and for goodness sake, do not touch your phone.

If you’re nervous, the best thing you can do is to rehearse. Rehearse in front of a mirror if you can’t get a live partner. Rehearse answering and asking questions. Try to keep your answers to one minute or less, and make your answers relevant to the job if at all possible.

Don’t ever speak poorly of a previous colleague or boss. Don’t disparage other’s work. Being negative will only reflect poorly on you.

And remember, this is all only going to work if you have already presented the skills and experience necessary to the be interviewed for the job. In a job market this tight, employers are only going to call in the best and brightest. So you deserve to be there, and you should act as if that is the case. Act confident, though, not arrogant.

If there is something going on that makes it a less-than-stellar interview - distractions, the interviewer doesn’t know what to ask, or anything like that - just roll with it. If at all possible, try to help the interviewer out. Explain the situation a little more fully if they don’t seem familiar with the job functions. But do this subtly, never in a condescending way. If there is a distraction, ask if there is a better place to talk.

You may get points for acting like the interviewer’s pal, but never let your guard down. Do not let yourself be lulled into a situation where you are giving away personal information that you don’t want them to know yet. And don’t relax so much that you forget you are in a professional assessment situation.

My father-in-law is puzzled by this multi-interview job market. He said to me a few years ago, “When I was interviewing, the interview was just a formality to see if you liked each other. If you did, you got the job.” And in many ways, that is still true.

Sexual discrimination against women in science may be institutional - By Alice Bell

Published on 8th Feb, 2011

Women in science face a career structure and culture that is weighted against them, rather than straightforward individual sexual discrimination

Women who want to take time off to raise children or care for parents, for example, may find their science careers thwarted.

When it comes to worrying about the under representation of women in science, especially at higher levels, are we stuck in the past?

A paper published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that we are. Researchers Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams from Cornell University in the US reviewed 20 years of data on gender discrimination and the status of women in the sciences. They argue that too much attention has been focused on apparent sexual discrimination when women apply for new jobs, funding or to be published in journals.

Instead, Ceci and Williams believe that women are more likely than men to make personal choices – many of which may well be constrained – that prevent them from progressing to more senior levels (eg time off to raise children, following a spouse, caring for parents). They argue that focusing on discrimination at application stages may represent a costly red herring and that resources should be redirected towards education and policy changes that reflect the challenges faced by women interested in building a long-term career in science.

In 1997, an iconic paper on sexual discrimination in the various application stages of a scientific career was published in Nature. In'Nepotism and sexism in peer-review', Christine Wennerås and Agnes Wold from Göteborg University in Sweden set out to investigate why women were being awarded significant percentages of PhDs but a smaller chunk of postdocoral research posts and a much smaller still proportion of senior posts. Was it simply that women were less productive, or less ambitious, or were they subject to discrimination?

In the peer review system of the Swedish Medical Research Council, applicants submit a CV, a bibliography and a research proposal which are then scored by reviewers. When Wennerås and Wold subjected these reviews to scientific scrutiny they found that female applicants received consistently lower scores.

Highly influential as this report has been, Ceri and Williams note how hard it has been to replicate these results. Indeed, when it comes to hiring, there is some evidence that in maths-intensive fields, women are interviewed and hired for academic posts slightly in excess of their representation at PhD student level.

This does not mean that female scientists are not subject to sexual discrimination, but perhaps it is a more institutional form of prejudice. The structures and culture of science may tend to be less favourable for women (and this may make scientific careers less flexible for men too).

In her blog, Athene Donald pulled out some interesting results from last year's Athena Survey, a study of experiences of progression through science careers. For example, more men than women seem to be aware of "women in science initiatives" in their own department. Most importantly, perhaps, women are far more likely to lack knowledge about promotion procedures, and male academic staff are more likely to be appraised as a matter of course than women, which can also effect promotion. These are cultural issues, but ones that managers must be aware of if they are to make a long-term scientific career available to all.

A personal reflection by former biochemist Kathy Weston published in Science Careers last week noted with some cynicism the type of freedom provided in "what was touted as a meritocracy". Yes, a scientist may be allowed to work whenever they like on whatever they find interesting, but "'whenever you like' often translates into 'all the time,' and 'interesting' is a matter of who you're talking to."

Weston also believes she would have been able to run her lab very successfully if she had been permitted to job-share with a close female colleague, who also had two young children. As Ceci and Williams stress in their conclusion, universities need to find ways of offering part-time scientific posts.

Science is an incredibly competitive career. If you want to nab one of the scarce long-term posts, not only will you need to keep an eye on promotion procedures, you will need to put a huge number of hours in, and may well have to be prepared to work abroad.

This is sometimes seen as a positive test: only the most devoted make it through. But human lives are more complex than that, and there is nothing wrong with a scientific work force made up of people with passions outside their labs. Indeed, one might even see it as a healthy state of affairs for any profession, and one most likely to foster the sort of culture of imagination and innovation that draws people into the field in the first place.                                                                                                                                                                             

Why You Need To Empower Your Employees - By Lisa Ballinger

Empowering your employees can seem like a very risky venture - will they misuse this power? What will they do? Will the consequences be disastrous? Remember, your people are the most important asset you have and giving them the initiative can far outweigh the negative.

The risk of not empowering your employees is this: failure to satisfy customers. This is a huge risk and letting your employees take initiative so they can satisfy their customers is well worth the effort.

I had an example of this the other day where the employee wasn't able to meet my request, which was simple really, I wanted a shake instead of a coke but he said he wasn't allowed to do it. Now if this was purely a pricing problem or the shake maker wasn't working I would be ok with that but I offered to pay the difference and there wouldn't have been a problem getting it on its own. The point of all this was rules had been set in place for him that were so restricting that he wasn't able to fully satisfy his customers.

So how do you let your employees show initiative without having disastrous consequences? Use clearly defined KPI's to link their performance to customer service as well as costs of the department. This way they are clearly aware that they can take initiative but that there performance is also linked to keeping costs down as well. This is the most efficient method. Combine this with regular discussions with employees and regular reviews of problems and ideas that can be solved together can assist in this process as well.

Even though the process of empowering your employees can be scary it is well worth the risk. They are, afterall, the face of your organisation and deserve to be given the power to represent you in the best way they know how, keeping them in check by tying their performance to the indicators that you require of them

About Author:

Lisa has worked as an accountant in both large and small businesses for many years and as such has a unique perspective on what makes businesses work and what doesn't. She knows why businesses fail and how to be successful in business . Check out her Small Business Course for more information on small business management and how to be better equipped in small business.

The Tricky Truth About Downsizing - By Freek Vermeulen

Downsizing has always been a popular practice in the corporate world - even for firms not in distress. But today, with many companies in distress, downsizing efforts are on the rise. So I thought I might as well look into what we know about the effects of such efforts from academic research to see when they can be a good idea.

The answer? Not very often. On average, they simply don't work. For example, professors James Guthrie, from the University of Kansas, and Deepak Datta, from the University of Texas at Arlington, examined data on 122 firms that had engaged in downsizing and statistically analysed whether the program had improved their profitability. And the answer was a plain and simple "no." The average company did not benefit from a downsizing effort, no matter what situation and industry they were in.

So why do they usually not work? Well, for starters, as you can imagine, it is not a great motivator for the survivors. Academic studies confirm that usually organisational commitment decreases after a downsizing programme and, for example, voluntary turnover rates surge. Hence, downsizing is not something to be taken lightly, and should be avoided if at all possible.

But sometimes, of course, a company's situation may have become so dire that downsizing efforts must take place. What then? Who might be able to get away with it?

Professors Charlie Trevor and Anthony Nyberg from the University of Wisconsin-Madison decided to examine exactly this question, surveying several hundreds of companies in the US on their downsizing efforts, voluntary turnover rates, and HR practices. As expected, they too found that for most companies, voluntary turnover rates increased significantly after a downsizing programme.

Many of the survivors, earmarked to guide the company through its process of recovery, decided to call it a day after all and continue their employment somewhere else. It's a nasty and unexpected aftershock for many slimmed-down companies--they became quite a bit leaner than intended!

Next, however, professors Trevor and Nyberg examined what sort of companies did not suffer from such an unexpected surge in voluntary turnover after their downsizing program.

And the answer was pretty clear: Companies that had a history of harboring HR practices that were aimed at assuring procedural fairness and justice - such as having an ombudsman who is designated to address employee complaints; confidential hotlines for problem resolution; the existence of grievance or appeal processes for nonunion employees, etc. - did not see their turnover heighten after a downsizing effort. Apparently, remaining employees were confident that, in such a company, the downsizing effort had been fair and unavoidable.

Similarly, Trevor and Nyberg found that companies with paid sabbaticals, on-site childcare, defined benefit plans, and flexible or nonstandard arrival and departure times did much better in limiting the detrimental effects of a downsizing programme. The surviving employees were more understanding of the company's efforts, had higher commitment, or simply found the firm to good a place to desert.

In general, it shows downsizing can work, but only if you have a history of a strong commitment to your employees. Absent this, if your employees sense that you're taking the issue lightly, they will vote with their feet. And you may end up losing rather more people than you had bargained for. Or as Fortune once observed, most firms that downsize, "rather than becoming lean and mean, often end up lean and lame".

Author(s)

Freek Vermeulen (fvermeulen@london.edu) is Associate Professor of Strategic and International Management at London Business School.