Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
2
WOMEN AND LEADERSHIP
“The Art of Letting Go”
By Jolanda Hillebrand-Tijhuis
CCC 2011-2012
Chapter 1: Management Summary
Chapter 2: Introduction
Chapter 3:
Literature overview
3.1 “The Glass Ceiling”
3.2 Women’s leadership style
3.3 The woman as mother and leader: “Can you have it all?”
3.4 Obstructions facing women on their way to the top: invisible and unconscious
processes in the organisation
3.5 Leadership programmes for women
Chapter 4:
Explanation of the choice of research area and approach to the study
4.1 Why research within ASR?
4.2 Approach to the research
4.3 Analysis of the research material
Chapter 5:
Context of the research
5.1 About ASR
5.2 The women at ASR
5.3 The measures taken by ASR to encourage career development
Chapter 6:
Description of research among male and female managers within ASR
6.1 Aim of the research and choice of research methods
6.2 The questionnaire to female managers at ASR
6.3 The interviews with ASR women
6.4 The questionnaire to male managers at ASR
6.5 Analysis of methods to stimulate women’s career development
6.5.1 The targets
6.5.2 Management development programmes
Table of content
4
6.5.3 Focus on diversity
6.5.4 Special training courses for women
6.5.5 Mentor programme and networking
Chapter 7
The results of the research
7.1 Questionnaire ASR women
7.1.1 Ambition
7.1.2 The work-life balance
7.1.3 Culture within ASR regarding career development of women versus men
7.1.4 Participation in networks, mentor programme and Management
Development programme: what are the gains?
7.2 Insights from the interviews with ASR women
7.2.1 Ambition
7.2.2 The work-life balance
7.2.3 Culture within ASR regarding career development of women versus men
7.2.4 Participation in networks, mentor programme and Management
Development
7.2.5 Responses to the hypothesis
7.2.6 Recommendations from ASR women
7.3 Questionnaire ASR men
7.3.1 Knowledge of senior male managers about the goals and the measures
7.3.2 Practice concerning the theme in own area of responsibility
7.3.3 Personal experience with mentoring/coaching of women
7.3.4 Personal vision on the theme
7.3.5 Recommendations from ASR men
Chapter 8
Conclusions and recommendations
Bibliography
Appendix 1: Questionnaire women
Appendix 2: List of questions interviews women
Appendix 3: Questionnaire men
5
6
Chapter 1Management Summary
In recent decades, increasing numbers
of well-educated, talented women have
been entering into employment. Many
hold managerial roles in businesses and
with their leadership capacities they can
make a massive contribution to a balanced
composition of management teams. Yet
women still fail to really break through to
the top. In this thesis, we explore why. What
role do the women themselves play?
What is the role of the corporate culture
created and developed by men?
In this thesis, the results of the study
conducted within the company in which the
author herself works are described in detail.
We not only obtain insight into the “hard
side” of the issue, but also learn about the
processes at play “below the surface” in the
organisation and the “constructs” which
women themselves create.
We meet women who are unable to
delegate their care tasks and thus block
their own career development. We meet
men who have always worked together and
who insufficiently realise the value that
women could add to their management
teams.
In this story, everyone must let go of
something to receive something better in
its place.
WOMEN AND LEADERSHIP
“THE ART OF LETTING GO”
7
Chapter 2 Introduction
In recent decades, many companies have
set themselves the goal of appointing more
women to senior managerial positions.
In global terms, the number of women
on executive boards remains low (Schein,
2001), a situation that is increasingly
regarded as undesirable. Why? Because of
the conviction that companies led by teams
consisting of both men and women perform
better (Desvaux, Devillard-Hoellinger,
Meaney, 2007). So it is not only “nice to
have” more women at the top, it is also
increasingly considered a “need to have”.
Companies have therefore been taking
various initiatives aimed at getting more
women on their management boards.
Unfortunately with disappointing results
so far. Women are still in the minority when
it comes to participation at the top of the
industry.
This thesis asks why all these initiatives
yield so few results. The suggestion is
made that attempts to promote women fail
because the measures taken are planned
from a male reference framework. The
measures taken are rational, must be
measurable and anchored in the processes
in the company.
This results in an instrumental approach to
the problem. The (male) CEO’s sign Charters
and present their HR organisations with
targets regarding percentages of women
per hierarchical layer in the company. Well-
intentioned as they are, they assume that
the organisation will start to change as a
result. However, too little consideration
is given to unconscious and invisible
processes in the organisation and the
restrictions they place on achieving the
goals (Kottke & Agars, 2005). Furthermore,
there is too much belief in the principle that
women must be “fixed” and must learn to
play the rules of the (male) game. Too little
consideration is given to the development
of the female identity and the transitions
which women make, particularly with
respect to incorporating the roles of mother
and leader. And what role do women play
in all this? What choices do they make
and on what conscious and unconscious
processes are those choices for career or
family based? In this thesis, we look for both
the underlying dynamics in the organisation
as a whole and the processes in which the
women are involved.
The thesis starts with an overview of
relevant literature in which insights
are offered on the theme Women and
Leadership. The conclusion seems justified
that the “Glass Ceiling” as a concept no
longer works as an explanation for the lack
of women in top roles (Meyerson & Fletcher,
2000, Eagly & Carli, 2008).
In literature, there are now many references
8
to invisible and unconscious processes
which hamper the breakthrough of
women into the highest regions in the
organisation (Kottke & Agars, 2005,
Barsh & Yee, 2011). The role which
women themselves play is crucial. The
development of women’s leadership not
only requires the development of skills,
but also a fundamental evolution of
personal values and motivations. Thus
development of leadership is inextricably
linked with the development of the identity
(Ibarra, Snook, Guillen Ramo, 2010). The
question is whether leadership programmes
take sufficient account of the specific
development of the identity of women (Ely,
Ibarra, Kolb, 2011).
This thesis describes how, within a large
Dutch insurance company (ASR), research
has been conducted among both female
and male managers to gain insight into
the above-described dynamics in this
organisation. The research presents a
picture of an organisation where, below
the surface of rational measures and an
instrumental approach to the “problem”,
many irrational and invisible processes
are at play. Among the women, who find
it difficult to combine their identities as
mothers and carers with their identity
as leaders in a satisfactory way. But also
among the men, who generally appear
to have little affinity with the subject and
fail to make an effort to achieve the goals
formulated by the company. We unravel why
they make so little effort, because these are
the men who have created or who maintain
the corporate culture at ASR, so they play a
crucial role in the process.
All this produces various recommendations
to enable ASR to take a different approach
to the subject, taking both women and
men out of their comfort zones. Only then
will ASR be able to appoint more women
to (more) senior managerial positions
and allow them to excel, thus utilising the
managerial potential in the organisation to
the fullest extent.
9
Chapter 3 Literature overview
What insights exist with regard to the
theme Women and Leadership?
3.1 “The Glass Ceiling”
In fact, not very long ago it was unusual for
a woman to lead a company or occupy a
high political or scientific position. Those
worlds were mainly populated by men, while
women fulfilled other social roles, such as
wife and mother. “Women belong in the
kitchen”, was the popular saying.
Contraception and the emancipation of
women gave them new freedoms. The
freedom to determine how to live their
lives themselves, with a growing group of
women also choosing a business career.
In the mid twentieth century, it was still
“normal” for women to give up work when
they got married and particularly when they
had children. Women in senior managerial
positions in industry, politics and science
are now no longer an exception. However,
it seems that this progress, which started
decades ago, is now starting to level out.
Women are not breaking through into
higher, influential regions in large numbers.
And many women are still making different
choices at crucial moments in their career
and getting off the ladder on their way to
the top.
In 1986, Carole Hymowitz and Timothy
Schellhardt wrote the following in the Wall
Street Journal: “Even those few women
who rose steadily through the ranks,
eventually crashed into an invisible barrier.
The executive suite seemed within their
grasp, but they just couldn’t break through
the glass ceiling”. This metaphor was
accompanied by an illustration of the “glass
ceiling” and resonated with many people.
It portrayed the frustration concerning a
goal that was visible, but for one reason or
another was out of reach to women. It is a
metaphor which has since been regularly
used and everyone now knows what “glass
ceiling” stands for.
However, the question is whether the
glass ceiling metaphor still applies. There
are, after all, women in high positions in
industry, science and politics, so these
women have apparently succeeded in
breaking through the glass ceiling. Yet,
the number of women who have risen to
“the top” are still relatively few, so what is
hampering other women? What happens
to them before they even view the glass
ceiling?
In literature, many opinions are expressed
about the underlying reasons why relatively
few women reach the top. It is suggested
that the concept of the glass ceiling is
insufficient to explain the dearth of women
at the top (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000, Eagly
& Carli, 2008). The concept of a “labyrinth”
10
was introduced, a labyrinth in which women
regularly lose their way (Eagly & Carli, 2008).
This concept stands for a complex journey
towards a goal through a labyrinth that
requires perseverance, self-awareness and
an understanding of the puzzle that lies
ahead. Women targeting a senior position
must therefore embark on a journey full of
turns, both expected and unexpected. We
must realise that a revolution was necessary
before women were able to participate in
business; now we need a strategy of small
steps and small improvements which
together can produce a business climate in
which women can fulfil their potential too.
The really visible and proven discrimination
of women in business has largely been
eliminated. Such discrimination would
include the refusal of promotion on the
basis of gender, unequal pay, dismissal
after pregnancy, etc. Formally, women
are protected against such practices by
law. However, we must realise that the
companies in which women are now
employed were “built” by men and are
based on male experiences, which are often
deeply rooted in the culture of the company
(Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000).
It is rightly claimed that if we do not
diagnose the problem properly, we will
probably be unsuccessful in prescribing
an effective solution (Eagly & Carli, 2008).
And that is exactly what this thesis aims to
do: find out what is really happening with
women and the organisations in which they
work, and their attempts to rise to the top.
And when we know that, we will know which
measures to take.
In literature, many barriers facing women
during their journey are described, such as
prejudices about the knowledge and skills of
women in general, resistance to leadership
by women and misunderstandings about
their leadership style. Various studies have
shown that there is a consistent case of
“overall gender bias”. One example dates
from 1968 and is known as the “Goldberg
paradigm”. Philip Goldberg performed an
experiment, whereby he asked students
to assess essays that had been written by
men and women. Identical essays were
given the (fictional) name of a female and
a male author. Women were consistently
given a lower mark for the essay, unless
the essay concerned a woman’s subject.
This clearly reveals a lower appreciation
for the performance of women, and that
this relates to the perception about their
qualities and is not based on reality.
Clearly the concept of the “Glass Ceiling” is
too simple. It is not about just one, visible
barrier like a glass ceiling. There are many
underlying processes in organisations,
often unintended, invisible and intangible,
which prevent women from progressing
in the organisation. The aim is to make
these unintended, invisible and intangible
processes visible, concrete and negotiable.
Only then is change possible.
11
3.2 Women’s leadership style
Besides the fact that women often have
to juggle work and private life, other
aspects also play a role, which determine
the perceived suitability of women as
leaders (Padma, 2010). There are many
preconceived ideas about the suitability
of women for leadership positions. Studies
have shown that different competences
and behavioural features are attributed
to men and women. In the 1970s, a great
deal of empirical research was performed
in the US which clearly revealed that
among both male and female managers,
the characteristics that they associate
with successful leadership tend to be
characteristics which belong to men. This
led to the conclusion that a “think manager
- think male” phenomenon existed (Schein,
1973, 1975). This phenomenon produces
preconceived ideas about women when
appraising their performance, selecting
management positions and in promotions.
The studies conducted by Schein were later
repeated by Schein, Mueller and Jacobson
in 1989 and by Dodge, Gilroy and Fenzel in
1995. The hypothesis that characteristics
necessary for successful leadership mainly
feature in men again appeared to be
current among men, but no longer among
women. This was also related to another
phenomenon, the think manager - think
masculine phenomenon (Powel, Butterfield
and Parent, 2002). Research has shown
that when people are asked to describe the
ideal leader, they mainly provide masculine
descriptions.
Schein’s research from 1975 thus showed
that even women associate characteristics
of successful leadership mainly with men.
Over 20 years later, the study by Dodge,
Gilroy and Fenzel in 1995 showed that
female managers considered themselves
equally suitable for successful leadership.
Apparently they do not exclusively link
positive leadership characteristics and
desired leadership behaviour to masculine
characteristics and behaviour. So that’s
progress! However, it is shocking that,
despite changes in the social perception
of the theme and changed visions in
companies, male managers still feel that
they are more suitable for managerial
roles than women. This is therefore a
deeply rooted perception and will definitely
influence their actions. Furthermore, this
perception is not only found in the US,
because studies were also conducted in
the UK, Germany, Japan and China (Schein,
2001).
So what are the typical male and female
characteristics of leadership behaviour?
Men are described as being decisive,
assertive and independent. Women are
regarded as being friendly, unselfish
and caring with a focus on cooperation
(Ely, Ibarra & Kolb, 2011). And those are
precisely not the characteristics that
people generally seek in a strong leader,
who mainly needs to give direction, be
persuasive and show authority. For women,
this brings difficult dilemmas and also
creates strange situations in the judgement
12
formed about their qualities and behaviour.
When women start to behave assertively,
they are judged to be aggressive and
dominant. When women radiate self-
confidence, they are called arrogant (Ely,
Ibarra & Kolb, 2011). So what is valued in
male behaviour has negative associations
when a woman displays the same behaviour.
When women retain their feminine style,
people find them “nice”, but they are not
respected in their role. They are regarded as
too soft, too uncertain and too emotional
to be able to make important, business
decisions (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Women
are therefore caught in a balancing act
between “being considered nice” and
“being considered competent”.
Some theories in evolutionary psychology
explain the difference between women
and men in relation to attaining leadership
roles, by the fact that men are more
dominant and more competitive by nature.
This is explained by the evolutionary
development of both sexes and their
differing reproductive strategies. The man
as a hunter and focused on producing as
many offspring as possible, the woman
as a carer and focused on looking after
the family. In the literature, however,
great question marks are placed with
such theories, because of the lack of data
to underpin this (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Nevertheless, this description of the role
division between men and women is still
reflected in traditional male and female role
patterns, whereby the man is obviously the
breadwinner and it is still largely the woman
who has to try to combine work and family.
It is of course true that women have played
a different role in social life than men for
centuries. The man was expected to earn a
living while the woman cared for the family.
Due to this task division, women were less
visible in public life than men. Women
tended to play a (often very influential) role
in the background, but did not have a place
on the social stage as a leader in business,
science or politics.
This is an important fact when we consider
the way in which (the few) women currently
behave in these roles. They have less
experience and often lack role models. Too
often, they are compared with their male
peers and it is found that they do things
“differently”. Doing things “differently”
is thus a deviation from the “norm” and
judged negatively. Although an explanation
based on human evolution might be too
far-fetched, how men and women have
developed in their social manifestation
(hunter versus carer) does play a role.
3.3 The woman as mother and leader:
“Can you have it all?”
One of the main factors often mentioned as
a reason why women fail to break through
on a larger scale is motherhood. Women
bear the children and that not only involves
a temporary interruption to their work, but
also a clearly more demanding role in caring
for the family. This not only translates into
juggling time and responsibilities for work
13
and family, but also gives the impression
that women cannot always be fully available
for work, either physically or mentally.
Regardless of whether this is true or not,
it again creates underlying processes that
hinder career development (Salas-Lopez,
Deitrick, Mahady, Gertner, Sabino, 2011).
When recruiting a woman, the fact that she
might be away for a while to have a baby is
almost unconsciously taken into account.
A woman’s chance of promotion might also
be affected by concerns about whether she
would be equally committed as her male
counterpart, who would obviously not be
responsible for caring for children. Because
even though nowadays, men contribute
much more to the household and caring for
the children, the tasks are still unequally
divided. The woman is still regarded by
society as the person who is primarily
responsible for looking after children. That
is no mere perception, but reality. This is
a fact with which women are confronted
when they try to combine motherhood and
a career. By nature, the woman is seen as a
potential mother, but is she by nature also
seen as a potential leader?
Doesn’t this start with the question how
women view themselves? When describing
their identity, besides woman, mother,
partner, do they mention the word “leader”?
The internalisation of a leadership identity
requires a number of relational and
social processes whereby a woman sees
herself as a leader and is also regarded as
such by others (DeRue & Ashford, 2010).
Women are less accustomed to fulfilling
leadership roles and therefore need to be
able to experiment. The more recognition
and support women receive in their role
as leader, the easier they will be able to
incorporate this themselves as part of their
identity (Ely, Ibarra & Kolb, 2011). Of course,
this is a growth process, but it is essential
for women to undergo this process and
experience the fulfilment of a life goal in a
leadership role. Just as they are able to find
a form of life fulfilment in motherhood.
However, this requires women to move
out of their comfort zone and “accept”
the challenges that fulfilling a leadership
role involves. An additional problem in this
context is the fact that women have so few
role models to help them (Ely, Ibarra & Kolb,
2011). Men often have several role models
inside or outside the organisation, whose
leadership behaviour they can “imitate”
as it were. How those role models are
appraised by the organisation also shows
them what is regarded as desired and
undesired behaviour. They will consciously
or unconsciously incorporate this in their
development process.
When a woman is successful in a lower
managerial role and is preparing for the
next step by taking part in a management
development programme for example, she
will have to experiment with a different
type of leadership behaviour that is more
appropriate for the new role. In such a case,
a man appears to be more assured when
it comes to displaying new behaviour and
14
finding a new leadership identity, thus
creating confidence among his superiors
(Ibarra, 1999). A woman generally adheres
longer to what she knows and what worked
well in her previous roles, for example
professional know-how. However, that will
be less important in the new role and she
will have to relinquish this to make room for
other competences.
Women tend to hold on to strategies that
they used in earlier phases of their career
and describe this approach as “staying close
to themselves” and “being authentic”. Men
are less concerned with this and in that
sense are more manoeuvrable. They are also
more actively involved in building networks,
which are then mainly used to climb the
corporate ladder. Active networking can
be very effective for gaining visibility in the
organisation and establishing contacts with
internal or external sponsors. Women often
find this too instrumental and are afraid
of being regarded as too ambitious, pushy
and self-important. Unfortunately, research
shows that these labels are indeed attached
to women who actively network, while there
is no such negative association for men (Ely,
Ibarra & Kolb, 2011).
3.4 Obstructions facing women on
their way to the top: the invisible and
unconscious processes in the organisation
Clearly numerous underlying processes
obstruct career development in the
organisation where women work (Kottke
& Agars, 2005, Barsh & Yee, 2011). If we
are to be successful with measures aimed
at promoting career development among
women, it is essential to understand which
underlying processes (besides those
mentioned above) play a role.
It is interesting that this often involves
rather more intangible processes at play
in society in general and within companies
in particular. Although women have
come to be regarded differently in recent
decades, there are still many stereotypical
preconceptions of women’s capabilities and
desires which can still be a disadvantage
to them. If measures aimed at boosting
opportunities for women do not take into
account the underlying preconceptions in
the organisation, new processes will emerge
which in fact have the reverse effect.
It thus seems logical that incentive
measures which can help minority groups
(like women) will be seen as justified
(Kandola, 1994). After all, they help
those in a disadvantaged position to free
themselves. That seems to justify those
measures, because they will lead to more
equal rights and opportunities. However,
it is correctly pointed out that in the “real”
world such as in competitive industry,
things can turn out differently. If people in
the organisation begin to feel that women
are being favoured, this will in fact invoke
feelings of injustice. Measures to boost
women can then even be experienced as
unjust by (male) employees and ultimately
generate a feeling of hostility towards
women leaders in the organisation. The
15
sense that measures are “fair” is thus
important for the success or failure of those
measures (Greenberg, 1987).
The rise of women in the organisation
can be perceived as threatening by
others in that organisation. More women
in managerial positions can in itself be
experienced as a threat by men, who fear
that fewer positions will become available
for them. It also has a negative effect on
their self-esteem and their male identity
(Kottke & Agars, 2005). Overtaken by a
woman! Having a female boss!
At an individual level, this can lead to
negative behaviour among male managers,
such as being less inclined to allow
women into their network, not inviting
women to participate in projects, etc. This
indirectly hinders women, who therefore
miss opportunities to become visible in
the organisation. Such perceived threats
of women “stealing” places can lead to
(unconscious) opposition and delay tactics
with respect to measures which could
improve women’s career development.
These are often invisible, intangible but very
powerful processes within the organisation.
If these processes are not recognised
and eliminated, introducing measures
to promote women will be useless. Every
initiative in this context will be doomed to
fail.
The same applies for the conviction in
the organisation that more women in
managerial positions would benefit the
company. That would seem to be a good
economic law and many methods have
been used to try and prove that companies
that are also managed by women are
more successful (Cook and Glass, 2011,
Desvaux, Devillard-Hoellinger, Meaney,
2007). This seems to be an important
economic reason for businesses to appoint
more women leaders and thus improve
the company’s competitive position.
Having more women at the top is thus not
only desirable but above all necessary!
However, if this conviction is not shared in
the organisation, or implicitly or explicitly
disputed, this will not help women. Not even
if the organisation sets so-called targets for
women’s career development.
It is therefore vital that directors with
final responsibility are aware of the
organisation’s preconceptions and
opinions regarding women leaders in the
top. If those who determine a company’s
policy and culture are not aware of the
underlying processes which hinder women’s
career development, no targets will help.
However, there is often a tendency to
delegate the problem to the HR department
or to delegate it in hard targets to the
management. This ignores the fact that
it’s about the corporate culture, which
is difficult to change in the short term.
Equality between women and men in the
company requires a change in the culture,
requiring an example to be set by those
16
at the top, besides a change of behaviour
among men and women in the organisation
(Barsh & Lee, 2011).
3.5 Leadership programmes for women
Besides the problems experienced
by women regarding adopting a new
leadership identity if they want to rise
to higher senior management positions,
the fact remains that women also find it
difficult to combine work and children.
A question to which no clear answer was
found in the reviewed literature is whether,
besides all the other obstacles mentioned
(lack of role models, being less skilled at
networking, preconceived ideas about
the suitability of a woman as a leader),
this is also caused by the problems which
women have in combining the different
roles they have to perform simultaneously,
in a satisfactory manner. After all, women
are often about to take the next step in
their career at exactly the time when their
desire for children kicks in or children
arrive. This heralds several transitions in
the identity of a woman: from “woman
who can personally manage her time” to
“woman who must always be available
for the children”. But also from “leader at
lowest or middle management level”, to
“leader with great visibility and influence
in the organisation”. It is very debatable
whether organisations sufficiently take
this into account in their management
development and mentor programmes
for women. There is the sense that this
is not the case because management
development programmes often focus on
development of competences and devote
little or no attention to the transitions
which participants make in their identity.
And that’s the main dilemma for women.
The most common approach is still that of
“fix the women”. This approach assumes
that men and women in principle have
equal opportunities to develop in the
organisation. In that approach, the fact that
nevertheless clearly fewer women climb the
career ladder is attributed to the fact that
men and women have different experiences.
This assumes that women are not yet
sufficiently socialised in the business world
and need to learn the “rules of the game”
(Kolb, Fletcher, Meyerson, Merrill-Sands
& Ely, 1998). This starting point governs
mentoring and management development
programmes which are offered to women.
This seems to be a very limited approach
to the lack of career development among
women and mainly results from men’s
perception with regard to this subject. A
more nuanced approach to management
development programmes might be to
value the existing yet complementary
differences in management styles; the
masculine and the feminine style. Such an
approach results in the style generally used
by women being experienced as valuable
and also accepted by men. However,
there is a considerable risk here, because
if management programmes preach
17
the theoretical value and acceptance
of complementary styles but this is not
reflected in the organisational culture, the
frustration among the women taking part
will only increase.
The only conclusion that we can draw
here is that the content of management
development programmes must truly
reflect the norms and values in the
organisation. And if a change needs to be
achieved through such programmes and
this is thus based on norms and values
which are not yet totally rooted in the
organisation, the top of the company will
have to set a very clear example at the very
least. They will then have to communicate
very consciously and very regularly about
the desired leadership profile, including the
feminine facets. In words and deeds. This
is a massive challenge, considering that
the norms and values within organisations
are usually based on masculine norms and
values, and because it was men who largely
created the organisation (Kolb, Fletcher,
Meyerson, Merrill-Sands & Ely, 1998). And
the top of the company is still often formed
by men, which is an added challenge.
Another important phenomenon is the
effect that mentoring or management
development programmes specifically
targeting women can have within the
organisation. Although women often enjoy
these programmes, are able to build up a
network and discuss dilemmas, this can
produce negative feelings among others
(particularly men) in the organisation. In
fact, this also applies to women’s networks
which are active in the organisation. The
clear emphasis on special “treatment” of
women can invoke feelings of unfairness,
positive discrimination etc. It is therefore
essential to be clear towards the
participants and the organisation why
this form was chosen and what goal the
organisation feels it can achieve (Kottke &
Agars, 2005).
And this brings us back to our earlier
statement: organisations which are serious
about tackling diversity and which really
want more women to move up the ladder
will not achieve that goal by giving their
managers and directors targets and getting
HR to develop a few programmes. The whole
organisation needs to change and that
must be preceded by real and deeply rooted
commitment from the top of the company.
So in fact it demands commitment from
all leaders of the organisation, from high
to low, including the women who must
also undergo a transition and leave their
comfort zone.
18
Chapter 4 Explanation of the choice of research
area and approach to the study
4.1 Why research within ASR
The aim of the research is to find reasons
for the failure of attempts to get more
women moving up to influential managerial
positions in companies. Why was ASR
chosen as a research area?
At ASR, the company where the author
is employed, the number of women in
managerial positions lags far behind the
goals set by the company itself. For that
reason, ASR constitutes a challenging
research area. ASR was also chosen because
the author wanted to apply the results
of this research and perhaps use them
to advise the top of the company. In that
sense, the results could actually have a
practical purpose. Initial contacts with the
company’s CEO and with the HR department
were encouraging. Everyone was willing to
fully cooperate with the research and was
interested in the results. Permission was
given to conduct the research within the
organisation and to use the name of ASR in
the report.
4.2 Approach to the research
The hypothesis presented by the author
is that attempts to promote women fail
because the measures implemented are
thought up and shaped from a man’s
perspective. Measures are rational, must be
measurable and are anchored in the
company’s processes. They therefore often
result in an instrumental approach to the
problem. Too little account is taken of
unconscious and invisible processes within
the organisation and the resulting obstacles
that prevent goals from being achieved.
Furthermore, too much value is placed on
the principle that women must be “fixed”
and must learn to play the (male) rules of
the game. And too little consideration is
given to the development of the female
identity and the transitions which women
make, particularly when incorporating
roles as mother and leader. In short, the
approach is shaped too much through the
eyes of men and ignores the more irrational
processes which can be involved in the
change process.
It was therefore decided to conduct the
research mainly through the eyes of women.
Women were interviewed extensively and in
various ways. They were asked to look at the
organisation and give an opinion, as well
as to look at themselves. The research was
based on a digital questionnaire which was
sent to all the female managers (Appendix
1). In-depth interviews were then held with
women from all the hierarchical layers in
ASR (Appendix 2). Furthermore, a list was
drawn up of the measures taken by ASR to
support women in their development. These
19
included mentor programmes, leadership
programmes, special trainings for women
etc., as well as the process of target setting
regarding the desired percentages of
women in managerial positions. Who is
given those targets and how are they used
in practice?
Finally, a picture was sketched of how
everything that ASR does formally and
on paper relates to the daily practice;
is everything that they pay lip service
to actually put into practice? Here we
encountered all kinds of cultural aspects
of the organisation and hoped to obtain
insight into the invisible and unconscious
processes in the organisation which can
frustrate the realisation of the goals set.
In order to bring this more to the surface,
a questionnaire was sent to male directors
and deputy directors who “pull the strings”
concerning the appointment of women to
managerial positions (Appendix 3). These
are the people who largely determine the
corporate culture and who can therefore
answer the question whether they support
the plans that ASR records on paper and put
them into practice. Or would we encounter
the previously mentioned (sub)conscious
processes which obstruct the actual career
development of women, i.e. insufficient
recognition of the added value of women’s
leadership style, a sense of their own
positions being threatened, insufficient
faith in the capacities or commitment of
women?
They were therefore mainly asked questions
about how targets are set and how they
apply them, whether and how they use
the resources available at ASR to support
women (training, mentoring etc.) and
how they view the subject of encouraging
women in the top.
To summarise, the approach to the research
was partially quantitative and partially
qualitative.
The digital questionnaire sent to female
managers generated such a high volume
of answers that percentages could be
calculated and statistical conclusions
drawn. The digital questionnaire sent
to male managers also produced a
considerable amount of quantitative data,
which was extensive enough to be called
representative. Besides quantitative data,
the answers also produced a great deal of
qualitative data due to the fact that this
questionnaire also included open questions
which generated personal answers from
the men. This particularly applied to the
interviews which were held with women,
in addition to the digital questionnaire. In
these interviews, women provided a very
personal view of the theme.
4.3 Analysis of research material
The questions included in both digital
questionnaires were drawn up in
consultation with an ASR colleague who
is an expert in conducting surveys. He
gave advice on formulating the questions
and the structure of the questionnaire, as
well as the most appropriate tool for the
20
purposes of this research. Before sending
the questionnaires to large groups of men
and women, a “trial” was conducted to
test the functioning of the tool and the
effectiveness of the questions. The women’s
questionnaire was first fully tested in a pilot
with 5 women.
The digital questionnaire sent to all female
managers was processed in a tool which
allows various analyses to be made. In this
way, cross sections could be made from
all the answers, for example of the group
of women with children versus the group
of women without children and of the
various hierarchical levels. Once all the
answers had been received, the quantitative
analyses were made. The answers to
the open questions were analysed and
produced qualitative results. Based on
these quantitative and qualitative analyses,
questions were drawn up for interviews. This
sequence was used because the interviews
provided the opportunity to focus the
questions on the results of the digital
questionnaire. Although the questionnaire
included many open questions, enabling
women to express their vision in their own
words, a deeper nuance to the answers
could be given in the interviews.
The questionnaire among male senior
managers was also sent digitally using the
same tool and here too cross sections were
made from the various hierarchical levels.
Once all the answers (questionnaires
plus interviews) were available, the main
conclusions were generated. These
conclusions were set alongside all the other
material available in the organisation and
all this presented a picture of the measures
taken by ASR; available training and
participation by women, target setting in
theory and in practice.
Although it is difficult to “capture” the
culture, an attempt was made to express
it in words. This was done by studying how
the organisation responds to the theme
diversity and career development of women.
The answers provided by men and women
in the questionnaires and interviews reveal
interesting cultural aspects.
How the organisation used target setting
was also studied. ASR claims that it has a
structural approach to this target setting
and relevant managers are given them in
their total set of targets. It also states that
the results are incorporated as standard in
the control cycle, in which it is monitored
whether the set targets are achieved and
if not, why not. But how does this actually
operate in practice? The aim of the chosen
approach was therefore particularly to
check that what we read on paper reflects
everyday reality within ASR. That was done
by asking specific questions about this in
the interviews with women and in the digital
questionnaire to the men.
This approach made it possible to analyse
the actual experience and perception of
women and men, whilst taking a “photo”
of the hard side of the organisation (the
21
measures taken) and the soft side of the
organisation (the culture and everything
that happens under the surface).
This produced a picture of the actual
situation at ASR with respect to the
company and women’s leadership. What
does ASR pay lip service to and what results
are produced in everyday practice? Which
processes obstruct real progress?
22
Chapter 5 Context of the research
5.1 About ASR
ASR is a financial institution that is the result
of various mergers of Dutch insurers such
as Stad Rotterdam, AMEV, Woudsend and
De Amersfoortse. The company used to be
part of the global Fortis concern. Within that
setting, ASR was a relatively small part of a
globally operating organisation with a sharp
focus on banking activities. ASR mainly
operates in insurance. In 2008, following the
collapse of the Fortis concern, ASR was taken
over by the Dutch government. Currently the
shares of ASR are therefore owned by the
State, but its operational policy is decided
on autonomously by the Executive Board,
monitored by the Supervisory Board. ASR is
now one of the largest insurance companies
in the Netherlands, focusing solely on the
Dutch market, its main target groups being
consumers and SMEs.
For more information, see www.asr.nl .
5.2 The women at ASR
There are currently 4,454 FTEs at ASR.
Of these, 38.3% are women. Compared
with other financial organisations in the
Netherlands, this percentage is low. On
average, the percentage of women in
companies like ASR is 44.7%. ASR indicates
that it attaches importance to diversity
within the organisation and in
that framework has signed the “Talent to
the Top” Charter. Since 2008, 203 Dutch
organisations have signed this Charter.
At www.talentnaardetop.nl, there is a
report of the progress being made by
the organisations which have signed the
Charter. ASR has also set itself a number of
goals. The fact is that the number of women
in senior managerial positions within ASR
is not on target. Incidentally, the Charter
referred to above is not only concerned with
the number of women in the highest regions
(Executive Board and senior management,
reporting to the Executive Board), but also
the number of women in lower management
positions and responsible positions in high
job grades.
The target that ASR has set itself is 25%
women in the top and 40% women in
the sub-top, to be achieved by 2013.
The top is defined as Executive Board
and 2 management layers below that. At
managerial level, the sub-top is formed by
the team managers. Incidentally, ASR does
not limit the definition of top and sub-
top solely to managers, but also includes
professionals in high(er) salary scales.
However, this research is only concerned
with managers.
23
From a recent report from the Charter
“Talent to the Top” (2011) in which the
progress at ASR is described, it appears
that at that time 13% women worked in the
target group of top women (board level). In
2010, this was 12%. When we compare the
figures from ASR with peers in the financial
sector, the percentage of women in the top
appears to vary from a minimum of 6.3%
to a maximum of 38.1 %, with an average
of 18.5%. The difference between the
minimum participation of women and the
maximum participation is striking. But what
is relevant for ASR, is that the number of
women in 2011 lags well behind the average
in the market (13% versus 18.5%).
From a recent internal measurement of the
results (October 2012), it appears that the
percentage of women in the top has risen to
19%. This is an incredible increase.
In the sub-top (team manager level),
however, we see a decline to 24%, although
the goal is 40%. From the interview with the
only female member of the Executive Board,
it is obvious that she takes the subject of
diversity seriously (see Chapter 7). Her view
was that she would rather not talk about it
too much, but take action. Here the motto
“women choose women” bears fruit.
However, the conclusion we have to draw is
that ASR has not made enough progress in
recent years in achieving its goals. It must
also be noted that there are many women in
lower management positions (the sub-top),
namely 24%. But the aim for this group is
40%, so there is work to be done here too.
However, with a group of 24% women in
lower managerial positions, ASR does have a
potential breeding ground of female talent
and it is important to discover why they have
not (yet) been promoted.
If ASR strives for diversity within its
organisation and embraces the idea that
companies run by mixed managerial
teams perform better, then a minimum
participation of 20% women at each
management level is necessary if that
diversity is to be achieved. It is generally
known that a lower percentage of women
are unable to exercise sufficient influence
(Eagly & Carli 2003, J.I. Stoker, 2007). Parties
to the Charter recognise this phenomenon
because they all apply a target of around
25% where the top of the company is
concerned.
5.3 The measures taken by ASR to
encourage career development
What measures has ASR taken to ensure
that more women are appointed to higher
managerial positions?
• The Executive Board and Supervisory
Board have committed themselves to the
goal of 25% women in the top in 2013 (in
2012 this is 19%) and 40% in the sub-top
(in 2012 this is 24%);
• The diversity policy is one of the company’s
key values;
• In the Planning and Control cycle, progress
is reported;
24
• Managers/Directors are appraised on their
achievement of the objectives;
• Management teams must draw up a
Diversity plan;
• Part-time work is possible at the top and
sub-top;
• Flexibility when working is possible,
including working from home (for men and
women);
• Mixed job application teams to prevent
subjectivity and stereotyping;
• Minimum number of female candidates in
job application procedures;
• Coaching and mentoring of potential
(female) managers;
• Fixed percentage of women in
Management Development programmes;
• Training courses for women: “Female
Leadership” and “Work-Life Balance” and
training for men and women: “Necessary
Differences”;
• Set up women’s networks.
This is an impressive list of measures. But
to what extent are these measures actually
put into practice and how effective are they?
Strikingly, in the comments on the report on
Talent to the Top, in response to the lack of
results, the HR management claims: “ASR
is currently in the midst of change and very
busy implementing our new strategy. To
do this, we are working with various focal
points that are central in all our activities.
This is why we have achieved less progress
in diversity this year”. This management
communication does not really confirm
that ASR has anchored the promotion of
women to the top in its company strategy.
Apparently it has other priorities and there is
no “time” for the subject of diversity.
Furthermore, the management comments
cite the following, among other things, as
important success factors for the promotion
of women to the top: “perseverance of
women” and “qualities of women”. Does this
assume that women need to be “fixed”? Why
is nothing mentioned about the culture of
the company?
When we review our “research area” ASR,
we can clearly state that ASR faces a
challenge with regards to sufficient women
in managerial positions in order to actually
be able to use their leadership qualities.
At first glance, ASR uses an impressive
range of resources to improve the existing
situation. The research will have to show why
insufficient progress has been achieved in
the years when these resources were used.
25
Chapter 6Description of research among male
and female managers within ASR
6.1 Aim of the research and choice of
research methods
The aim of the research conducted within
ASR is to gain insight into conscious
and visible, as well as unconscious and
invisible processes which stand in the
way of women’s career development.
As mentioned, it was decided to let the
women concerned have their say. In the
questionnaire and the interviews, the
main focus was on the women’s ambition,
their perception of the culture within ASR
concerning women’s leadership and how
they viewed the extent of support they do
or do not experience. In addition, material
available within ASR concerning the goals
set by ASR in the framework of the career
development of women was studied, such
as targets given to directors relating to the
percentage of women in managerial roles
and reporting on this inside and outside the
company.
Male directors were asked questions about
how they use or do not use measures
taken by ASR and resources developed by
ASR. They were asked how they personally
regard the theme diversity and women’s
leadership. Finally it was analysed which
supporting resources are available to
stimulate the career development of
women, such as mentor programmes and
management development programmes.
ASR claims, after all, to give women an
opportunity for career development
through these programmes, thus enabling
it to achieve its own targets for percentages
of women in managerial positions. The
research focused on studying whether or
not this was effective and whether it really
supported women, or whether they were all
well-intentioned but ineffective attempts to
achieve this.
An important factor when asking the
questions and exploring the context is to
remember the question “is gender taken
into account?” in the approach that ASR
has chosen and how this works in practice.
The aim was to reveal as much as possible
behind the words of what really happens
in the social context of ASR regarding
appreciation of “gender” in the leadership
of the company.
6.2 The questionnaire to female managers
at ASR
A questionnaire was sent to over 116 female
managers within ASR and to two female
members of the ASR Supervisory Board. The
women at ASR held managerial positions
at various levels: team manager, manager,
deputy director, director and a member of
the Executive Board. Before sending the
questionnaire to all the female managers, a
26
pilot was carried out among 5 women. The
aim was to test whether the questions were
understandable and resulted in meaningful
answers which could be used for analysis.
The pilot proceeded satisfactorily and only
a few details of the questionnaire were
amended.
The questionnaire was sent with a detailed
accompanying e-mail explaining the aim
of the research and that the results would
be used for a thesis and might produce
recommendations for ASR.
The response to the questionnaire
(excluding pilot group and Supervisory
Board members) was 56%, generating a
dataset which was large enough to be called
representative.
In numbers, this means that of the 116
women who were approached, an “out of
office” message was returned from 28 of
them (due to holiday, illness, etc.), leaving a
group of 88 women. From this group of 88
women, 65 responded to the questionnaire
and 5 started but failed to return the
list. The net response for the group of 88
women was therefore 73.9%; the gross
response for the total group of women was
56%.
It is important to note that the answers
cannot be traced to individuals, a fact which
was also emphasised in the accompanying
mail. Respondents were also asked to
give as few politically correct answers
as possible. Finally, they were asked who
would be prepared to give a personal
interview, to which 45 respondents agreed,
demonstrating the importance attached to
the subject!
Besides questions regarding age, length
of employment at ASR, civil status and
whether they had children or not, the
questions mainly concerned the following
subjects (see Appendix 1 for the full
questionnaire):
- What is your ambition with regards to your
career?
- How do you experience the combination
of work and personal life?
- How do you experience the ASR
culture regarding career development
opportunities for women?
- Participation in networks, mentor
programme, management development
programme, etc.?
- What is your experience with a mentor
and/or participation in management
development programmes?
Closed questions were asked (yes or no), but
also many questions whereby the women
were able to elaborate on their answers in
their own words. This generated a great
deal of material in which women also gave
“colour” to their answers and indicated their
emotions relating to subjects.
6.3 The interviews with ASR women
A total of 10 interviews were held with
women who had responded positively to the
request. It was decided to choose women
from different hierarchical layers: 1 member
of the Executive Board, 2 members of the
27
Supervisory Board, 1 director, 1 deputy
director, and 5 team managers.
The interviews mainly went into more
depth regarding the questions from the
digital questionnaire. The interviews were
therefore only held after the results of the
digital questionnaire had been analysed.
This sequence was explicitly chosen as this
enabled the formulation of targeted in-
depth questions. Thus further questions
were asked about the personal obstacles
preventing a woman from targeting a
more senior position, because the digital
questionnaire revealed that a large group of
women do not see themselves moving up to
management or Executive Board level. Many
women also indicated that they do not use
any of the resources offered by ASR, such
as networks and training courses. Again
questions were asked about the underlying
reasons. Because it was also clear from the
answers to the digital questionnaire that
many women struggle with traditional role
patterns, this was also extensively discussed
during the interviews.
Furthermore, the women were presented
with the following hypothesis:
“Women and men experience all kinds of
developments in their identity during the
course of their lives. Meeting a partner,
perhaps having children, caring for parents
or friends, and having a career. Men find it
easier to integrate these developments in
their identity and make these transitions
more smoothly. They therefore also regard
themselves more easily as a leader. Women
find it more difficult to combine these
diverse identities (mother, partner, leader)
into 1 new identity”. The women were
asked about the feeling that this hypothesis
invoked and how it applied to them
personally. They were then asked how they
would describe their own identity and how
they would describe themselves as a leader
within that identity.
Finally questions were asked aimed at
revealing the culture within ASR and
how the women perceived this culture.
Particularly in response to open questions
included the digital questionnaire, the
women returned many interesting
statements about how their male peers
manifest themselves, which would obviously
be very interesting to discuss further in a
personal conversation.
6.4 The questionnaire to male managers
at ASR
After analysing the answers to the
questionnaire aimed at female managers
and holding subsequent interviews with 10
women, it became clear that the voice of
the men within ASR should also be heard.
ASR is still dominated by men at senior
management level, and they ultimately
determine policy relating to the overall
goals formulated by ASR in the framework
of diversity. In a digital questionnaire (see
Appendix 3), the men were asked whether
they were familiar with the targets set by
ASR, what measures had been agreed to
and how they approached them in their own
28
area of responsibility. Besides these factual
questions, they were also asked about
their personal vision on the theme “more
women in the top” and how they felt that
ASR should respond. The questionnaire was
sent to 145 men, from the job levels Board
member, deputy director, management
team member and manager. 68 men
returned a completed questionnaire,
resulting in a net response of 47%.
6.5 Analysis of methods to stimulate
women’s career development
6.5.1 The targets
ASR has formulated several targets to
stimulate the organisation to seriously
tackle the subject of diversity and
particularly the promotion of women to
more senior managerial positions. The
targets were described above: in 2013,
25% of the top of the company (Executive
Board and Management) and 40% of the
sub-top (team managers and professionals)
must consist of women. Every management
team should translate these targets into
their own HR plan and draw up a Diversity
Plan describing how these targets will be
achieved. There are also agreements within
the company regarding job applications:
“always include a woman in a job
application procedure” and “mixed (m/f) job
application teams”.
In the action plan mentioned earlier
relating to the “Talent to the Top” Charter,
ASR indicated that the results would be
measured periodically. This occurs: every
quarter, HR produces an overview showing
the progress being made in implementing
the targets per management team. Thus the
whole organisation, including the Executive
Board, has insight into the implementation
of the targets. But what happens with the
results? Are the results actually discussed
by the Executive Board and senior
managers? The report consists of a purely
statistical overview of the percentages
of women in the target groups, but says
nothing about the more qualitative aspects,
such as the content of the diversity plans
which have to be drawn up and how these
are implemented in practice. In short: does
the theme actually have the attention of
decision-makers, or is it a paper tiger?
What is notable is that no measures or
activities have been developed with regard
to conducting a dialogue about the theme,
providing insight into the opinions and
feelings of senior managers about this
theme. The approach is therefore rather
more of a process-based and instrumental
approach to the theme diversity.
Moreover, the theme is organised in a very
“top down” manner. The Executive Board
has signed the Charter “Talent to the Top”
and considers itself the “owner” of the
charter. The Executive Board has one female
member, thus enabling the Executive Board
to fulfil the target of 25%. The same applies
to the Supervisory Board, half of whose
members are women. In that part of the top
of the company, there is great participation
29
by women. The appointment of a woman
in the Executive Board also shows that the
Supervisory Board and the CEO take the
theme seriously. That should also set a clear
example to the company. Furthermore,
HR plays an important role in reporting
progress and seems to have been made
“owner” of the theme to a large extent. But
what is the situation regarding ownership
among senior managers, who ultimately
decide who is appointed to what position
and whose preferences in appointments
are the deciding factors? Are they familiar
with the targets set by ASR? Do they
actively use all the measures and resources
which have been developed? What do they
personally think of the theme? In all the
measures that have been analysed, there
is no sign of any dialogue in the company
about the benefits and necessity to have
more women in managerial positions. It is
therefore interesting to see what answers
male managers give regarding the actual
implementation of the measures and to
hear how they actually perceive the theme
diversity (see Chapter 7).
6.5.2 Management Development
programmes
Besides analysing the process of target
setting as described above, an analysis was
performed of the set of resources aimed
at facilitating the career development
of women, with a particular focus on the
content and effect of training courses,
the mentor programme and the women’s
network. This is because, in addition to the
usual mixed management training sessions
offered to both men and women, ASR has
also developed several training courses
and programmes specifically targeting
women. However, it is still important to
study what is actually addressed in the
“mixed” programmes and to whom these
programmes are available, besides the
specific programmes aimed at women.
ASR has an extensive range of programmes
for managers and professionals. These
programmes focus on development,
retention and promotion of managers (MD)
and professionals (PD).
Four different programmes have been
developed in which both men and women
participate:
- The Challenge: aimed at becoming team
manager, professional or specialist (MD/
PD)
- The Expansion: aimed at becoming deputy
director or MT member (MD)
- The Connection: aimed at becoming
Expert or Partner in Business (PD)
- The Leader: aimed at becoming Board
member or Programme director (MD/PD)
These programmes each last 22 months
and the participants are supervised by a
mentor during that period.
Not everyone may participate. A candidate
must fulfil specific requirements and take
part in a selection process, due to the
limited number of places available each
year. Thus the “potentials” for a specific
programme are selected. Among the
30
stipulated requirements is the fact that the
candidate must have “matured” in their
current job and be able to move on within 2
years. The manager must therefore give an
explicit judgement about the suitability of
the candidate for promotion. In that sense,
these programmes must deliver a “pipeline”
of potential candidates for promotion, so
that when vacancies arise for a higher-
level position internal candidates are
always available. As a basis for the MD/PD
programme, the leadership pipeline model
developed by Drotter, Noel and Charan
(2001) was used which, according to ASR,
has been proven to have worldwide success.
One of the stated benefits of this model is
that it focuses on the differences between
management and leadership roles at
various levels in the organisation. Examples
are the differences in optimal time planning,
skills and change in leadership style, such
as from operational management to more
coaching by managers or developing
strategic insight. Incidentally, candidates
are clearly told that career development is
really the responsibility of the candidates
themselves and ASR only provides the tools
to make it possible. Publications about
these programmes indicate that diversity is
stimulated by striving to achieve a minimum
of 50% female talents who participate in
the programmes.
6.5.3 Focus on diversity
But is diversity as a subject addressed?
Are ideas exchanged by these potential
or more experienced managers about the
dynamics between men and women and
the added value of mixed teams? Isn’t
that what ASR is trying to achieve? In the
brochures describing the programmes,
nothing is mentioned in this respect. Further
questioning of the diversity manager who
helped design the programmes also reveals
that these subjects are not addressed.
These subjects are mainly discussed in
the programmes specifically designed for
women, so outside of the presence of men!
In 2012, a workshop was actually launched
for men and women, aimed at promoting
awareness of the theme Diversity.
The workshop was called “Necessary
Differences”. This workshop was organised
expressly to bring the theme into the line
rather than just being an HR “thing”. The
workshop was held twice in 2012 and
then repeatedly cancelled due to lack of
participants. The workshop was announced
by the CEO in a management letter to
all managers. This was followed up by a
reminder, but without effect. In all, only
12 managers took part in 2012, mostly
team managers. So although ASR makes
desperate attempts to draw attention
to the subject in line management and
to make it the responsibility of (senior)
management, it does not seem to take root
in the organisation. What types of processes
are at work here? We hoped to obtain an
answer from the questionnaire, interviews
and particularly from the responses from
male (senior) managers.
31
6.5.4 Special training courses for women
In the programmes targeting women,
these themes are obviously addressed.
One training specifically developed for
women is “Female Leadership”. This is a 2
day training course intended for women
already in a somewhat higher salary scale.
The requirement is also that the candidates
have at least 5 years’ work experience. Due
to the salary scale requirement in particular,
some of the women team managers are
not eligible for this training. Themes that
are discussed include woman’s ambition,
visibility in the organisation, the game
and its rules, networking and combining
of work and care tasks. In the brochure,
one of the topics of discussion, “the game
and its rules”, is explained. The hypothesis
is: “it is not surprising that men play the
game better than women, because they
thought it up” and “by taking part in an
exercise, you can determine whether
you are a good “game player””. Another
prominent theme in the programme is
the combination of work and care tasks.
The question is asked “why does having
children often mean women work less
while most men start to work harder at
that time?”. A very interesting theme, in
view of the clear struggle experienced by
women in managerial positions within
ASR with regards to choosing their main
focus: the family or the career. This theme
plays an important role for a large group of
relatively young team managers. Because of
the salary scale to which they belong, they
are not eligible for the training course and
therefore miss the support which could help
them. And it is the dialogue about these
themes with male colleagues which could
in fact contribute to a culture within ASR
in which diversity can be discussed. Now
this is reserved for women who take part in
the training course explain to each other
how the game should be played. However,
it does not become a joint game involving
male and female leaders within ASR.
But apart from the content of the training
course and the potential target group of the
course, it is, of course, also interesting to
study the extent to which this opportunity
for development and support is used. We
then arrive at the appalling discovery that
no training programmes were given in 2012
due to lack of interest! So ASR gives women
the opportunity to attend this training and
the themes obviously interest them, but
participation is zero.
This was naturally discussed in the
interviews.
Another training specifically developed for
women is the “Work-Life Balance” training.
In this training course, women are taught
how to regain control over their own lives
by making conscious choices in their work
and private lives. As a result, women can
create more peace and a better balance in
their lives and function more effectively.
This training also focuses extensively on
role patterns and role expectations. The 2
day training course is open to all the women
within ASR, including team managers. From
32
the answers to the digital questionnaire and
discussions during the interviews, it was
clear that many women within ASR struggle
with their work-life balance. There are
persistent problems relating to traditional
role patterns perceived as hindering women
and even resulting in guilt if they are too
engrossed in their work and feel that they
are failing in their care tasks. You would
therefore expect this to be a popular
training. Yet this was another training which
did not take place in 2012 due to lack of
interest. Amazing!
6.5.5 Mentor programme and networking
Besides these training programmes, there
a mentor programme exists specifically for
women.
For this programme, all the women in the
job groups with the most team managers
and a considerable number of professionals
are invited.
They are allocated a mentor from senior
management, attend 3 workshops and hold
intervision sessions. 2012 was the 7th year
of the programme and 28 women from a
target group of 377 women are taking part.
Participants may take part in the mentor
programme for 2 years and may only repeat
it when they start in a new position.
The aim is to stimulate the women in their
development and offer them a sounding
board by letting a more experienced senior
manager share his or her experience with
women just starting their careers.
Finally there is a women’s network within
ASR called “M!”.
This network was the result of an initiative
by a number of women who wanted to
draw attention to the subject of diversity.
They organise all kinds of meetings which
address the subject in different ways. HR
cooperates and the network also receives
support from the Executive Board. The
network “M” has 150 members, all women
and both managers and non-managers. The
Board, consisting of 3 women, determines
the themes itself. The ASR organisation
does not see very much of these activities;
it is essentially a forum for its female
members.
33
Chapter 7 The Results of the research
7.1 Questionnaire ASR women
As mentioned above, the digital
questionnaire was sent to 116 female
managers within ASR. A net total of 67
women responded to the questionnaire
(65 ASR women plus 2 Supervisory Board
members). In addition, 5 women from the
pilot group completed the questionnaire.
Distribution over the hierarchical levels of
respondents to the digital questionnaire:
Supervisory Board: 2, Executive Board: 1,
Management Board: 3, Management team
member: 8, Manager: 17, Team manager:
33, Other: 3.
What were the most striking results?
7.1.1 Ambition
When asked about the job level to which
a woman feels she can aspire, 55 of the
65 respondents felt they could progress
further. Of those, 16.4% felt they could
become a manager, 53% felt they could
become deputy director and 20% director.
Among the 55 women who saw a chance of
promotion, only 5.5 % said that they wanted
an Executive Board position and 5.5% a
Supervisory Board position.
These responses came from women in the
job groups deputy director, director and
Executive Board.
There were therefore 10 respondents who
did not see or aspire to any potential career
move.
Within the total group of respondents, 33
women were team managers, the lowest
managerial level within ASR. None of them
felt they could rise to Executive Board level
and only 11% felt they could rise to board
level. For these women, apparently, a place
on the Executive Board is very remote.
Some quotes: “I am satisfied with my
position, higher is not always better”, “I’m
fine as I am”, “I’ve been a team manager for
20 years. I enjoy my work, I’m good at it,
I can easily combine it with my personal life
at present”.
Apparently women at the lowest managerial
level have little confidence in their ability
to rise to a role in senior management or at
Executive Board level. Knowing that 48.5%
of them are under the age of 40, essentially
with a whole career ahead of them, that is
an interesting fact. Do these women lack
ambition or do they feel that there are too
few career prospects for women within ASR?
Besides the level of ambition, the women
were asked whether there were periods in
their career when they found it difficult to
hold on to their ambitions. In the group
of 33 team managers, 79% indicated that
they have found it difficult to keep sight
of ambitions at some points. Quotes: “I’m
finding it quite difficult at the moment. I
want to move up, but I find the work-life
balance hard to maintain”,
34
“The period when I worked part time
because the children were young. It seemed
that you were put into an ‘unemployable’
box. Except no one would confirm that”,
“When I had just become a mother”, “When
things at home are difficult, as they are
now due to my divorce”, “Period with young
children”, “When I returned to work after my
leave. I was rather lost for a few months”.
In the higher job levels, the percentages are
lower, but still around 60% of the women
said that there had been a period when
they had found it difficult to hold on to their
ambitions. Besides citing issues at home,
some of them also blamed themselves.
An interesting quote: “In the period that
I wasn’t active enough to take steps. I
thought that promotion would come by
itself just by working hard. But you have
to learn to play the game”. When asked if
they could identify a period when it was or
is easy to hold on to ambitions, 79% of the
total group answered “yes”. In the notes,
a common theme is that when things are
going well at home, work goes smoothly
too. A quote which says it all: “If your family
is well and happy”. Many of the responses
also referred to the fact that it was easy at
the start of their career when they didn’t
have children. A few sought the reason in
themselves. A quote: “It’s up to you to keep
your ambitions realistic and hang on to
them”.
7.1.2 The work-life balance
The women were asked if they found it
difficult to combine work and personal life.
All the women answered this question, with
over 24.6% admitting that they find it hard.
For this question, it is naturally interesting
to know whether there is a difference
between women with and women without
children. And there is a clear difference.
Among women without children, 16.7%
say that they find it difficult, compared
to 27.7% of women with children. Yet
the majority (75.4%) of both women with
and without children apparently find it
possible to combine both. The differences
between directors and team managers
are significant, however. Among directors,
100% do not find it difficult to combine
work and private life but among the team
managers, 69.7% had no problems with the
combination.
Quotes: “Good organisation is important
as well as the support of your partner”,
“Combining a full time job with a working
husband and 3 children of primary school
age is demanding. That’s stating the
obvious, I think. So there’s little time for
myself”. And this speaks volumes: “I’ve got
a 1 year old son and I work 28 hours. My
working hours fly by, just with all my basic
activities. If you then want to do something
different or invest in something, you need
more hours. This is alright, but life is busy at
home too with a toddler. You also want to be
a good mother”.
The majority therefore say that it is possible
to combine work and private life. However,
when asked whether it is more difficult for
35
men or for women, 74% feel that it is more
difficult for women. None of the women say
that it is more difficult for men. There is also
a significant difference in the answer to this
question between women with children and
those without, namely 77% versus 67%.
Apparently women without children do not
feel the pressure of the home situation as
much.
When we study the women’s explanation
for their answer, the common theme is the
existence of a traditional role pattern.
Quotes: “I still often see the “old role
pattern””, “ Women generally feel more
responsibility with regard to care for
the children”, “Caring for children and
managing the household still often comes
down to the woman. That means juggling
lots of things which can be quite stressful if
you also have a career”. But also: “Men are
less complicated in their thinking processes.
Women worry about everything, also
about what other people think of them”,
and “Women have to learn to let things
go and delegate”. However, only a small
minority relate it to their own behaviour
and the majority seem to be resigned to
the existence of a traditional role pattern.
One respondent expressed it very clearly:
“Because of general ideas/norms that care
and household management are more tasks
for women than men”.
There is another remarkable difference
between women with and women without
children. When asked whether women
sometimes feel guilty towards their family,
partner or friends with regard to the amount
of time they spend at work, 28% of the
women with children admitted sometimes
feeling guilty. None of the women without
children gave that answer. Around 55% of
women without children “sometimes” feel
guilty. But if we count the answers “yes”
and “sometimes” for women with children,
we arrive at over 70%! A high percentage
of women therefore struggle with feelings
of guilt now and then. And despite the fact
that we consider 70% among women with
children very high, it is also interesting
to see that a percentage of 55% among
women without children still occasionally
feel guilty.
The question was also asked whether ASR
devotes sufficient attention to the work-
life balance. The answer to this question
was not yes/no; the women were able to
explain their views on this point. Opinions
varied enormously. Quotes: “No attention is
devoted to it”, “No, insufficient at individual
level”, “No”. But also: “Yes, it does”, “Yes,
I’m given complete freedom to work,
wherever and whenever I choose”, “Yes, I
regularly discuss it with my manager”, “That
depends; my current director is very good
at helping me make choices, because he
knows that I sometimes find it difficult. In
previous jobs/with previous directors, I’ve
struggled quite a lot”. The answers appear
to justify the conclusion that it very much
depends on the manager whether women
feel that their needs are taken into account.
36
7.1.3 Culture within ASR regarding
career development of women versus men
The women were asked whether they felt
that men and women within ASR had the
same career development opportunities.
66% felt that they had equal opportunities.
There were no differences between the
women with or without children. However,
there were significant differences according
to job level. The team managers scored
significantly lower: 57.6% felt that women
have the same opportunities as men. In the
group of managers (1 job level higher), 88%
agreed and in the group of deputy directors
(another job level higher) only 50% agreed.
So there was no real unanimity here. When
we study the explanations given by the
group which feels that men have more
opportunities, we find some interesting
answers.
Quotes: “Men are seen earlier; get more
opportunities: broader network”, “Men
can sell themselves better”, “Because men
tend to choose other men. Because ASR is a
traditional company where many employees
don’t take women managers as seriously as
male managers”, “Like knows like”, “Men
are accepted in senior positions sooner.
Acquire a feeling of authority sooner”.
And this says a great deal: “Possible
solutions and bottlenecks are approached
in a male way. The female vision regarding
possible solutions (cooperation, team
building and certainly producing results) is
not accepted and there is no faith in it. It is
therefore very difficult to be taken seriously
in the currently dominant approach”. In
fact, this woman (from the group of team
managers) gives a detailed description of
how she perceives the dominant culture
within ASR regarding women’s leadership.
Not how ASR describes its intentions, but
how she experiences it as part of that
culture. A deputy director relates the
situation rather more to the attitude of the
women themselves:
“Women often make different choices,
focusing on children and caring for the
family. This is taken into account in
promotions and it is not always possible
to combine these choices with senior
management positions. Men think more
about achieving the next step and focus
on that. Women tend to wait and expect
that if they do their work well, they will
naturally be rewarded in the form of career
opportunities”.
On the one hand, the opportunities of men
versus women are related to the dominant
culture, but there is also recognition that
women themselves do not always focus very
much on their career development.
7.1.4 Participation in networks,
mentor programme and Management
Development programme: what are the
gains?
ASR offers various programmes aimed
at supporting women in their career
development to higher management
levels. There is a women’s network within
ASR, whereby women can be allocated
a mentor and a number of women are
37
nominated to participate in a management
development programme. This programme
is not specifically intended for women,
but prepares promising candidates, both
male and female, for the next step in their
careers.
Focusing on the participation of women
in networks, we asked about networks
both inside and outside ASR and whether
these networks are only for women or
whether they involve both men and women.
Remarkably, of all the respondents, 25%
are not involved in any network. Even
more remarkable is the fact that 36.4% of
the team managers who are just starting
their careers have never been active in a
network. Of the team managers who do
have a network, 57% are active in a network
of men and women and 19% in a network
of only women. Those who have networks
(21 of the 33 team managers) give very
different answers explaining why they
have networks. The motivation varies from
“Finding another job outside ASR” to “Being
aware of what’s happening in my sector
and ensuring that I have a professional
reputation in that sector”, but also “Getting
to know people and getting my name
known. Infiltrating the obscure selection
process”. Women do not clearly specify
that they see networks as a way to move
their career forward, by getting to know
people who could help them. There are lots
of references to “getting to know people”
and “acquiring knowledge”, but “social
interaction” is important too. Ultimately,
women do not network with a purpose, but
mainly regard it as something social. It is
also striking that a group of women who are
at the start of a (possible) career apparently
fail to devote any time to networks and
make other choices.
All the women were asked whether they
have or have had a mentor or coach.
Of the total group, 44.6% said that they
had had a mentor or coach. However, there
are some remarkable differences between
the different groups. For example, 40.4%
of the group women with children have a
mentor/coach compared with 55.6% of the
women without children. This is remarkable,
because it is the women with children who
refer to problems with setting priorities
and who could use some help. There are
also considerable differences between
the job levels. Thus 45.5% of the team
managers said that they had a mentor/
coach compared with 58.8% of their
colleagues who are a job level higher, the
managers. A further job level higher, only
25% of the deputy directors had a mentor
or coach. The conclusion is that the group
who could benefit most seems to have the
least need for a coach or mentor, i.e. the
women with children and the women with
most career development possibilities, the
team managers. It is therefore interesting
to discover why such a large group does
not feel a need for a mentor or coach or is
unwilling to devote time to it.
38
Interesting explanations come from the
group of team managers about why they
don’t have a mentor or coach. Some quotes:
“Probably because I don’t expect the
feedback a mentor will be able to offer to
have enough added value. I’d rather have a
good talk with my manager”, “I think that
I’m not serious enough about it. I know
about them, but I’ve never taken the step to
set it in motion. My excuse: no time”. There
is also doubt: “Can’t explain, don’t really
know”. And other priorities are set: “I feel
there are so many things happening at ASR
that my priority is “put out the flames of the
house that’s on fire”. At the moment I have
little/no time (priority) to put my personal
development above the development of the
team”.
From the group of women with children,
several women said “Don’t need it”.
A few indicated that they just hadn’t taken
the time: ”Because I haven’t taken the time
to formulate a proper learning goal for
myself on which I can work with a coach”.
Apparently these women choose to devote
time and attention to the team that they
manage, or there is too little space in their
minds for an extra activity involving them
thinking about their own development.
Those who do have a mentor or coach were
asked what they expected from that person.
Some of the women had thought carefully
about this: “To trigger me and get me to a
higher level”, “Reflection, sparring, sharing
insights, new vision”, “Broaden network and
learn how to move up the ladder”, “That he
gets me to think about what I really want”.
When those with a mentor or coach were
asked whether these expectations were
met, most responded affirmatively. In fact,
it was a recommendation to those who have
not yet found the energy to embark on it or
who do not see the benefits.
When asked whether they had participated
or are participating in the Management
Development programme within ASR,
18.5% said that they had. Among the team
managers, this was only 9.1% while this
was the case for 29.4% of the managers.
That raises questions, because the team
of managers could be expected to form
a potential pipeline for future (senior)
managers within ASR. People are selected
for these programmes if they show potential
in terms of career development. Does that
mean that potential for promotion only
exists for such a low percentage of women
in that group? Or does it say something
about how people are selected for these
programmes?
Reactions from respondents regarding
their expectations about the Management
Development programme were very diverse.
Some quotes: “It gave me a network, but
nothing else. I expected more from it. ASR
invests in people, creates expectations but
can’t deliver. The shrinking organisation
certainly doesn’t contribute to upwards
mobility”, “Not much. Nice to know a few
more people and be able to talk to them,
know what’s going on in other departments
39
at ASR. But I didn’t and still don’t get the
real coaching and peer review there”. Much
is said about the programme’s networking
function: “Building a broader network
and learning from each other”. There is
disappointment: “It was useful to get a star
behind your name but the content didn’t
help me much”. Fortunately there are
also positive reactions, like: “I completed
the programme. It helped my personal
development and got me a new position
within ASR”.
Yet there is still a sense that the relatively
small percentage of female managers
who take part in this programme are not
all enthusiastic about the results of their
participation.
7.2 Insights from the interviews with
ASR women
As mentioned earlier, interviews were
conducted with 10 women from different
hierarchical levels (See Appendix 2). First
of all, it is notable how many women
were interested in participating in an
interview: 45 women! As it was impossible
to conduct so many interviews, a selection
was made based on managerial level, age
considerations, the number of women with
and without children and how long they had
been working for the organisation. Some
women had not been with ASR for very
long, so they still had a “fresh” view of the
culture, providing a nice contrast with the
women who had been working at ASR for a
long(er) time.
The interviews started by asking the women
what they felt when they were completing
the digital questionnaire. This produced
some quite surprising reactions, such as:
“I thought: what’s going wrong? So many
initiatives but so little progress”, and
“Completing the questionnaire got me
thinking; how do I actually focus on my
career development?”. and: “It’s good
to devote attention to the subject, but it
will always remain controversial because
women are traditionally more focused on
care than on a career”.
Every interview involved a woman who
wanted to tell her story and, as the
following explanation of the results show,
also regularly takes a look at herself in the
mirror.
7.2.1 Ambition
The women were shown the results of the
digital questionnaire, which revealed that
none of the team managers felt they would
rise to Executive Board level and (only) 11%
felt they could achieve senior management
level. Interestingly, the women responded
differently to the presented figures. The
(deputy) directors felt that it showed a
low level of ambition, although indicating
at the same time that they did not aspire
to promotion themselves either. Some
women felt that the results showed quite
a high level of ambition (promotion to
senior management level) and that it
was logical that there was no need for
career development to Executive Board
level because the gap between team
manager and senior management was
40
already considered very wide and the
Executive Board was even “more distant”.
Furthermore, the majority of the women
indicated that women too easily assumed
that they would not be eligible for such
positions and adopted a very cautious
attitude. The following statements were
common: “Men are more concerned with
career planning”, and “Women don’t have
much ambition because they would then
have to put much more energy into their
work and work is not everything to them”.
Of course it was also interesting to hear
how the “top women” in ASR, the female
member of the Executive Board and
two female Supervisory Board members
regarded the level of ambition of women
at ASR. The Executive Board member
said that she had never dreamed that she
would ever join the Executive Board. In her
opinion, women do things more because
they enjoy them and that work and identity
are less entwined than for men. This was
changing among men, in her view, but
men feel they “must” have more of a
career. A member of the Supervisory Board
approached the result of the question
about ambition level from another angle,
saying that the Netherlands had a culture
of hidden ambition. It exists, but you don’t
show it. She added that the culture of ASR
was also quite “soft” and not particularly
performance-driven. However, she could
see a gradual change in that culture.
7.2.2 The work-life balance
During the interviews, it became very
clear that the great majority of the women
struggle with their work-life balance. This
was also a theme at (deputy) director level.
Balancing time spent at work and the time
spent with friends/partner or at sports
(women without children) or caring for the
children was felt to be extremely important.
One women literally said:
“The obstacle to career development is
your family”. Another said: “If perhaps
in the future you have children, working
less becomes an issue to be considered.
As women, we may want to move forward
in our career, but then you have to make
sacrifices too. Women don’t want to give up
their role as carers and use having children
as an excuse to work less”.
This reaction obviously shows that women
also seek the reason for their lack of
ambition within themselves. It is interesting
to note that young women at the start of
their careers who have not yet started a
family also have such reflections. Yet they
too wonder, without being asked, what will
happen when they have children and quickly
assume that this will curtail their career.
The women who already have children
often say that they find it difficult to share
the care proportionally with their partner.
They admit that they don’t ask for enough
help and also derive “something” from the
fact that they are the ones who are mainly
responsible for caring for the children
and the family. When asked how the
women would describe their identity, the
majority of mothers described themselves
41
first and foremost as “mother” or as “a
combination of caring and ambition”. A
woman without children said: “single and
not a mother, for the rest, a daughter and
friend”. It’s interesting how many women
used words like “care”, “caring” and
“mother” to describe their identity, with
only a few women describing themselves as:
“competitive”, “connecting people”, “want
to be appreciated in my work”.
The women were asked why they felt
that role patterns still seem to prevent
them from fulfilling their ambitions. This
was, after all, elaborated on in detail in
the answers to the digital questionnaire.
The women with children felt that there
was still a traditional division of tasks
between partners and that women thus
still assumed the lion’s share of the care.
The majority also admitted that women “do
this to themselves”. This was discussed in
depth, because why would a modern, well-
educated woman accept this in 2012?
Several references were made to the
social pressure felt by women, particularly
from other women! A quote: “Women can
be quite nasty to each other, they don’t
want other women to have a career”. The
pressure from men is also felt; one woman
says: “Men and women still adopt certain
roles. Men feel it’s OK if their wives work, but
dinner still has to be ready when they get
home”. Even the women without children
made similar comments and concluded that
women spent much more time on care, thus
placing restrictions on themselves. And
rising up the ranks while working 3 days a
week just wasn’t possible, as one woman
said. One woman with children made the
most striking comment: “I’ve got everything
well organised, because I have a partner
who encourages me to develop myself. If he
didn’t, I’d choose for the family. I can’t let go
of caring for my children. Men can”.
That feeling was expressed quite frequently.
Women felt that men find it easy to switch
between home and work, are more rational
and more focused on their career. When
men are at work, they don’t think about
home, while women admit that they often
do. This is one of their frustrations and one
of the women even says: “Women easily get
caught up in the care aspect. Being a victim.
That’s what stands in women’s way”.
When asked how she dealt with the work-
life balance, the Executive Board member
explained that she was not typical of
most women. She described herself very
expressively:
“I lack the caring gene”. She has delegated
part of the care for the children and has no
problem at all leaving their care to others.
The same applied to the Supervisory Board
members, although there were different
emphases. One of them referred to the
motto: “It’s not only the glass ceiling,
it’s also the sticky floor”. She felt that
for many women the status of mother is
very important, one that they would not
relinquish before something else took its
place. In that sense, motherhood is also
“sticky” for many women. She felt that
42
Dutch women were also unwilling to invest
a lot of money in help. Also, Dutch women
were too “involved” with their children.
That is different in many other cultures.
The point of investing in help was also
mentioned by her female colleague in the
Supervisory Board, who said that she had
also invested a great deal in help at the start
of her career, as an investment in her career.
But then you have to be able to let this
caring go. That was one of the problems of
many women, in her view: being able to let
go and set the right priorities. Women want
to do everything themselves and you simply
can’t do that anymore at a certain point,
if you want to pursue a serious career. She
also recognised the nastiness that can exist
between women and claimed that the social
pressure on working women with children
was mainly imposed by full time mothers
who felt threatened.
Comparing the answers of the women
within ASR with their colleagues at the top
of the company reveals that the top women
have made very clear and conscious choices
with regard to their private lives versus their
career. All three are proud mothers who
talk enthusiastically about their children.
But they are mothers who are able to
relinquish the care of their children and set
priorities. They don’t seem to be concerned
with social pressure or fixed role patterns
which hamper many other women. In their
personality structure, they do not “suffer”
from guilt regarding their home situation
and are easily able to combine the roles of
mother and leader in their identity, without
creating tension.
7.2.3 Culture within ASR regarding career
development of women versus men
The women were shown the figures from
the digital questionnaire about career
development opportunities within ASR.
When asked whether men and women have
the same career development opportunities
at ASR, 66% agreed. The team managers
scored 58% on that question, so felt
they had fewer opportunities. In the
interviews, further questions were asked
about why many women apparently see
fewer opportunities for women than
for men. The replies included: “Men sell
themselves better than women. They also
negotiate better. Women work hard, don’t
create a high profile for themselves and
are not visible enough”. And: “Men are
better at showing off what they are doing.
Women don’t attach any value to that.
So they aren’t seen”. One of the women
felt that both men and women had equal
opportunities within ASR, but at the same
time wondered whether the step from team
manager to director might be assessed as
less big by men compared to women. She
felt that men might wonder “is she up for
it?” in the case of a woman. Two women
gave two very contrasting opinions. One
said: “In practice, we do not have the same
opportunities. ASR still has a very traditional
culture. Masculine culture. Almost macho.
Women don’t like that”. The other woman
said: “I do get the feeling that I’m seen.
43
However, I missed a promotion on two
occasions. But I think being a woman works
in my favour and I feel that ASR is really
looking for women like me”. Such self-
confidence is not heard from many women.
During the interviews, we discussed
whether the subject of diversity is ever
addressed in the organisation. What did
the women perceive in daily practice?
Tellingly, most of the women said that
diversity and the added value of mixed
management teams were rarely discussed.
If it was discussed, it tended not to be in a
positive sense and people tended to joke
about it. Male peers seemed to be “allergic”
to the subject. One woman who had only
joined ASR relatively recently said: “It’s
rather a closed culture here. People aren’t
very open to new players. Like knows like”.
Only one woman reported that although
the subject of diversity in general was not
discussed, she did get appreciated for
the fact that as a woman she did things
“differently”. Another woman, however, felt
that measures relating to policy on career
development were rather very much taken
through the eyes of men. She did not feel
that her (male) managers really wanted
more women. One woman commented that
the CEO was aware of the need for more
women in high positions, but she felt that
the COR (= Combined Operating Ratio)
was more important at the end of the day.
These reactions reflect the feeling among
respondents that there is insufficient
interest in the subject in the organisation
and that the women do not consider that
the targets put down on paper are actually
taken seriously by their male managers.
The feeling that ASR has done too little with
regard to women’s career development was
recognised by the Executive Board member.
She said that this would only change when
there were more women in higher positions,
because “women appoint women”. She
also felt that ASR was somewhat behind
the times when it came to the theme of
diversity and that this also explained the
lower percentages. Nevertheless, she was
optimistic about the future and felt she
could play an important role concerning
the appointment of women in influential
positions within ASR. A Supervisory Board
member said that in her experience, male
Supervisory Board members had a different
image of female directors than she did.
She attributes this to how women come
across. Men look at different things, she
said. That’s why it is vital that a critical
number of women are appointed at senior
management level in the coming years. Her
female colleague commented that ASR was
a (insurance) technical company, so you
derive authority largely from the substance.
Women must therefore stand out with
regard to their knowledge too. Where
behaviour is concerned, she also recognised
that men sell themselves better and are
more forward and that this also influences
how women are regarded.
44
When asked how diversity was discussed,
a Supervisory Board member said that
she knew people were working hard to
recruit more women to the top. However, a
selection process had already taken place
before that, which the Supervisory Board
didn’t see. The other Supervisory Board
member confirmed that the subject is
discussed in the Supervisory Board among
the usual HR topics on the agenda, but she
admitted that the Supervisory Board might
not have devoted very much attention to
diversity in recent years. The Executive
Board member said that she referred to the
subject in the Executive Board and when
she assembles management teams, she
tries to ensure diversity. In that sense, the
appointment of a woman to the top of the
company means that the motto “women
appoint women” is now part of the practice
at ASR. And that’s good news.
7.2.4 Participation in networks,
mentor programme and Management
Development
The women were asked how they generally
view the measures which ASR has taken
to promote the career development of
women. The following measures were
mentioned: targets for promotion of
women, mentor programme for women,
special programmes, always a woman in job
application procedures.
The majority of the women said that they
had seen little or nothing of these measures.
One team manager mentioned the general
Management Development programme in
which she had taken part and which had
been very useful. But they were not familiar
with the specific measures designed to
promote the career development of women
or they said that they seriously doubted
whether these measures were taken
seriously by the Management team of their
own business unit. One woman said: “Career
development of women doesn’t have the
organisation’s attention at all. The subject
is loaded for men. It’s ridiculed”. Another
said that it was too much of a “checklist”
and that a target on career development,
for example, is not a subject of discussion
in Management teams. And if there is no
policy, nothing will happen.
A number of women indicated that an
individual approach to women would be
much more successful. Measures are not
now embedded in an individual career
plan. In this respect, a Supervisory Board
member appealed for a sponsor for female
potentials. A senior manager who really
opens doors. They also observed that
the measures are too instrumental in
character with too little “enforcement”.
There are measures, but are they actually
implemented in the right way? On the
other hand, Supervisory Board members
said that time is required to make the
change within ASR. In fact, it starts with the
recruitment policy; recruit women with the
right personality structure. Women who are
prepared to invest in a career. Women at
ASR do not display enough fighting spirit.
45
That fact is also recognised by the ASR
women themselves: “Women tend to wait
and see. Instead, women should feel that
they can go for it”.
Notably, most of the women were
not familiar with the special training
programmes for woman (“Female
Leadership” and “Work-Life Balance”).
One of the women knew about the Female
Leadership training and wanted to take
part, but did not qualify because of her
salary scale. Most women were amazed
that these training programmes were
used so little and put it down to the fact
that women do not want to be labelled as
“having problems with something”. One
of the women said that she never talked
about the special training programmes
with other women. She felt that these
kinds of programmes had something “sad”
about them. In the discussions, the women
regularly expressed the fact that they want
to achieve something because they are
good and not because they are women.
There is an aversion to “special treatment”,
as one of the women called it.
They also noted that HR advisors do not
actively draw attention to the training
programmes. One of the women felt it was
strange that so many women appeared to
struggle with care versus work, yet did so
little to improve how they deal with it. One
colleague had an answer to this: “ Women
feel valued for their care tasks. So they
struggle on. Women don’t want to learn at
all how to let go of that”.
A member of the Supervisory Board still
advised giving these kinds of training
programmes time. Don’t wrap them up
too soon. However, she did recommend
addressing the subject of diversity in
mixed training programmes involving both
men and women. Her Supervisory Board
colleague suggested that poor participation
in the special training programmes proved
to her that women regularly throw in the
towel because they become lonely. They
tend to have women around them who are
juggling work and private life and don’t
even have time for a chat. She pointed out
how important it is that women make time
for that, as this will reduce their sense of
isolation and enable them to keep going.
That certainly has a function, because it
gives them energy.
The Executive Board member felt that the
special training programmes for women
were too instrumental and rather “old
school”.
7.2.5 Responses to the hypothesis
All the women who took part in the
interviews were asked to consider the
following hypothesis: “Women and men
both experience developments in their
identity during the course of their lives.
Meeting a partner, perhaps having children,
possibly caring for parents or friends and
having a career. Men are able to integrate
these developments in their identity more
easily and make these transitions more
smoothly. They therefore find it easier to
see themselves as leaders. Women find
46
it more difficult to combine the various
identities (mother, partner, leader) to create
1 new identity”.
How did the interviewed women respond to
this hypothesis?
What was interesting was that some of
the women had difficulty responding
directly and intuitively. The response of
a team manager: “I don’t know, never
thought about it”. But after considering
the hypothesis, she said: “Women want
to excel in all roles, but men aren’t so
concerned about that. Men can view roles
more in isolation”. This was very similar
to the reaction of a fellow team manager
who said: “Agree with the hypothesis.
Suggests that women are generally more
complex and make things more difficult for
themselves. Women tend to think more in
terms of problems. Men can switch off more
easily”. Most of the reactions were along
this line. The Executive Board member took
a different angle: “The power of women
is that they make choices in life which
are appropriate to what is happening to
them. If the women in a company don’t
feel comfortable, they leave. That’s a sign
of “lack of oxygen” in a company. For men,
there is more social pressure to work.
Women experience more social pressure
when picking up their children from school”.
A member of the Supervisory Board
responded to the hypothesis as follows: “Of
course that’s the case. These are completely
different parts of yourself. To me, having
several identities is really enriching. Besides
being professional, I am also able to potter
about with my children”. She indicated
that you have to put this into perspective
and accept that there will always be a
dilemma between being a mother and a
leader. “You just have to persevere for a few
years, but make sure that you remain in a
good professional position”. Her colleague
Supervisory Board member recognised the
dilemma too and said that this hampers
women. “Roles are translated into things
which have to be done, which can get quite
stressful. Roles become intertwined. For
me personally, those roles are integrated”.
In a conversation with a team manager,
another aspect of making a transition was
addressed. As a woman without children,
she did not experience any dilemmas
regarding her managerial role and care
tasks. However, she had problems with a
very different transition: that from daughter
to adult woman who has to accept that her
parents don’t always like the choices she
makes. In this case, it had nothing to do
with work, but her choice of partner. That
produced the following comment: “Women
like to be reassured a lot that they are doing
well”. And that in turn is very relevant to
the theme of women and leadership, where
it is also essentially about making choices
and accepting the consequences of those
choices.
7.2.6 Recommendations from ASR women
Nearly all the women made
recommendations about how ASR could
improve women’s career development. One
47
very concise piece of advice was: “Practise
what you preach. In the Charter, we describe
everything we do, but I don’t see much of
that in practice. The theme is not explained
to the men and they are not clear about its
meaning”.
That point was made in several answers:
“Get men involved as well to demonstrate
the advantage of mixed teams. Otherwise it
will continue to be a “woman’s thing”.
Another gave the same recommendation,
adding: “Does the Executive Board itself
have insight into the female potential and
does it really communicate that to the
management?”.
When recruiting women, a member of the
Supervisory Board recommended focusing
on the personality structure of the woman
in question. Does this woman have enough
“power” to be able to perform at senior
management level?
There were also appeals for a different type
of support for women.
A quote: “Women apparently need more
reassurance and encouragement. Provide
that in programmes”. One woman with
children added a very different note: “At the
moment, no consideration is given to the
pace of women’s development, also because
of having children, for example”. But the
common theme in all the answers was that
the measures and programmes are now too
women-oriented. This has turned them into
a “woman’s thing” in which men are not
sufficiently involved.
A clear recommendation towards ASR to
make it a subject which concerns the whole
organisation and not just the women within
ASR.
7.3 Questionnaire ASR men
As already mentioned, the questionnaire
for men was sent to 145 men at senior
managerial level within ASR. 68 men
completed and returned the questionnaire,
resulting in a net response of 47%.
The distribution of respondents over the
hierarchical levels was as follows:
Management Board: 16, Deputy directors:
23, Management team members: 8,
Managers: 18, Others: 3.
What were the most notable results?
7.3.1 Knowledge of senior male managers
about the goals and the measures
Amazingly, most of the senior male
managers were not familiar with the goals
and the measures which ASR has taken to
promote women’s career development. Of
the total group, 32.4% said that they were
unaware that ASR had signed the “Talent
to the Top” Charter. This varied between
12.5% of the directors who did not know
this to 43.5% of the deputy directors.
When asked whether they were aware of
the target percentages which ASR has
formulated, 26.5% of the total claimed
not to know these percentages! This varied
from 6.3% of the directors to 47.8% of the
deputy directors. This begs the question
as to whether there is any communication
about the subject within Management
teams.
48
When asked whether they were aware of
the measures which ASR has formulated
to reach the goals, 69.1% claimed they did
not know these measures. That varied from
37.5% of the directors to 87% of the deputy
directors and 87.5% of the Management
team members. Those who responded
affirmatively and who felt that they knew
the measures were then asked whether they
could list the most important measures.
This produced some interesting answers.
The directors who answered this question
were able to list measures like the mentor
programme, target percentages, and
agreements in job application procedures.
One Management team member responded
quite differently, however. Quote: “I feel
that ASR has other concerns, namely
becoming a healthy insurance company
again. That would be my priority”. This
does not answer the question, but it does
show that this manager does not have a
very positive feeling regarding the theme.
Apparently, this manager had failed to
grasp the idea that mixed management
teams are stronger and could therefore
contribute to restoring the health of ASR.
The male managers were asked whether
they were familiar with special management
training programmes for women such
as “Female Leadership” and “Work-Life
Balance” and the programme “Necessary
Differences”. Of the total group, 36.8%
said that they were not familiar with these
programmes. Here the directors scored
25% and the managers as much as 50%.
This was therefore disappointing.
To summarise, knowledge of the goals
and measures which ASR has taken among
those who should be responsible for their
implementation was limited to very limited.
7.3.2 Practice concerning the theme in
own area of responsibility
What do senior male managers actually do
themselves to promote career development
among women in their own area of
responsibility? The men were asked whether
they had established a target percentage
for their own business unit. Of the total
group, only 13.2% had established a target
percentage. Among the directors, this
percentage was 37.5% while the deputy
directors scored 4.3%! Management team
members scored 12.5 % to this question.
That is very strange, because directors lead
management teams of deputy directors
and managers, and these last groups gave
a much lower positive response than their
“bosses”. Again this begs the question
whether the theme of diversity and the
goals and the resources used are actually
communicated in these teams.
The approach prescribed by ASR stipulates
that every management team must
draw up a diversity plan. For this reason,
the men were asked whether a diversity
plan had indeed been drawn up for their
business unit. Of the total group, only
4.4% confirmed that such a plan had been
drawn up. Among the group of directors, no
diversity plan had been drawn up. That was
49
an extremely honest answer. That means
16 directors who responded negatively!
Oddly, 2 deputy directors indicated that a
plan had been made in their business unit.
These must therefore be deputy directors
from management teams whose director
did not complete the questionnaire. In view
of the fact that ASR puts priority on drawing
up diversity plans, the response to this
question is both disappointing as well as
significant.
Another agreement which has been made
within ASR concerns the composition of
interview teams for interviews with job
candidates. It was agreed that interview
teams must always consist of a man/men
and a woman/women. When asked if this
actually happened in practice, of the total
group 22.1% confirmed that this always
occurred, 55.9% indicated that this did not
always happen and 11.8% said that it never
happened. The scores of the directors were
slightly more positive, but here too 43.8%
indicated that this did not always apply,
while 6.8% said that it never occurred.
Among the deputy directors (with 23
respondents, the biggest group!), 65.2%
indicated that it did not always happen,
while 8.7% said that it never happened.
These answers related to the responses to
the question whether female candidates
were always included in the job application
procedure for managerial positions. After
all, this was what had been agreed within
ASR! From the answers, however, it was
apparent that these agreements were also
not put into practice. Of the whole group,
29.4% indicated that female candidates
always took part. But 44.1% indicated that
this was not always the case and 23.5%
“don’t know”. Of the directors, 56.3%
indicated that this was always the case,
but 37.5% admitted that it did not always
happen. Among the deputy directors, the
number was actually 60.9%! So another
agreement which is not always put into
practice.
We must therefore conclude that ASR has
introduced a number of measures which
are not implemented in practice, or only to
a limited extent. Furthermore, we see that
the directors often sketch a more positive
picture than their deputy directors or other
managers in the organisation. This could
point to poor communication within the
organisation or decreasing engagement in
the subject, the deeper we delve into the
organisation.
7.3.3 Personal experience with
mentoring/coaching of women
As part of the mentor programme that has
already been running in ASR for some years,
senior male managers are also appointed
mentors to female managers.
The men were asked whether they
themselves acted as mentors or coaches
for a female colleague and how they
experienced conversations with these
women.
Of the total group, 54.4% confirmed that
50
they were a mentor or coach of a female
managerial colleague. That percentage was
significantly higher among the directors,
because 87.5% of them said they were
a mentor or coach. Here too, the deputy
directors scored a lot lower than the
average, because 47.8% were a coach
or mentor. A shockingly low percentage
was scored among the Management
team members: only 25% is a coach or
mentor. Again we see decreasing effort and
involvement at lower management levels.
These Management team members could
actually be good coaches for women team
managers. Obviously the directors have a
responsibility in this too, because as the
first hierarchical layer below the Executive
Board, they should spur their management
teams on with regard to stimulating female
talent in their business unit!
Further questions were asked about the
experiences of those who were coaching or
mentoring a woman. What kind of subjects
do they discuss? In general, the reactions
were positive. Some quotes: “Very nice. I try
to encourage these women to present their
results more visibly and to be less cautious”
and: “I experience this as any other coaching
interview; I treat my colleague the same
way. However, we do talk more about work-
life balance and taking control of one’s
own development”, and “Conversations go
well. Subjects are personal development,
deciding what you want, knowing what
you can do and believing in yourself”. The
reactions also showed that the men were
aware of the women’s feelings of doubt
and reservation. Some quotes: “I find
that the women tend to be too modest/
think too little of themselves”, and “What
I particularly noticed is women’s reticence
about moving up in the organisation. It’s
nearly always “too soon””. It also appeared
that the women did not always get the most
out of the conversations. That appeared
from responses like: “Good conversations,
but in general few concrete goals that
they want to achieve and very general
coaching questions”, and “In my view,
the conversations must be initiated by
the mentee. That never really got off the
ground”.
From these reactions, we can conclude
that coaching and mentoring are generally
experienced as meaningful, but that the
women could take more control and use
their contacts with senior managers better.
7.3.4 Personal vision on the theme
In order to get behind the feelings and
convictions of the men within ASR, several
questions were asked. For example, they
were asked whether they saw the benefits
of mixed teams of men and women. Of the
total group, 95.6% said they saw benefits.
Among the directors and deputy directors,
this was even 100%. This was remarkable
because we had previously seen that the
measures that ASR wishes to implement
in order to achieve that are far from
being implemented by this group. When
explaining their response, however, the men
51
gave all kinds of answers which explained
the score. Quote: “Diversity is key. Men
and women can complement each other.
But it’s not a disaster if a team is men or
women only”. There was thus an immediate
nuance to the positive answer, so that the
conclusion could be: “so we haven’t got a
real problem”. Another comment: “Again,
we need to go for quality. I really don’t mind
whether it’s a man or a woman”. And: “It
can benefit the decision making and the
balance in a team. But in my opinion, that’s
something totally different than a target
percentage concerning women at the top”.
The men were also asked whether diversity
was a subject that was regularly discussed
in the team or in their business unit. Only
7.4% said that they discussed it often to
very often. And 33.8% indicated that it
was never the topic of conversation! The
directors gave a safe answer, because
75% said that they talked about diversity
“sometimes” while 6.3% never discussed
it. And 34.8% of “their” deputy directors
said they “never” talked about it! So with
whom do the directors discuss this subject?
When explaining their answer, the directors
indicated that the subject was addressed
when a vacancy needed filling. But in that
respect, we have seen that women were
not always involved in the application
procedure.
The best insight into the men’s feelings
and convictions was obtained from their
answers when asked why they felt that
not enough women rose to more senior
managerial positions within ASR. Some curt
responses from a series: “Apparently there
were more suitable men for the position”
and “Lack of quality”. That reflects how
they value the qualities of their female
colleagues. However there was also a
feeling about the motives which might play
a role among the women concerned. Some
quotes: “Combination of ambition, work,
satisfaction, salary and care tasks”, and
“Women’s modesty plays a role, sometimes
also their invisibility. But also that not
enough women really want to fulfil their
potential” and “Different priorities, like
family. Too little ambition”.
In general, many answers referred to
women’s choice to work part time or to
lower their sights due to their care tasks.
Finally the reason was also sought in the
ASR culture: “Old boys’ network. ASR
displays rejection symptoms of anything
that is different and doesn’t fit in”, and
“Financial institutions are traditionally
still a men’s bulwark. I don’t think the
organisation is very open to women”. A
very clear statement was: “I sometimes
wonder how far women are taken seriously
as managers. It seems as if they have to
provide additional proof that they can deal
with the task”.
The conclusion is that the men within
ASR who make the appointments in part
question the qualities and ambition of
women within the organisation and in part
explain it in terms of the culture in ASR.
They talk about a “macho culture” and an
52
“old boys’ network”.
However they apparently fail to realise that
they are the ones who largely determine
that culture.
7.3.5 Recommendations from ASR men
At the end of the questionnaire, the men
were asked how they feel that ASR should
tackle the subject of “diversity”. In the
answers, it is clear that many of the men
feel that there should be a less awkward
approach to the subject and they appeal for
the abolition of percentages. Comments
include: “Don’t force it. The best person
must be appointed for the position”,
“Certainly not too much manipulation!
Must be a natural fit”, “Less self-conscious”,
“Don’t focus on women; more attention
for diversity in general”. However, there is
also concern that the subject is simply not
high enough on the agenda, and they call
on this to happen: “It should be an even
higher priority on the agenda of the various
teams”, and: “Develop more awareness of
the advantages of m/f diversity in teams”.
This therefore generates a mixed picture
of the perception of the men within ASR,
who ultimately determine whether and how
women develop in their careers within the
organisation.
From the various answers, several clear
conclusions can be drawn.
There is very little or no compliance by the
management teams with the measures
introduced by ASR, even if the leaders
of these teams (the directors) paint a
rosier picture in their answers. The men’s
perception of the theme diversity is very
diverse, but it is clear that there is no or
little communication on the subject within
the management teams. The subject has
the attention at the top of the company in
the Executive Board, but the deeper we go
into the organisation, the less we find that
people are engaged in the subject. The men
do not really seem to recognise the benefits
of mixed teams, even if (socially desirable)
lip service is paid to it. But excuses about
why there is no success (quality of the
women, lack of ambition) abound. The
realisation that the culture of ASR hinders
women’s career development is recognised
by many men. But what they apparently fail
to realise is that they were the ones who
created this culture and who ultimately
nurture it! It is therefore very important that
they see the added value of mixed teams.
If not, any measures taken are doomed to
failure.
This reflects the recommendation made by
one of the women interviewed: “Practise
what you preach. In the Charter, we describe
everything we do, but I don’t see much of
that in practice. The theme is not explained
to the men and they are not clear about
its meaning. Get men involved as well to
demonstrate the advantage of mixed teams.
Otherwise it will continue to be a “woman’s
thing””.
53
What does the photo of the women at
ASR achieve?
Firstly we note that the female managers
within ASR have problems combining their
managerial position and their care tasks
at home. This prevents them “getting fully
up to speed” in their careers. However,
they only seek support for this in a limited
way; programmes offered by ASR in this
respect are not used and the dilemmas
tend to be discussed among women only.
The women do not want to be treated as
a separate group, but want to be judged
on their capacities. It seems as if they are
particularly keen “not to attract attention”.
The lack of career development among
women is on the one hand blamed on
the culture of ASR, which does not show
sufficient appreciation for women’s
leadership. On the other hand, the women
also look in the mirror. Many of them then
see women who “stick” to their roles at
home as mothers, carers and partners
and the appreciation they receive for their
efforts. From the women’s stories, it is clear
that they cannot let go of those roles. They
are trapped in a “construct” whereby they
look for an excuse in the traditional role
allocation in which they are required to fulfil
more of the care tasks, preventing them
from investing in their career.
Here we see that the development of these
women’s leadership requires an evolution
in their personal values and motivations.
The development of their leadership is
inextricably linked to the development of
their identity (Ibarra, Snook, Guillen Ramo,
2010). From the analysis of the leadership
programmes at ASR, it became clear that
this was not taken into account. It is more
about developing skills and at most learning
“the rules of the game” at ASR (Ely, Ibarra,
Kolb, 2011). In that sense, ASR is overly
concerned with “fixing the women” in its
development programmes and too little
attention is paid to the development of the
organisation as a whole.
The women within ASR could be more
expressly stimulated in their ambition,
by exploring with them how they could
integrate the development of their
leadership in the development of their
identity. It is unlikely that the whole
population of female managers is
sufficiently motivated for this.
ASR should therefore expressly choose
individual support for a number of
potentials, who are also really prepared to
move out of their comfort zone and embark
on this journey. These potentials could be
“sponsored” by, for example, members of
the Executive Board, Supervisory Board and
(female) board members. By sponsoring, we
mean more commitment to the potential
Chapter 8Conclusions and Recommendations
54
than is currently the case with mentoring.
A sponsor really tries to open doors and
not just conduct motivational discussions.
This therefore requires a stringent selection
of potentials, who must then also get the
most out of it, which is not always the case
in the current mentor programme. For the
potentials, the female members of the
Executive Board and Supervisory Board
are also ideal role models, so their input as
sponsor has a dual effect. Furthermore, it
gives the Supervisory Board more insight
into and involvement in the development of
women’s leadership at ASR.
In addition, ASR needs to create a “breeding
ground” of ambitious women who feel
less dependent on being valued for their
caring roles. What the research has not yet
sufficiently explored and which could be
the subject for a further study is how ASR
could use a stricter recruitment policy to
attract more ambitious women. However,
at the same time, it requires work to create
a climate in which women can also flourish.
After all, such women will soon leave
the company if their qualities are not or
insufficiently used.
What does the photo of the men at ASR
achieve?
The picture emerging from the answers
given by the men about their involvement
in the theme of diversity is clear. Within
ASR, diversity is a paper tiger and does
not really have the attention of senior
male managers. Moreover, there is a “top
down” approach to the organisation. The
Executive Board has signed the “Talent to
the Top” Charter and considers itself to
be the “owner”. The management teams
which, led by (male) directors, are required
to implement the measures do not feel
like owners of the theme. In practice, they
therefore fail to sufficiently comply with
these measures. The problem we come up
against is a lack of insight into how male
leaders at ASR truly think and feel regarding
announced initiatives. This leads us to
invisible and subconscious processes within
the organization that inhibit the effective
implementation of these initiatives. As
long as male leaders still have unexpressed
stereotypical views of women in leading
positions, and believe that by target setting
women are unfairly given preferential
treatment, they will consciously or
subconsciously ignore announced initiatives
(Agars & Kottke, 2005).
What is striking is that no measures or
activities have been developed relating to
conducting a dialogue, thus creating insight
into the opinions and feelings of senior
managers about the theme. The approach
is based on processes and is instrumental.
ASR is a clear example of a company
“built” by men, as a result of which the
convictions in the organisation are based
on male experiences and therefore deeply
anchored in the culture of the company
(Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). The men at
ASR talk about the culture of their company
as if it is a given and do not seem to realise
that they were the ones who created or at
55
least nurture that masculine culture. They
therefore do not seek the solution to the
problem in themselves. They also have
little “understanding” about what diversity
means.
For a more effective approach to the theme,
it is therefore essential that the men gain
a better understanding about the value of
women’s leadership for the organisation
(Cook and Glass, 2011, Desvaux, Devillard-
Hoellinger, Meaney, 2007).
From the men’s responses, it appears
that they do not want to have targets and
measures imposed on them and in practice,
they do not seem to take those targets
and measures very seriously, let alone
implement them. With this knowledge, ASR
could choose to be more forceful in how
it gets the men to actually implement the
measures.
This is not recommended; a better solution
would be to embark on a dialogue within
the company about the theme and ensure
that men are convinced of the value of
women’s leadership (Agars & Kottke, 2005).
A good start would be the integration of
the theme in all mixed (m/f) leadership
training programmes within the company.
But a dialogue will also have to take
place between Executive Board and male
managers, whereby the Executive Board can
communicate its vision on the theme more
clearly.
At ASR, diversity must become a theme for
the management and not of HR.
The benefit of diversity must really be felt
and embraced, not just paid lip service to
but translated into rational measures.
As soon as the business takes ownership,
setting targets won’t be needed anymore,
and the necessary cultural change at ASR
will actually take place.
This will benefit the entire organization.
56
Bibliography LITERATURE OVERVIEW
Agars, M.D and Kottke, J.L. (2004), “Models and Practice of Diversity Management: a historical
review and presentation of a new integration theory”, The Psychology and Management of
Workplace Diversity, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pages 55-77
Agars, M.D., and Kottke,J.L. (2005), “Understanding the Processes that Facilitate and Hinder
efforts to Advance Women in Organizations”, Career and Development International, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pages 190-202
Barsh, J., Yee, L. (2011), “Changing Companies Minds about Women”, McKinsey Quarterly, Issue
4, pages 48-59
Cook, A. and Glass, C. (2011), “Leadership Change and Shareholder Value: How Markets React
to the Appointment of Women”, Human Resources Management, Vol. 50, No 4, pages 501-519
DeRue, D.S & Ashford, S.J. (2010), “Who will lead and who will follow: A social process of
leadership identity construction in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, 35, pages
627-647
Desvaux, G., Devillard-Hoellinger, S and Meany, M.C. (2007) “ A Business case for Women”,
McKinsey Quarterly
Drotter, S., Charan, R., Noel, J., “The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership Powered
Company”, 2001
Eagly, A.H., and Carli, L.L. (2003), “The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the
evidence”, The Leadership Quarterly 14, pages 807-834
Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2007), “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership”, Harvard Business
Review 85, pages 62-71
Ely, R.J., Ibarra, H., Kolb, D.M. (2011) “Taking Gender into Account: Theory and Design for
Women’s Leadership Development Programs”, Academy of Management Learning & Education
no. 3, pages 474-493
57
Forret, M.L. (2006) “The impact of social networks on the advancement of women and racial/
ethnic minority groups”, Gender, Ethnicity, and Race in the Workplace, Praeger, Westport pages
149-166
Heilman, M.E. (2001), “Descriptions and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent
women’s ascent up the organizational ladder”, Journal of Social Issues 57, pages 657-674
Hoyt, C.L. (2010), “Women and Leadership: Exploring the gender gap at the top”, Social and
Personality Psychology Compass 4, pages 484-498
Hoyt, C.L., Simon, S. (2011), “Female Leaders: Injurious or Inspiring Role Models for Women?”,
Psychology of Women Quarterly 35, pages 143-157
Ibarra, H. and Obodaru, O., (2008) “Women and the Vision Thing”, Harvard Business Review
Ibarra, H., Snook, S., Guillen Ramo, L. (2010), “Identity Based Leader Development”, Harvard
Business Press
Kolb, D., Fletcher, J.K., Meyerson, D.E., Merrill-Sands, D., Ely, R.J. (1998), From CGO Insights,
Briefing note 1
Meyerson, D.E., Fletcher, J.K. (2000), Harvard Business Review, pages 127-136
O’Neill, D.A., Hopkins, M.M. and Bilimoria, D. (2008), Women’s careers at the start of the 21st
century: patterns and paradoxes”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 80 , No 4, pages 727-743
O’Neill, D.A., Hopkins, M.M., Sullivan, S.E. (2011), “Do Women’s Networks help advance
women’s careers? Differences in perceptions of female workers and top leadership”, Career
Development International, Vol. 16, Issue 7, pages 733-754
Patma, Shankar (2010), “Leadership Attribute among Women Employees”, Advances in
Management, July 2010, Vol. 3, Issue 7, pages 36-40
Powell, G.N., Butterfield, D.A. and Parent, J.D. (2002), “Gender and managerial stereotypes:
have the times changed?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28, pages 177-193
58
Salas-Lopez, D., Deitrick, L.M., Mahady, E.T., Gertner, E.J., Sabino, J.N. (2011), “Women Leaders-
Challenges, Successes, and Other Insights From the Top”, Journal of Leadership, Vol 5, no 2,
pages 34-42
Schein, V.E. (1973), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, pages 95-100
Schein, V.E. (1975), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pages 340-344
Schein, V.E. (1994), “Managerial sex typing: A persistent and pervasive barrier to women’s
opportunities”. In M. Davidson and R. Burke (Eds), Women in Management, pages 41-52
Schein, V.E., Mueller, R. Lituchy, T. & Liu, J. (1996), “Think manager-think Male: A Global
phenomenon?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, pages 33-41
Schein, V.E. (2001), “A Global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in
management”, Journal of Social Issues 57, pages 675-688
Stoker, J.I. (2007), “Gender and Leadership”, Management & Organization, no. 1,
pages 5-17
59
Appendix 1
Invitationtext Women
Women and Leadership at ASR
ASR has committed to having a minimum of 25% women in higher management positions in
2013. This percentage is currently at 15%. This concerns women that have a position in job
group 13 or higher. Some women in this group work in a senior professional role, but are not
team leaders.
When considering how many women in high positions actually lead teams, the percentage is
even lower than 15%. Considering ASR strives for diversity and supports the notion that mixed
teams will lead our company towards better results, this needs to change.
What is ASR doing? The Executive Board and Supervisory Board have pronounced their
commitment to raising more women to the top of the company. Directors and managers
receive targets regarding diversity. The results are reported by HR every quarter. MD-
trajectories were started as well as mentoring and coaching programmes. Yet the latest
reports show that the percentages are not improving. Too few women progress to the top.
Why is that? Are the methods we use not effective? Are women inadequately stimulated to
reach for a higher level? Or are there other forces at work?
Jolanda Hillebrand is busy with gaining management degree which she will conclude with a
thesis. As a subject matter she had chosen to analyze why ASR is making insufficient progress
with its diversity policy and why not enough women progress to the top.
Jolanda: “Companies, including ASR, have said for years that they want more women in
influential positions. It has been scientifically proven that companies where women in high
positions (also) decide on policies, do better than companies where few women work at the
top. How is it possible that so much effort goes into this subject, and everybody has the best of
intentions, yet so little progress is made? This interests me as a team leader and as a woman.”
Jolanda Hillebrand and HR would like to ask you to answer the attached questionnaire. All
answers will be treated confidentially. We would therefore like to ask you to answer as openly
and honestly as possible. This will only benefit the results of the analysis! Jolanda: “Your
answers will solely be used for my research, and I will never publish any data that can be traced
back to an individual. Confidentially is guaranteed.”
Thank you for participating!
Jolanda Hillebrand
60
Questionnaire Women
1 What level is your position within ASR?
Fill in the level of your position here.
l Team leader
l Manager
l Management team member
l Director
l Member of the Executive Board
l Member of the Supervisory Board
l Other
2 What age are you?
Select the age category that applies to you
l 20-30 years
l 31-40 years
l 41-50 years
l 51-60 years
l 61-70 years
3 How long have you been working for ASR?
Select the category that applies to how many years you have worked for ASR
l 5-10 years
l 10-20 years
l More than 20 years
61
4 What is your highest level of education?
Select the box that applies to your education level.
l Vocational school (mbo)
l University college (hbo)
l University
l Other
5 What is your marital state?
Select the box that describes your marital state.
l Married
l In partnership - not cohabiting
l Cohabiting
l Single
6 Do you have children?
l Yes
l No
7 How many children do you have?
Select the box that indicates how many children you have.
l 1
l 2
l 3 or more
8 Doyouconsideryourcurrentpositiontobeyour‘final’position?
l Ja
l Nee
62
9Whydon’tyouconsideryourcurrentpositiontobeyourfinalposition?
Please indicate why you don’t consider your current position to be your final position.
10 To which position level do you expect to rise?
l Manager
l Management team member
l Director
l Executive Board
l Supervisory Board
11 In what time frame do you expect to progress to a higher position at ASR?
l Soon (within 2 years)
l Average (within 5 years)
l In the long term (in 6 years or beyond)
12 DoyoubelievethatwomenareofferedequalpromotionprospectstomenatASR
l Yes
l No
13 According to you, why are promotion prospects for women and men not equal
at ASR?
Please fill in what causes the difference in opportunities between men and women concerning
promotion prospects at ASR, according to you.
14 Do you actively maintain a network inside or outside of ASR, including contacts
that may be of use to your career?
l Yes, inside ASR
l Yes, outside of ASR
l Yes, both inside and outside of ASR
l No
63
15 In your networks, do you primarily meet women, primarily men or both men
and women?
l Primarily women
l Primarily men
l Both men and women
16 What are your goals when networking?
Fill in what you intend to achieve by networking
17 Doyouconsideritdifficulttocombineyourjobwithyourprivatelife?
l Yes
l No
18 Can you elaborate on this?
19 Doyoubelievethatcombiningajobandaprivatelifeisequallydifficultformen
as it is for women?
l More difficult for men
l More difficult for women
l Equal
20 Can you elaborate on this?
21 Do you ever feel guilty towards your family/partner/friends regarding how much
time you spend on your job?
l Yes
l No
l Sometimes
64
22 Do you believe the work life balance is given enough attention at ASR?
23 Were you, or are you now, part of the ASR MD/ PD programme?
l Yes
l No
24 What are your expectations for this programme considering your personal
development as a team leader?
25 Do you have a mentor or coach?
l Yes
l No
26 Please indicate why you don’t have a mentor or coach.
27 What are your expectations of your mentor or coach?
28 Does your coach/mentor meet your expectations?
Please elaborate on your answer.
29 Doyoubelievethatmenandwomenhavedifferentneedswhenitcomestosupport
from their employer during their career? (Such as various types of coaching/mentoring
or other subjects in MD programmes?)
l Yes
l No
65
30 Pleaseindicatebelowwhatspecificsupportyouneed.
31 Canyoupinpointamomentortimeinyourcareer,whenitwasdifficulttoholdon
to your ambitions?
l Yes
l No
32 Whenitwasdifficulttoholdontoyourambitionsinyourcareer,whythiswasthe
case?
33 Can you pinpoint a time in your career when it was easy to hold on to your ambitions?
l Yes
l No
34 Please elaborate on why it was easy to hold on to your ambitions at that (those)
time(s).
35 Did any events occur in your life that caused you to adjust your ambitions?
l Yes
l No
36 Please indicate below what events in your life caused you to adjust your ambitions.
(N.B.: All information is treated confidentially. Data will never be published if it can be traced
to an individual and will solely be used for research purposes by Jolanda Hillebrand).
37 What would you advise ASR regarding realizing the ASR targets to promoting women
tohigherpositions?WhatcouldASRdodifferently/betterinthisarea?
66
38 Do you wish to participate in the interviews that Jolanda Hillebrand will hold
regarding the topic of this questionnaire?
l Yes
l No, I am not interested.
39 Please leave your email address, so that Jolanda Hillebrand can contact you for
an interview.
Your information will be treated confidentially and solely be used to allow Jolanda Hillebrand
to contact you for an interview.
Appendix 2: Questions interviews women
Questions for interview regarding Women and Leadership at ASR
with:
date:
1. You filled out the questionnaire that was recently sent to you via e-mail. What occurred to
you, whilst filling out the questionnaire, regarding
- Women and leadership at ASR
- Your own leadership and career at ASR
2. Within ASR, a total of 116 women are managers. Of those, 65 women filled out the
questionnaire. 55 women responded with “yes” when asked if they can progress to a higher
job level. Only 5% indicates that they can progress to a job at Executive Board level.
No team leaders indicated being able to progress to a job at Executive Board level, and only
11% of them believed they can reach the level of Director.
What do you think about these responses?
3. Are there any impediments to you raising your ambitions (consider possible results of
this research) and what would they be? Why wouldn’t you be able to become a Director or
Executive Board member?
4. To questions regarding combining work with a personal life, 25% indicated they have
difficulty combining their job and private life. 74% answered that it is more difficult for women
then for men. Included explanations often discussed traditional gender roles, whereby women
are expected to care for children/family/partner/home, more so than men. 79% of the team
leaders group indicated that they have had difficulty holding on to their ambition at some
point.
Why do you believe gender roles apparently get in the way of fulfilling women’s’ ambitions?
How about personally?
5. Please respond to the following hypothesis:
“The identities of women and men develop in many ways in the course of their lives. Gaining
a partner, perhaps children, possible care for parents or friends, and having a career. Men can
unite these developments into their identity with much more ease and transit smoothly from
one to the other. They therefore consider themselves to be a leader, much more easily. For
women it is much more difficult to unite their various identities (mother, partner, leader) to a
single new identity”. How do you feel about this hypothesis, and does it apply to you?
6. Could you describe your identity? How would you describe your identity as a leader?
7. In answer to the question if both men and women have the same promotion prospects at
ASR, 66% of the women respond that this is the case. Team leaders score quite a bit lower on
this question with 58%. In the included explanations they noted that men are noticed earlier
and are better at selling themselves and projecting authority. What is your experience in this
respect?
8. ASR has taken several measures to make sure women move up in the organization. For
example, setting targets for team leaders for diversity in their team, always including women
in job interviews, a mentor programme for women, special training courses for women (on
how to combine work and home life, for example). Why don’t these measures have the desired
result? In your business unit, what do you notice of the measures taken?
9. It is striking that special programmes designed for women are used relatively little.
How do you explain this? Do you use any of these programmes? (training courses: “Female
Leadership” and “Work-Life Balanced”)
10. How are subjects such as diversity and the promotion of women discussed in the
organization? Is it a topic of discussion in your business unit, and do you discuss this with your
manager?
11. Generally speaking, what is your opinion regarding the ASR culture concerning female
leadership? Do you also discuss this with your team members or male peers?
12. What recommendations would you give to the Executive Board and Supervisory Board
concerning the realization of promoting women to the top of the company?
13. What else would you like to share with me for my research?
Appendix 3: Questionnaire men
Invitationtext men
Your opinion regarding: Women and Leadership at ASR
ASR has committed to having a minimum of 25% women in higher management positions
in 2013. The target percentage for the sub top (level of team manager) is 40%. These
percentages are currently significantly lower.
Considering ASR strives for diversity and supports the notion that mixed teams will lead our
company towards better results, ASR aims to change this.
What is ASR doing?
The Executive Board and Supervisory Board have pronounced their commitment to raising
more women to the top of the company. Directors and managers receive targets regarding
diversity. The results are reported to HR every quarter. MD-trajectories were started as well as
mentoring and coaching programmes.
Looking back on the last few years we can say that we have not yet reached our goals. Too few
women progress to the top. Why is that? Are the methods we use not effective? Are women
inadequately stimulated to reach for a higher level? Or are there other forces at work?
I am following a programme regarding Leadership and Coaching at Insead and will conclude
this programme with a thesis. As a subject matter I have chosen to analyze why ASR is making
insufficient progress with its diversity policy and not enough women progress to the top.
In the meantime, I have asked questions regarding this subject matter to a large group of
women at ASR via an online questionnaire and individual interviews. I am also interested in
knowing how male colleagues at the level of Director and Management Team view the theme
of diversity and deal with this on the work floor. How are supporting means used, how is the
theme discussed in the company and what is your own experience?
Which is why I would like to ask you to fill out the attached questionnaire so that I can include
your input in my research. All answers will be treated confidentially and I would especially
like to ask you not to give politically correct answers, as they will not be of help at all! I am
interested in gaining a true picture of how we deal with this theme at ASR in practice, not on
paper.
Thank you so much for your participation.
Jolanda Hillebrand
70
Appendix 3
1 What level is your position within ASR?
l Executive Board member
l Director
l Deputy Director
l Management Team member (not deputy director or director)
l Manager
l Other
2 Are you aware that ASR signed the charter “Talent naar de Top”?
l Yes
l No
3 Are you aware of the percentages ASR aims for?
l Yes
l No
4 Are you aware of any measures taken by ASR to reach these goals?
l Yes
l No
5 According to you, which measures are the most important?
6 According to you, why don’t women progress to higher leadership positions
within ASR?
71
7 Have you decided on a percentage to aim for in your business unit?
l Yes
l No
8 How far are you with realizing your goals concerning diversity?
9 Has your Management Team formulated a diversity plan?
l Yes
l No
10 Name some important points in this plan.
11 Do you always make sure interview teams are mixed when job applicants are
interviewed?
(with mixed teams, we mean both men and women)
l Yes, always
l No, not always
l No, never
l I don’t know
12 Do you always make sure female candidates are included in the application process
for managerial positions within your business unit?
l Yes, always
l No, not always
l No, never
l I don’t know
72
13 Are you aware of the training programmes for women (such as the course
“Female Leadership” the training course “Work-Life Balance” or the programme
“NecessaryDifferences”)?
l Yes
l No
14 Do you coach or mentor a female colleague?
l Yes
l No
15 What is your experience when discussing subjects with her, and what are topics of
conversation?
16 Is diversity a regular topic of conversation within your team or business unit?
l (very) often
l Sometimes
l Never
17 How is this subject discussed, and with what frequency?
18 Why not?
19 Do you see the advantages to mixed management teams with both men and women?
l Yes
l No
73
20 Can you elaborate on this?
Can you elaborate on why you do/don’t see the advantages of mixed management teams?
21 How do you believe ASR should deal with the subject of diversity regarding women
in leadership positions?
22 Do you have any suggestions for this research project?
74
4912
8 (0
1-13
)
![The use of facebook to support project ‐ based studio learning e/merge 2012 “networks for learning” JOLANDA MORKEL [morkelj@cput.ac.za jolanda.morkel@gmail.com]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/56649e625503460f94b5e7ca/the-use-of-facebook-to-support-project-based-studio-learning-emerge-2012.jpg)
