This month saw the 2010 Engineering Leadership Conference run as a joint venture between Young Engineers Australia and the Centre of Engineering Leadership Management. I’m sure that plenty of blog articles on leadership will stem from it but I’d like to comment both on the usage of statistics and gender equality.
There was a presentation on equality by a speaker from the department of human rights. The majority of the presentation focused on gender equality, though not focussed on engineering. At the risk of misquoting, some shocking statistics were presented: females accounting for only 10% of CEOs, females accumulating half the lifetime income and superannuation, females in general earning less than males at every stage of their career.
All statistics need to be taken in context. I don’t know any employer who would honestly give a female a lower wage than a male or think a male more qualified. The spokesperson’s speech would have been more pertinent if it had focussed on figures relating specifically to engineering, though the same considerations of the statistics would need to be made.
I propose the following explanations for this statistical inequality, based on my experience (admittedly as a male), many of which are relevant to engineers between the ages of 25 and 35.
1. Men can’t have babies. Due to this we have cultural gender roles: mothers and bread winners. This difference is expanded on below.
2. Many women may choose a salary package (or a career) that provides flexibility (in work hours before and after birth, in leave entitlements, etc.) over a larger salary, so as to cater for raising children, with most men taking salaries as the primary breadwinner. This may be one factor to account for lesser incomes.
3. After leaving work with a new baby, many females take a very long time to return to work, if ever. With the compounding effect of superannuation, leaving work for an extended period at the start of a career puts a significant dent in retirement savings over a lifetime.
4. Further to this, leaving work for significant periods, means that it can take time to get back into the swing of things and to gain the experience that other colleagues have since gained. All else being equal, if any two people go for a CEO job and both started their career 20 years ago, but one took 10 years off (to raise a family, or for any reason), the person with the greater time in industry is likely to win the job.
The male domination of engineering is a function of what types of careers different genders are drawn to (think of engineering versus nursing), which is influenced by cultural stereotypes of what careers males and females are ‘supposed’ to undertake. A misconception, not discrimination. Why, as a society, we often have lower salaries for female dominated careers is a discussion beyond the scope of this forum, but perhaps consideration should be given to the point above on flexibility versus salary. I suspect that many of the above points will also apply to other industries.
It was questioned during the speech, whether we should legislate gender quotas on management boards (apparently they do somewhere in
Employment in the engineering industry IS based on merit. The gender bias of our industry is a result of applicant choices, not discrimination. If someone (male or female) can demonstrate the required skills for a job, they are eligible and are in with a fighting chance. No government spokesperson with populace averaged figures is going to convince me otherwise.
The statistics would have us believe that our industry shuns females and at best won’t give them a fair go. The truth is far from this, even without government pressure. Let’s stay clear of gender based employment legislation: for equity’s sake.
Recent Comments