M E S

HK Institute
[ T y pof
e Mgmt
t h e
[Type
c o mthe
p aabstract
n y aofdthe d rdocument
e s s ] here. The
[ T y p
abstract is etypically
t h ea short
p h o n e
summary of the
n u m b e r ]
contents of the document. Type the abstract of the
[ T y p e t h e f a x
document here. The abstract is typically a short
n u m b e r ]
summary of the contents of the document.]
[ P i c k t h e d a t e ]
In pre-industrial times women managed, not only the
household, but aspects of agricultural work such as the
dairy, milking, butter and cheese-making, often disposing
of any surplus through trade or commerce. In the
nineteenth century women could be found running
businesses such as lodging houses and shops. By 1911
women constituted 19 per cent of employers and
proprietors and 20 per cent of managers and
administrators and higher professionals. Many of today's
women managers are "organization" women, part of the
professional managerial class which emerged, in the UK,
in the immediate post-war period and it is on these
women that the literature concentrates, in an effort to
explain why, despite almost 30 years of equality
legislation, women remain under represented in
management, tend to be occupationally segregated and
are paid less than male managers. This paper explores the
experiences of today's women managers and compares
them with those of their foremothers.
Keywords: Management history; Managers; United Kingdom; Women
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1108/01425450410530673


 Chanda Kochhar — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress

Chanda Kochhar MD of ICICI Bank? Kochhar is already

 Chanda Kochh

SONIA GANDHI
rmation
For additional information, visit our web site at http://www.eeoc.gov. Click on STATISTICS and
JOB PATTERNS FOR MINORITIES AND WOMEN
(http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/jobpat.html) for sample copies of the EEO-1 form, an
instruction booklet and aggregate statistics.
1. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's
Human Capital: the Environmental Scan, Washington, D.C., March 1995.
2. This paper does not address external hires from outside the firm. Such analyses are most
practical at the firm level and not readily summarized by industry. It is also important to
recognize that the EEO-1 Survey only has data on the numbers of employees in different types of
job groups. It does not track the movement from one job to another.
3. Reid, Margaret, Brinck Kerr, and William Miller. 2000. "A Study of the Advancement of
Women in Municipal Government Bureaucracies: Persistence of Glass Ceiling?" Women and
Politics 21:35-53; Lewis, Gregory B. and David Nice. 1994. "Race, Sex and Occupational
Segregation in State and Local Governments." American Review of Public Administration 24:
393-410; Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. 1993. "The Gender and Race Composition of Jobs and the
Male/Female, White/Black Pay Gaps." Social Forces 72(1): 45-76; Carrington, William J. and
Kenneth R. Troske. 1995. "Gender Segregation in Small Firms." The Journal of Human
Resources 30(3): 503-533; Carrington, William J. and Kenneth R. Troske. 1998. "Sex
Segregation in U.S. Manufacturing." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 51(3): 445-464;
Weeden, Kim A. 1998. "Revisiting Occupational Sex Segregation in the United States, 1910-
1990: Results from a Log-Linear Approach." Demography 35(4): 475-487.; Blau, Francine D.,
Patricia Simpson and Deborah Anderson. 1998. "Continuing Progress? Trends in Occupational
Segregation in the United States Over the 1970's and 1980's." National Bureau of Economic
Research, NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 6716.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6716.
4. Private employers required to file are those with: (a) 100 or more employees, or (b) 50 or more
employees and: (1) have a federal contract or first-tier subcontract worth $50,000 or more, or (2)
act as depositories of federal funds in any amount, or (3) act as issuing and paying agents for
U.S. Savings Bonds and Notes. Single-establishment employers submit only one EEO-1 report,
while those employers whose business was conducted at more than one location submit a
company-wide consolidated report, a headquarters report, and individual reports for each
establishment with 50 or more employees. Employment figures could be reported for any pay
period in the third quarter (July through September).
5. See "Section 5, Description of Job Categories" in the EEO-1 instruction booklet at
http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/e1instruct.html
6. EEOC obtains and maintains EEO-1 reports pursuant to its authority under section 709 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8. Paragraph (e) of that section prohibits
the EEOC and its employees from disclosing EEO-1 reports to the public. Violation of that
section is punishable by fine and imprisonment. Aggregated data are available to the public.
7. Fienberg, S. (1977) The Analysis of Cross-Classified Categorical Data, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, pp. 17-18. Also see Agresti, A. (1990) Categorical Data Analysis, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, pp. 14-15; Breslow, N. and Day, N. (1980) Statistical Methods in Cancer
Research, IARC, Lyon, p. 125; Finkelstein, M. and Levin, B. (1990) Statistics for Lawyers,
Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 2.
8. It should be noted that the odds for men and women are a ratio between two numbers. These
ratios can become higher or lower for different reasons. A high odds can become lower either
because the numerator decreases (for example, women managers decrease) or the denominator
increases (women in the pool increase). Likewise, a low odds can become higher either because
the numerator increases (women managers increase) or the denominator decreases (women in the
pool decrease). These alternative possibilities will become important in the later discussion of
rival hypotheses for field and white collar odds ratios.
9. Firms with more officials and managers than white collar workers were excluded as were
firms with no officials and managers and firms with fewer than 100 employees. Once these firms
were removed, aggregated industries with fewer than 15 companies are not included.
Approximately 600 firms were removed due to these screens.
10. Weights are generated by using a canonical correlation of total officials and managers with
total professional, total technical and total sales workers. The weights used are the standardized
regression coefficients. If the regression coefficient is less than zero or is not statistically
significant, the original unweighted values are used instead.
11. For convenience, these other establishments will also be referred to as field establishments,
but their actual geographic relationship with the headquarters facility is not examined.
12. Zero employment is a valid response as some multi-establishment firms may operate without
a headquarters facility.
13. In private correspondence, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey of North Carolina State University
and Alexandra Kalev of Princeton University pointed out the importance of this process and
pointed out how EEO-1 data could be utilized to reflect this scenario.
14. The field logged odds ratio distribution for all 50 industries has a mean value of 0.095, and
the white collar logged odds ratio distribution has a mean of -0.3098. Non-blue collar industries
in the lower end of the field logged odds ratio distribution and the upper end of the white collar
logged odds ratio both have negative values. For example, three non-blue collar industries, data
processing, other ambulatory health care, and nursing care, all ranked high on the white collar
logged odds ratio distribution even though their absolute logged odds ratio values are less than
zero (-0.108, -0.155, and -0.06 respectively).

This page was last modified on March 4, 2004.

Return to
Sonia Gandhi, Chanda Kochhar among top 20 powerful women

Press Trust Of India / New York August 21, 2009, 0:32 IST

Congress President Sonia Gandhi and ICICI Bank CEO and Managing Director Chanda Kochhar
ranked in the top 20 of the World’s 100 Most Powerful Women list compiled by Forbes.
Also Read

Related News
Stories Now

-Sonia, Kochhar among top

20 powerful women

-Ensure strict vigil on price

rise, drought, says Sonia

-Cong brass discusses

drought, price rise

-Centre allots Rs 300 cr to

Arunachal for paying arrears
-For most junior ministers, it's
no work and all play

-All aboard the Congress boat

Also Read

Related News
Stories Now

- Volatile Sensex sheds

another 156pts

- CAG auditing of RIL to begin

this month

- Govt initiates anti-dumping

probe against acetone
imports

- NSE, BSE likely to extend

trade timings by next month

- IT dept begins sealing

properties of Koda

Sonia Gandhi, Chanda

Kochhar among top 20
powerful women

Press Trust Of India / New York August

21, 2009, 0:32 IST

Congress President Sonia Gandhi

and ICICI Bank CEO and
Managing Director Chanda
Kochhar ranked in the top 20 of
the World’s 100 Most Powerful
Women list compiled by Forbes.
Also Read

Related News
Stories Now

- Sonia, Kochhar among top

20 powerful women

- Ensure strict vigil on price

rise, drought, says Sonia

- Cong brass discusses

drought, price rise

- Centre allots Rs 300 cr to

Arunachal for paying arrears

- For most junior ministers,

it's no work and all play

- All aboard the Congress

boat

Also Read

Related News
Stories Now

- Volatile Sensex sheds

another 156pts

- CAG auditing of RIL to begin

this month

- Govt initiates anti-dumping

probe against acetone
imports
- NSE, BSE likely to extend
trade timings by next month

- IT dept begins sealing

properties of Koda

D dMore

Soniagandhicongress and
ck icicibank ceoand
managing director

Kochhar debuted at number 20,

behind Gandhi who was ranked
13 in the list led by German
Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Indian-origin chief executive of
Pepsico, Indra Nooyi, figured at
number three after Sheila Bair,
Chairperson of Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp.
Yahoo’s Carol Bartz was ahead of
Gandhi at number 12 in the list.
Besides Gandhi and Kochhar,
Biocon’s chairman Kiran
Mazumdar-Shaw also featured in
the list at number 91.
Gandhi improved her ranking
from 21 last year to 13 this year,
while Mazumdar-Shaw moved to
91 from last year's 99th place.
Nooyi retained her third position
in the list.
Bahujan Samaj Party leader and
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister
Mayawati, who was ranked 59th
in last year’s list, did not figure in
the latest list put up on
Forbes.Com.
Regarding Gandhi, Forbes said,
she is “still the country’s
dominant force since she
reluctantly entered politics in the
1990s.” The landslide victory in
the recent general election further
strengthened her position as the
leader of “India’s most powerful
political party — Indian National
Congress.
Kochhar was named as the first
woman boss of India’s second
largest lender, ICICI Bank, and
took charge in May this year.
“She now oversees a bank with
assets of $100 billion,” Forbes
said. She was instrumental in
transforming the retail business of
ICICI Bank and turning it into a
retail banking powerhouse.

Tags : Sonia Gandhi | Chanda Kochhartop 20

womenForbes |

Read Business

news in

Kochhar debuted at number 20, behind Gandhi who was ranked 13 in the list led by German
Chancellor Angela Merkel. Indian-origin chief executive of Pepsico, Indra Nooyi, figured at
number three after Sheila Bair, Chairperson of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Yahoo’s Carol Bartz was ahead of Gandhi at number 12 in the list. Besides Gandhi and Kochhar,
Biocon’s chairman Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw also featured in the list at number 91.
Gandhi improved her ranking from 21 last year to 13 this year, while Mazumdar-Shaw moved to
91 from last year's 99th place. Nooyi retained her third position in the list.
Bahujan Samaj Party leader and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, who was ranked 59th in
last year’s list, did not figure in the latest list put up on Forbes.Com.
Regarding Gandhi, Forbes said, she is “still the country’s dominant force since she reluctantly
entered politics in the 1990s.” The landslide victory in the recent general election further
strengthened her position as the leader of “India’s most powerful political party — Indian
National Congress.
Kochhar was named as the first woman boss of India’s second largest lender, ICICI Bank, and
took charge in May this year. “She now oversees a bank with assets of $100 billion,” Forbes
said. She was instrumental in transforming the retail business of ICICI Bank and turning it into a
retail banking powerhouse.

Tags : Sonia Gandhi | Chanda Kochhartop 20 | powerful

womenForbes |

Read Business

news in
The reasons are many. The HR head of a large consumer electronics and durables firm says
while it's fashionable to attack the so-called sex discrimination in Indian workplace, the fact is
women themselves are partly responsible for this.
He quotes a BBC report late last year which said at the heart of the matter is the Cinderella
complex - where no matter how successful a woman is, subconsciously she still expects that a
prince is going to come along and rescue her.
Many also deny that the problem for women is the glass ceiling or the men's club. The business
door is open but that women, looking for different and more balanced lives, have not been
interested in entering.
"Women outperform in care-taking qualities and men outperform in taking-charge qualities,"
says the CEO of another large family-managed Indian firm where women are non-existent in
senior management.
While the CEO's son is heading an important division in the company, his daughter - an MBA
graduate from a reputed foreign university - hasn't joined the business. "It's not in our family
culture for women to be in business. She is happily married," the CEO says.
These stereotypes are the main reason why surveys have shown that only four out of 10 CEOs in
India considered the advancement of women to be critical for their organisations. The increasing
feeling is that a majority of Indian companies still have a kind of institutional sexism that
assumes women are less able than men.
The problem, however, isn't restricted to India alone. An ILO (International Labour
Organization) report says wage differences in male and female managerial jobs all over the
world stem from the reality that even when women hold management jobs, they are often in less
strategic, lower-paying areas of a company's operations.
But how do you move beyond persuasion to actual results? Though it's a hugely controversial
move, one leading HR consultant says the way out could be to follow the Norwegian model.
Effective January 1 this year, Norway's government has imposed quotas under which the top 500
publicly traded firms have until 2008 to fill 40 per cent of their boardroom seats with women, or
be delisted. France [ Images ] is imposing a 20 per cent quota, while Spain has decided to give
preferential treatment to companies who appoint more women on their boards.
There may be huge problems in enforcing such a quota in India as it interferes with corporate
freedom and overlooks merit. Besides, when the Department of Company Affairs proposed that
20 per cent of board seats should be reserved for women, lots of women managers themselves
thought this was insulting and natural evolution is better than force. Every female director will
now feel that she has been appointed just to fill the quota.
The consultant, however, says it may sound outlandish, but experience shows quotas may be the
only means of achieving change. A survey done after Norway's move, by Egon Zhender
International, showed precisely this.
While women's presence on boards in Scandinavia, where quotas have been introduced or
mooted, has grown rapidly, in the rest of western Europe, the numbers have hardly changed and
in Germany [ Images ] and the Netherlands they have even dropped back.
Women now account for nearly 29 per cent of directors in the biggest Norwegian companies, up
from 22 per cent in 2004. In Sweden, Finland and Denmark, where Norway's move has attracted
attention and increased pressure for action, the numbers have risen to 23 per cent, 20 per cent
and 18 per cent, respectively.
Shyamal Majumdar

Source:

Save to
My Page

Ask
Users

Write a
Comment

How These Numbers Can Be Used

To accurately use the data below, direct comparisons can only be made within a category.
Looking at the two charts on this page, one could compare the percentages of women in
management occupations for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980 to each other, but one could not then
compare any of those numbers to the numbers on the second chart.
Grouping of Women in Management Positions
The earliest data we could track down about women in management positions is from 1950.
The numbers from all charts below indicate what percentage of all workers in the named
occupation were women. For example, in the subsequent chart, 13.8% of all managerial-
administrative, except farm, positions were held by women in 1950.
Official Dept. of Labor 1950 1960 1970 1980
Category

Managerial-administrative, 13.8 14.4 16.6 26.1

except farm 1

In the 1980s, the grouping became called "Managerial and professional specialty."
Official Dept. of Labor 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002
Category

Managerial and professional 45.2 48.0 49.8 50.0 50.5

specialty 3

Most recently, between 2002 and 2003, the occupation again became recategorized and called
"Management, professional, and related occupations."
Official Dept. of 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Labor Category

Management, 50.5 50.3 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6

professional, and
4
related occupations

Women Corporate Officers

The earliest data that exists for women in the uppermost management positions is from 1995
when Catalyst conducted its first Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers. Even today,
Catalyst is the only source for a number count of women corporate officers. (For this data, look
at our Quick Take: Women in Management)
*Note: Look at the following web sites for more information about creating comparability in the
Current Population Series: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpspopsm.pdf,
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpscomp.pdf
Sources
1
For 1950, 1960, 1970: Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Statistics: Table 11.
Employment of women in selected occupations, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1979." For 1980: Bureau of
Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Statistics derived from the Current Population Survey - A
Databook, September 1982," Bulletin 2096.
2
U.S. Department of Labor, "Employment and Earnings, Annual Supplement Issues, September
1963, vol. 10, no. 3."
3
Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employed civilians by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic
origin."
4
Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic
or Latino ethnicity" (various years).
UPDATED March 13, 2009