CGIAR GENDER PROGRAM WORKING PAPER, NO. 20 23681 TAKING STOCK OF GENDER STAFFING IN TIE CGIAR, 1998 jFILE COPY Prepared by Sara J. Scherr Deborah Merill-Sands May 1999 CGIAR Secretariat Center for Gender in Organizations (CGO) World Bank Simmons Graduate School of Management Washington, D.C. Boston, MA, USA LIST OF GENDER STAFFING PROGRAM WORKING PAPERS Working Paper, No. 1 Status of Intnationally-Recruited Women in the Internaional Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR; Deborah Merrill-Sands and Pammi Sachdeva; October 1992. Worldng Paper, No. 2 Spouse Employment in Organizations Around the World: A Toolkit for Developing Policies and Practices; Madelyn Blair; December 1992. Workdng Paper, No. 3 Spouse Employment at SRI: A Case Study, Deborah Merrill-Sands; March 1993. Working Paper, No. 4 Strengthening the Recruitment of Women Scientists and Professionals at the Intemational Agricultural Research Centers: A Guidelines Paper; Sarah Ladbury; October 1993. Worldng Paper, No. 5 Recruitment Resources in Europe: A List of Professional Organizations; Stella Mascarehas-Keys and Sarah Ladbwy; October 1993. Woaacing Paper, No. 6 Filipino Women Scientists: A Potential Recruitment Pool for Inernational Agricultural Research Centers; ISNAR and PCARRD; October 1993. Working Paper, No. 7 Recruitment Resources in the United States: A List of PFr)fessional Organizations; Bonnie Folger McClafferty and Deborah Merrill-Sands; January 1994. Working Paper, No. 9 CGIAR Human Resources Suwvey: 1991, 1994, Key Observations on International Staffing with a Focus on Gender; Deborah Merrill-Sands; October 1995. Woring Paper, No. 12 Gender Staffing in the CGIAR. Achievements, Constraints, and a Framework for Future Action; October 1995. Working Paper, No. 13 Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: How to Recognize It; How to Deal With It; Joan Joshi and Jodie Nachison; October 1996. Working Paper, No. 14 Maximizing Recruitment Resources: Using the World Wide Web; Bonnie Folger McClafferty; January 1997. Working Paper, No. 15 1997 CGIAR Human Resources Survey: International Staffing at the CGIAR Centers with a Focus on Gender; Deborah Merrill-Sands; October 1997. Working Paper, No. 16 Role of Boards in Addressing Gender Staffing Issues; Joan Joshi and Deborah Merrill- Sands; January 1998. Working Paper, No. 17 Strangers in a Strange Land: A Literature Review of Women in Science; Bridgette Sheridan; April 1998. Workdng Paper, No. 18 Toward Gender Equity: Model Policies; Joan Joshi, Elizabeth Goldberg, Sara J. Scherr, Deborah Merrill-Sands; September 1998. Working Paper, No. 19 Gender Staffing in the CGIAR: Lessons Learned and ]Future Direction: Report of an Inter-Center Consultation; Bonnie Folger McClafferty; December 1998. Working Paper, No. 20 Taking Stock of Gender Staffing in the CGIAR, 1998; Sara J. Scherr, Deborah Mefrill- Sands; May 1999. Working Paper, No. 21 Engendenng Organizational Change: A Case Study of Strengthening Gender Equity and Organizational Effectiveness in an Internatonal Agricultural Research Institute; Deborah Merrill-Sands, Joyce Fletcher, Anne Acosta, Nancy Andrews, and Maureen Harvey; May 1999. Worling Paper, No. 23 Summary Report, CIMMYT Pilot on Multi-Source Performance Assessment; Linda Spink, Deborah Merrill-Sands, Krista Baldini, Mansa de la 0; May 1999. CGIAR GENDER PROGRAM WORKING PAPER, NO. 20 TAKING STOCK OF GENDER STAFFING IN TIE CGIAR, 1998 Prepared by Sara J. Scherr Deborah Merill-Sands May 1999 CGIAR Secretariat Center for Gender in Organizations (CGO) World Bank Simmons Graduate School of Management Washington, D.C. Boston, MA, USA CGIAR Gender Stafng Program CGLAR Tihe ConUltatiVe Oni on Agicultal Rserh (Ct R) aim to hae modem science tothesustainable devtkpmentofapture itpor aues. The (IARis jotlys redbylhe World Bankthe Foo and Agriculure OAi)h A e United Nations Dewp4ientProgram (UNlY?) ad the UniedNazio*w EniaumcawWPsomu (O ?)4 'ft iswade up of 1 6 isteraiwa agricultural r h Cen located in l2tvelopiw}an a developed ecuietl Thesrarc Cenrs svecWiaze insuratewz researh onaagdclze, food policy and nuatul reucesm managmenta and provide. esemchxnanagementadvice. The Centers employ 1,200. scientist of6Odi&efivationahtet COLAR Gender Stafing Progrm The Gender Stffing Puogtm suports effort of the CGI-'pported Ceters to strt the ncrient and r$etnon ofighy tilied = wm entsasand possuiwulsand toeate w-ok cavirnn=tst are equawwy suppove ofte:p uivity± advanceet and o sis6ction. Ofh women andmen. The Progrmprovids inds w smalgrts7tcnassi and maagemnt onln trai , and hifn srvces, Th PrNgn, which bega in 191, is coordnad by the CCUAR Secreat, suppted by the nbersb ofthe CGJIR, ad imlemened by the Center for Gender m Organizaton (CGO) at the Simns Crduat SchOo of Managment at Si osCege in BostoMn Massachusetts, USA, Th nission fftCe nerforGe rin Organizations is to srv as a tiona and urnatiol resoue for scholas and pracionerswho work atX enersectio 'genderand trategorganioalssuesThe Centeswords based on the belief tat iat peromae is enhanced by geder-euitae wor e aonm s that allow both mn an women to be actve and productve cothtrs Th C:enter puse thsaeda thregh eduation, vol W,rative research, confrences;, nd dissemnatonf ointbnr i. CGIARCenters OIAT Certro Inernaciona de AiuhLua Tropical (Colombia) CIFOR tCenter for Intaionaf Foresty Rsarch CDM Y Centro Wemional de Mejranilo de Maizy Tgo4Mxcoy CP Ce trentenutonal de la Paa (Peru) ICARDA hflemaa Ceter for Agricult Research in the Dry Areas (Syr) ICLARM Itemationa! Center fir Livin Aquatio Resouces Mangeent (Philppines) ICRAF nertonaf Centr Resach in Agroforesty ya) ICRSAIT nteaional Crops Rsech ate for the swi-AridT oics (ba) WfPRI Inteafiona Food Policy esar lstitu (USA) JIMI Inteinaional IrigatonMaagment nsttut (Sri Lanka) IrA Intaeaional Institut of Trpicl Agiicl (Nigeri) HLRI _Inerational LVestock Resarch Istitute (Knya) IPGWR InAtio l Plait Gnetis Rsces nsitue ([wy) I Itri tonal RiceReseam dute (Phippies) ISNAR Intmatonal Semce for tional Agrtcultul Rsemh (The Netherlans) WARDA West Afia Rice Deweopment Association (COe d'ivoi) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................... ii SUMMARY OF CENTER SELF-ASSESSMENT IN 1998 ................................................... iii I. INTRODUCMION ....................................................1 II. QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF A GENDER EQUITABLE WORKPLACE .............. .............. 3 A. Representation of Women .3 B. Recruitment .4 C. Parity in Career Development .4 D. Retention .5 E. Key Elements Affecting Gender Equity in the Workplace .6 [H. METHODOLOGY FOR CENTER SELF-ASSESSMENT .................................................. 9 A. Design ..................................................9 B. Implementation .................................................. 10 C. Analysis And Interpretation ...........1....................................... 1 IV. MAJOR FINDINGS .................................................. 13 A. Recruiting IRS Women .................................................. 13 B. Achieving Parity .................................................. 13 C. Retaining Staff: A Supportive Work Environment ............................................... 14 D. Variation Within Centers .................................................. 14 V. CONCLUSIONS .................................................. 17 TABLE 1. CENTER SELF-ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW .................................................. 19 ANNEX 1: FRAMEWORK FOR TAKING STOCK OF GENDER STAFFING ........................... 21 ANNEx 2: RANK DISTRIBUTION FOR INDIVIDUAL INDICATORS* ................... ............... 27 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper and the survey data upon which it is based represent a collaborative effort between the CGIAR Centers and the Gender Staffing Program. Appreciation is extended to the Gender Staffing Focal Points in the Centers who devoted considerable time and effort to organizing and evaluating the self-assessment exercises: Elizabeth Goldberg (CIAT), Marielle Paiement (CIFOR), Anne Acosta and Krista Baldini (CIMMYT), Elizabeth Bailey (ICARDA), Edward Sayegh (ICLARM), Roselyne Lecuyer (ICRAF), V. Mahalakshmi (ICRISAT), I'Dafney Green (IFPRI), David Govemey (MIMI), Fe Aglipay (IRRI), Howard Elliott (ISNAR), and Nina Lilja (WARDA). Over 150 Center staff members from research, outreach and administration participated directly in the self-assessment survey and discussion groups. We would particularly like to acknowledge the Center Directors whose commitment to promoting gender equity was so clearly expressed in their allocation of time and financial resources for the participation of their staff in the self-assessment efforts. Thanks also to Bonnie Gamache for technical editing and publication. Sara J. Scherr and Deborah Merrill-Sands Co-Leaders, CGIAR Gender Staffing Program AUTHORS Dr. Deborah Merrill-Sands, an Dr. Sara J. Scherare Co-Leaders ofthe CGLAR Gender Staffing Program Deborah Meil-Sands is also the Assocate Director ofihe Center for Gender in Organiztons at Simnons Graduate School of Mangement in Boston, MA and Sara J. Scberr is an Adjurct Proessor in the Agriculual and Resource Economics Department at the VJnivityof Mfyn4 College Park. . ... .. .. .... .. .. .. . ... ... SUMMARY OF CENTER SELF-ASSESSMENT IN 1998 In April 1998, the CGIAR held an Inter-Center Consultation on Gender Staffing to examine lessons learned since the initiation of the Gender Staffing Program in 1991, and to set directions and priorities for the future. A key input into the Consultation was a self-assessment of achievements in gender staffing by 12 Centers, which focused on qualitative aspects of policies, staff skills, leadership, work norms and culture as they affect recruitment, career parity and retention. The self-assessment was intended to complement the quantitative 1997 CGLkR Human Resources Survey. The key findings from Center self-assessments were: 1. The number of wonen is still a critical issue. The number of IRS women staff, as well as their proportional representation, is rising steadily and the number of women among nationally- recruited staff has increased significantly. Still, the numbers remain well below a critical mass in most Centers and do not reflect the number of women in the international pool of scientists and professionals. The number and proportion of women managers remain low. Thus women still have limited influence in the decision-making that shapes the strategies, programs, management, and work environments of the Centers. 2. Recruitnent efforts need to be more proactive. Center leaders have a strong commitment to gender staffing, and formal recruitment systems have been widely established. Recruitment efforts are reaching more women. Yet the use of special efforts to "cast the net widely" in recruitment is not institutionalized: recruitment policies are not well known to staff and managers, and committees are not held accountable for gender-equitable recruitment. Further efforts are needed to mobilize applicants and utilize professional networks during international searches; ensure that systematic and transparent policies and procedures are used in selection; and enhance staff skills for interviewing candidates in an effective and gender sensitive manner. Improved practices will enhance the effectiveness of recruitment generally, not only for women. 3 . Policies to ensure parity in career development needfuller implemntation, with attention to advancement issues. Women managers and professionals in the Centers are widely reported to receive equivalent respect and resources as male managers. Many Centers have developed formal and more equitable systems ofjob classification and salary assignment. The skills, concepts and perspectives provided by the Women's Leadership and Management Course were found to be extremely helpful for participants' work at the Centers. Policies are not always implemented evenly across the institution, however, and there is inadequate orientation about policies and procedures for new staff members. Performance evaluation systems need to be more effective and unbiased and strengthened to recognize "invisible work." Internal promotion options and limitations are often not clearly understood by staff. Women managers are still not often found in core center functions. Centers would benefit from developing improved performance evaluation procedures and transparent criteria and systems for promotion and from greater investment in management training. 4. Centers' ability to retain high quality staff-both women and nen-depends on the quality of the work environment. Center leaders are philosophically committed to creating a work environment supportive of a diverse staff Almost all Centers now have formal sexual harassment policies and good family and dependent leave policies. However, few Centers reported having put in place support services to assist professional spouses in finding viable career opportunities. A need to strengthen staff skills for managing a diverse work force was widely noted. More pro- active policies are needed to retain good staff, especially women. Key areas for attention are support for dual-career couples, definition of reasonable workloads, and implementation of policies and practices that help staff to better integrate their work and personal lives. 5. Greater enphasis is needed to strengthen skills and leadership for gender equity in the Centers. Formal policies and procedures are in place or under development in most Centers, and informal practices supporting gender equity are in place to a moderate extent. However, few Centers felt their staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to practice gender equity effectively, and few have mobilized leadership to address gender equity proactively. 6. Greater dialogue within Centers is needed on gender staffing issues. Centers that implemented the taking stock exercise with diverse staff found large differences on many indicators between the perceptions of senior managers and those of other groups, such as women, middle managers, and international and national staff. Greater dialogue among diverse staff groups could help to identify areas for intervention to improve gender staffing. iv I. INTRODUCTION The CGIAR Gender Staffing Program was initiated in 1991 to help the Centers attract and retain highly qualified women scientists and professionals and to create work environments that support the productivity, career development, and job satisfaction of both men and women. As funding for the previous phase of the Gender Staffing Program came to an end in 1998, Centers requested that the Program organize an Inter-Center Consultation to take stock and chart future directions for what has now become the CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program.' A key element of the preparations for this Consultation was an in-depth self-assessment undertaken by the Centers of their own achievements in gender staffing, focusing on qualitative issues of leadership, recruitment, retention, formal policies and procedures, parity in career development, work norms and culture, and staff skills and training. The self-assessment was designed to encourage a process of internal reflection and review in the Centers and to provide a common framework for discussion at the Inter-Center Consultation. This qualitative assessment was intended to complement the quantitative findings of the 1997 CGIAR Human Resources Survey, which assessed the system's progress in recruiting and retaining women at different levels of staff2 This paper presents the results of the Centers' self-assessment. The next section discusses the conceptual underpinnings for the study design-the qualitative aspects of a gender-equitable workplace. The third section describes the pilot instrument developed to assess organizational progress toward gender equity and its implementation and analysis. The major findings of the self- assessment are then presented, followed by conclusions about the achievements and remaining challenges for the Centers as they seek to build more gender-equitable organizations. For a sumnuray of the consultation, see Bonnie McClafferty, Gender Staffing in the CGL4R: Lessons Learned and Future Direction CGIAR Gender Program Working Paper No. 19, December 1998. 2 The full report of this survey is found in Deborah Merrill-Sands, 1997 CGIAR Human Resources Survey: Internatonal Staffing at the CGIAR Centers with a Focus on Gender. CGLAR Gender Program Workdng Paper No. 15, October 1997. 2 II. QuALrrATivE ASPECTS OFA GENDER EQuITABLE WORKPLACE The fundamental proposition underlying the work of the Gender Program is that a culturally and gender diverse staff strengthens the performance of international research Centers, by broadening the pool of skills, talents, perspectives and ideas within the organization. Recent research in organizational management suggests that powerful benefits can accrue to an organization from a diverse workforce, including increased creativity and innovation, stronger intellectual vitality, enhanced organizational learning, and the improved ability to develop effective partnerships and respond rapidly and successfully to changes in the external environment.3 These potential benefits are particularly important to the CGLAR Centers, which are seeking to apply cutting-edge research to the complex and urgent problems affecting poverty, food security and natural resource sustainability in diverse countries of the developing world. To do so, they must harness the talents of staff from all over the world and mobilize collaborative partnerships with a wide range of organizations. Experience within the Centers and in other organizations around the world suggests that gender equity in the workplace will not be achieved simply through increased representation of women. It is also essential to influence the organizational dynamics that affect their recruitment, career parity, and retention. These dynamics reflect the joint influence of formal management systems and procedures, informal work norms and culture, staff knowledge and skills, and leadership. A. REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN Research has shown that the proportional representation of women influences organizational dynamics related to gender.4 In situations where women are a significant minority (below 15%, as in the case of the professional and managerial cadre of the CG System), and in occupations that have traditionally been thought of as male (such as the agricultural sciences), systemic organizational dynamics come into play that are prejudicial to women's job satisfaction, productivity and career development. In these situations, women typically receive heightened attention or visibility; they are subject to higher performance pressure; they are isolated from informal social and professional networks; their differences from male peers are exaggerated; and they are more subject to gender stereotyping. As the relative percentage reaches the 35% level, women begin to have a stronger voice and to influence the work culture and systems of the organization. These factors are likely to influence organizational dynamics within the CGLAR, where as of 1997 only two Centers had 3 R Ely and D. Thomnas (1996) "Making Differences Matter: A New Paladigm for Managing Diversity." Harvard Business Review, September-ctober, T. Cox, Jr. (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory Research and Practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.; RiM Kanter (1983) The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster, F. Trompenaars (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. 4 R M. Kanter (1997), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books; J. Yoder (1991), "Rethinkdng Tokenism: Looking Beyond Numbers", Gender & Society, vol 5, no. 2., June 1991, 178-192; R Ely (1994) "The Effects of Organiuational Demographics and Social Identity on Relationships Among Professional Women, "Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 203-238. 3 achieved a level of 25% of internationally-recruited staff (LRS)-the estimated proportion of women among the international supply of researchers. B. RECRUrTMNT Recruitment is a key leverage point for ensuring that the Centers are tapping effectively into the expanding pool of women scientists and professionals and that Centers are reaching the best possible candidates and not bypassing a major segment of the pool. The representation of women in disciplines relevant to the Centers has expanded dramatically in the past 15 years. Recruitment efforts are also important for increasing the representation of women in the Centers across diverse job categories and levels. Experience indicates that common constraints in the recruitment process have a significant gender dimension. Fewer women are reached due to lack of targeted advertising and failure to tap networks of women scientists and professionals in the search process. Fewer women are selected due to stereotyping of women's strengths and weaknesses for particular positions and non-diverse selection committees. Fewer women accept position offers, due to lack of support for spouse employment, gender-insensitive interviewing practices, and lack of benefits of particular interest to women (e.g., maternity leave, fiexi-place). Subtle (and often unconscious) gender discrimination in staff selection is also far more common than most scientists realize. For example, a recent Swedish study of the peer-review selection process for a prestigious post-doctoral scientific fellowship discovered a remarkable degree of bias in favor of males. Using regression analysis, the researchers concluded that to be ranked of equivalent competence, women had to be 2 1/2 times more productive than the men, in terms of the quantity and quality ofjournal articles published.5 Personal affiliation with a reviewer was nearly as important as male gender as a determinant of reviewers' scores for scientific competence. C PARITY IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT Ensuring equal opportunities for advancement and career development for men and women is a fundamental element of creating a gender-equitable work environment. While most Centers have explicit policies barring discrimination, research has shown repeatedly that subtle, and often unconscious, bias can influence performance appraisals of women, recognition and appreciation of diverse contributions, and assessments of women's capabilities or appropriateness for specific types of jobs. These in turn may result in lack of parity between men and women in position classification, grade and salary. The common assumption of meritocracy of science can obscure the need for ensuring equity in the distribution of opportunities for career development. These include such elements as resources for research (for example, laboratory space, funding, research assistance), access to mentoring, professional exposure inside and outside the institution, equal opportunities for promotion, and equal opportunities to take on demanding new challenges that contribute to professional development. S C. Winneras and A. Wold (1997). "Nepotism and Seim in Peer Revieil'. Nature, vol. 387,22 May, 1997. 4 This is illustrated by a recent study of the conditions of work for women scientific faculty at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States. This research found that women typically were allocated half of the laboratory space, were required to raise twice the level of external funding, received at least 20 percent lower salaries than men of equal standing, and were excluded from the most powerful committees and leadership positions. These factors contributed considerably to lower female morale and productivity, until the university recently instituted major changes.6 These biases may be widespread in the scientific community. A study of career patterns of 699 former recipients of prestigious postdoctoral fellowships in science in the United States found significant differences between the career development of men and women. Attrition rates were higher among women and, with the exception of the biological field, the professional ranking of women scientists was lower than that of men, as was the level of career attainment. The study concluded that gender discrimination was the principal factor, mainly in the form of subtle exclusions, marginalization, and difficulties establishing equitable collaborative relationships. Contrary to received wisdom, both men and women regarded marriage as a key career advantage.7 D. RETENTION Retention of high quality male and female staff depends significantly on the work environment. That environment is ideally hospitable and supportive; stimulates staff's fullest productivity and creativity; provides opportunities for professional growth; and engenders commitment to the organization. Developing such a work environment for a diverse staff entails at least four elements. First is the fostering of inclusion-not privileging one gender, cultural or racial identity group over others. The second is recognizing the value of different contributions and ways of working and seeing this diversity as an asset. The third is by calling upon the ideas and expertise of diverse staff across levels and functions. A fourth key element is to appreciate and address the different constraints faced by men and women in achieving work objectives, for example, that women often have greater responsibility for child care or a greater likelihood of having a spouse with career aspirations. These issues are important both for organizational performance as well as individual job satisfaction. Staff who feel marginalized often do not perform at their highest levels and leave prematurely. The organizational benefits of paying greater attention to retention may be significant. In the case of the large intemational accounting firm of Deloitte and Touche, an aggressive initiative to improve conditions of women's employment-including senior manager training, promotion of high- performing women, extemal accountability, and flexible work arrangements to accommodate childbearing roles-led to high levels of employee satisfaction. Average staff turnover rates dropped to a third of the industry average, saving the business $150 million.8 6 Zernike, K (1999). "MIT Women Win a Fight Against Bias!'. The Boston Sunday Globe, March 21; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999),A Study of the Status of Women Faculty in Science atMlT". Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. G. Sonnert and G. Holton (1996). "Career Patterns of Women and Men in the Sciences "American Scientist VoL 84 (1), Jamny-Februaiy, pp. 63-71. 8 S.J.Scherr (1998). "Gender Staffing in the Private Sector: Experiences of the Bank of AmericaandDeloitte and Touche". CG Gender Lens, Vol. 3, Issue 1, April, p. 10. 5 E KEY ELE3ENTS AFFECrING GENDER EQUrlY IN THIE WORKPLACE Achieving gender equity in the workplace involves changes in formal policies and procedures, informal practices and norms, staff knowledge and skills, and leadership. Formal Policies and Procedures Gender-equitable policies and management systems play a critical role in recruiting and retaining high-quality women professionals and promoting their full effectiveness at work. Policies such as those regarding grade placement, pay and promotion; maternity and paternity benefits; unbiased systems for performance evaluation; and protection from sexual harassment and discrimination ensure gender equity in conditions of employment. Family-related policies such as maternity and paternity leave, support for spouse employment, and marriage between staff members demonstrate that the workplace recognizes the dual role of staff in work and family life. Policies which help all staff to integrate personal and work responsibilities-such as flexible work hours, part-time or shared positions, flexible workplace, quiet time, companion travel and communications with home during travel-are particularly valued by women, who still commonly take on greater responsibilities for the care of home and children. With the growing number of dual-career couples worldwide, such policies are increasingly valued by men as well.9 Informal Work Norms and Practices Modern organizations, having been created largely by and for men, tend to reflect masculine values and life situations in their systems, practices, structures and norms. Many aspects regarded as normal or commonplace-from what is accepted as appropriate workplace behavior to norms about competition, commitment, leadership and authority-tend to privilege traits that have been socially and culturally ascribed to males, such as independence, individuality and rationality, while devaluing or ignoring those that have been socially ascribed to females, such as collaboration, caring, connection and emotionality. When put into practice, these norms create idealized images of work, workers, products and successes that can indirectly maintain gender segregation and gender inequity. For example, some processes and skills which are critical to both efficiency and productivity but tend to be associated with the "feminine", such as effective interpersonal communications, facilitation, problem prevention and coordination, and are often undervalued and "invisible" in the workplace. '0 Everyday work practices, such as hours of activity, the structure and management of meetings, work planning processes, and means of communication among staff; often have unrecognized gender dimensions. For example, dependence on informal, rather than formal, networks to inform staff about new strategies or activities may leave many women "outside the loop." Regular scheduling of important meetings after normal working hours may pose serious personal conflicts for staff with greater home responsibilities, more often women. Meetings managed without systematic facilitation to ensure all voices are heard may be dominated by more aggressive speakers, typically men or staff from cultures where verbal dominance is valued (and perceived to be associated with superior thinking), drowning out equally valuable contributions of other staff. By revising such work practices, 9 A full discussion of recommended formal policies and procedures may be found in Joan Josh, Elizabeth Goldberg Sara J. Scherr, Deborah Memill-Sands, Toward Gender Equity: Model Policies, CGIAR Gender Program Working Paper No. 18, September 1998. 10 Drawn from J. Fletcher and D. Merrill-Sands (1998), "Looking Below the Surface: The Gendered Nature of Organizations", CG GenderLens, Vol. 3(1): 3-4. See also J. Fletcher (1998), "Relational Practice: A Feminist Reconstruction of Work, Journal ofManagement Inquiry, vol. 7 (2): 163-186. 6 Centers may both increase job satisfaction for many staff; and increase organizational productivity and effectiveness. Staff Knowledge and Skills To develop a gender-equitable workplace requires the widespread distribution of relevant knowledge and skills among Center staff at all levels. All staff need a basic understanding of organizational systems and to recognize some of their "gendered" aspects. New staff require orientation and information about Center policies and management systems and their gender dimensions. Skill development, particularly for supervisors and managers, is essential in areas such as meeting facilitation, recruitment interviewing, performance evaluation, work planning, and conflict resolution, with attention to the particular needs of a gender- and culturally-diverse workplace. Women operating in a male-dominant environment will often need targeted support in developing leadership and management skills through training and mentoring. All work team members will benefit from skill development in communications and team dynamics. Leadership Strong leadership from the top is critical for bringing about organizational change, particularly change aimed at gender equity. Effective leadership involves not only providing clear and frequent public reminders of the importance of gender equity to Center goals. It also entails making the assessment of gender implications a regular part of strategy discussions and follow-up for organizational reforms and management, as well as recruiting women to the senior management team. Organizational change aimed at strengthening gender equity requires regular monitoring to assess progress and identify problems and new strategic challenges. While the Director General sets the direction for change, all managers bear a shared responsibility to create an institution that values men and women equally. 7 8 M. METHODOLOGY FOR CENTER SELF-ASSESSMENT A. DESIGN The design of the Center self-assessment instrument, developed by the Gender Program Co-Leaders, reflects the qualitative elements and organizational dynamics described in the previous section. This first exercise was intended to pilot a new approach to organizational assessment that could eventually be adapted and used by the Centers themselves for periodic monitoring of progress in gender staffing. Indicaton The self-assessment tool focuses on three of the critical dimensions for addressing gender staffing discussed above: 1) recruitment, 2) parity in career development opportunities, and 3) retention (Annex 1). 1 Key indicators of progress toward achieving gender equity in each of these areas were developed based on experience in working with the Centers, experiences of other organizations, and research carried out on gender and organizational change. A total of 48 indicators were selected. Of these, 21 referred to formal systems (policies and procedures); 16 to informal systems (work practices, behaviors, norms and values); 10 to knowledge and skills; and 1 1 to leadership and management. The Centers provided valuable feedback on the selection and definition of the indicators tested in this pilot, which will be incorporated into the design of a revised instrument. 12 As each Center establishes strategic priorities for making progress in gender equity, staff and management may wish to pay particular attention to specific indicators. System of ranidng A qualitative scale was designed to assess the extent to which the Center as a whole had made progress on particular indicators: I. Not at all (e.g., no policy in place, system not in place or not effective, little awareness by staff, no women in the senior management team, no training available, no expressed commitment by leadership) 2. To a limited extent (e.g., policy being developed or in place but not often implemented, system somewhat effective, a few women found in senior positions, dialogue on values or norms has begun, minimal training provided, leadership supportive but not proactive) " Representation of women was addressed in the 1997 Human Resources Survey. The full report of this survey is found in Deborah Merrill-Sands, 1997 CGL4R Human Resources Survey: International Staffing at the CGL4R Centers with a Focus on Gender. CGIAR Gender Program Working Paper No. 15, October 1997. A complete discussion and critique of the Taking Stock instrumen including a new version revised in response to the experience and comments from the Centers and from extemal experts, may be found in Deborah Merrill-Sands and Sara J. Scherr, Aninstrumentfor Institutional Self-Assessment of Gender Staffing, CGLAR Gender Staffing Program Working Paper No. 24 (forthcoming in 1999). 9 3. To a moderate extent (e.g., policy in place and usually implemented, system fairly effective, some women found in senior positions, values or norms commonly expressed, training available for some staff groups, leadership clearly supportive) 4. To a great extent (e.g., policy fully in place and reliably implemented, system usually effective, many women found in senior positions, values or norms widely shared, training widely implemented, leadership strongly and visibly committed) 5. To the fullest extent (e.g., comprehensive policy fully implemented and monitored, system very clear and effective, women strongly represented in senior positions and equally empowered, values or norms widely shared and evident in actions, well-designed training programs regularly available for a large number of staff, leadership champions the issue) R EIMPLEMENTAT1ON Proposed Process It was suggested that the Centers follow a particular protocol in implementing the self-assessment. They were to bring together a group of 10 to 12 staff from diverse levels and functions within the organization, including the Human Resources Managers, several senior managers, several middle managers and project and/or team leaders from research or other program areas. It was suggested Centers include staff who had been working actively on gender staffing issues (for example, Gender Staffing Focal Points and/or representatives of a workplace, gender or diversity committee). The group was to have a good mix of male and female staff as well as staff of diverse cultural backgrounds and tenures in the Center. Each person in the group was individually to assess each indicator using the key above. At a subsequent meeting, the range of answers for each indicator would be indicated visibly on cards. On the basis of group discussion to clarify the reasons why staff varied in their assessments, a consensus or majority ranking would be developed and recorded. In addition to the standard form, a narrative was to be written of the key observations raised in the discussion regarding strengths and achievements, concerns and continuing challenges for recruitment, parity in career development and retention. Actual Process The self-assessment was implemented during February-April 1998 in 12 of the 16 intemational Centers: CIAT, CIFOR, CIMMYT, ICARDA, ICLARM, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IFPRI, LIMI, SRI, ISNAR and WARDA. The number of participants in the individual Centers ranged from three to 40, with an average of 12.5. Over 150 individuals were involved in the self-assessment. None of the Centers used the suggested protocol, which was viewed as too time-consuming, given the number of indicators. Several approaches were used instead. In one case, only the individual surveys were used, without group discussion. In 8 Centers, a single group session was held, with a cross- section of staff, and in 1 Center the survey was completed by a small group of senior and middle managers. Two Centers applied the instrument with several groups of representative staff, including senior managers, internationally-recruited women, national staff, and/or program leaders. Summary 10 reports were provided by nearly all Centers, and more detailed reports with histories of gender staffing initiatives by CIAT, CIMMYT, CIFOR, IFPRI and ISNAR. C ANALYSIS AND NINrRPRETATION Rankings reported by each Center were analyzed in several ways. Average rankings were calculated for each leverage point (recruitment, parity, retention) and for each type of organizational characteristic (formal systems, informal systems, knowledge and skills, leadership/management). Calculations across Centers included the average ranking, the range of rankings, and the proportion of Centers with high, medium or low self-assessments on particular indicators. A qualitative synthesis was developed of the findings reported in the Center narratives and reports. Center data are confidential; only syntheses are reported here. It is important to recognize that these indicators are subjective, based on peoples' perceptions and their particular experience within the organization. For example, while the formal adoption of a particular policy may be easy to confirm objectively, the degree to which that policy is implemented-or that staff are even aware of and guided by the policy-may vary considerably. Staff assessment will also be influenced by their previous experience and expectations. Thus the presence of several senior female managers may be perceived by some as indicating major institutional progress in gender staffing, while for others who worked previously for organizations with large numbers of senior women, progress may seem slow. There is no "correct" answer. Rather, the instrument is designed to elicit the range of differences, and provide an opportunity to discuss them and identify organizational priorities for future attention. To achieve this objective, careful attention must be paid to the composition of the participating group. For this reason, it is difficult to compare the results of this exercise across organizations. Although absolute rankings are presented in Table 1 to illustrate roughly the self-assessment of the current state of gender staffing in the CGIAR, the relative ranking of different variables within each organization is a more useful guide to action. 12 IV. MAJOR FINDINGS Based on average rankings across all indicators (Table 1), a third of the Centers reported having achieved gender staffing equity "to a limited extent" and the other two thirds "to a moderate extent." None concluded that their overall work environment yet met gender equity goals "to a great extent" or "to the fullest extent." One Center did consider that it had achieved gender equity "to a great extent" in the area of recruitment, 1 in retention and 2 in career parity. Average achievement was perceived to be somewhat higher in relation to retention than to recruitment or parity. Average achievement was higher in relation to informal practices and norms than to other organizational characteristics. Two Centers ranked themselves highly in achieving gender equity in informal practices and I in leadership. The most widely noted deficits were in the areas of skills and knowledge and leadership: 7 of the 12 Centers reported having made qualitative progress in these areas only "to a limited extent." A. RECRUlTING IRS WOMEN In relation to recruiting IRS women, formal systems were ranked most highly. Most Centers had an explicit equal opportunity policy, position announcements encouraging women to apply, and used interview processes intended to prevent bias. The highest scores among informal systems were for the commitment of staff and managers to equal opportunity by gender, and for the use of a recruitment process that reflects their Center as a desirable workplace. A majority of Centers reported strong management commitment to mobilize applications of women. A few areas having low average rankings were of particular concern. A majority of Centers had succeeded "to only a limited extent" in mobilizing female resource people to assist in recruitment, including women on search committees, or establishing a search process that "casts the net widely" to ensure that women are reached in the search process. Most staff do not use their own networks to mobilize recruitment, and most feel they do not have adequate skills in interview methods.'3 In almost no Center were managers held accountable for achieving staff diversity, nor were Search Committees held accountable for finding a diverse group of candidates. Variation among Centers was greatest in relation to their use of processes to identify female resource persons and the degree of assistance provided with spouse employment. B. ACEIEVING PARITY Many Centers have put in place formal systems that encourage gender equity in career development. Over half of the Centers now have clear and reliably implemented criteria for defining position classifications and grades and a transparent system for linking salaries to staff grades. Norms for 13 This would appear to contradict the point above relating to unbiased interview processes. It seems likely based on the narrative matenial that explicit sources of bias have been widely removed but that subtle or unconscious bias remain due to lack of training in gender-neutral interview methods. 13 performance expectations are generally perceived to be clear. In a majority of Centers, respondents believe that women managers and professionals are given equivalent respect and resources as male managers. Most felt that there are equivalent mentoring opportunities for men and women, although opportunities were limited for all. In over half of the Centers, senior managers seek "to a great extent" to develop men and women leaders at lower levels of the organization. Progress in other areas is less encouraging. Few Centers have transparent criteria and procedures for staff promotion. It is still uncommon for performance assessments to include "invisible work" Women managers are usually clustered in a few, non-core functions, and women are poorly represented in most senior management teams. Most Centers conclude that their managers and project leaders do not have the skills necessary for working effectively with a diverse staff. This is consistent with the reported low level of investment in management training. Variation among Centers was greatest in relation to the use of clear criteria for position classifications, distribution of women managers across functions, Center investment in training, and opportunities for mentoring. C RETAINING STAFF: A SUPPORTIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT Most Centers concluded that they provide a supportive work environment "to a moderate extent." Almost all Centers have an explicit sexual harassment policy and family and dependent care policies. In most Centers, the value of diversity is promoted, and leaders are perceived to be committed to creating a work environment in which diverse people thrive. Women are perceived to have equal opportunity with men to participate in external professional activities. Leaders in most Centers are seen to draw widely on ideas of staff of diverse background and expertise in making decisions. Skills and knowledge for managing teams and collaboration effectively are believed to have improved significantly. Nonetheless, several areas of weakness were identified by Center staff. There is little monitoring of staff retention. Few Centers assist professional spouses in their career maintenance or development. Staff and managers in most Centers do not believe they have the knowledge and sensitivities necessary to build on the contributions of a gender diverse staff. Centers have made little progress in efforts to keep work demands reasonable or to provide flexible work arrangements, and Center leadership is not perceived as effectively controlling work pressures or time demands placed on staff. Associated with this is a general lack of implementation of policies that are in place to better integrate work and personal life. D. VARIATION WIThIN CENTERS'4 Two of the participating Centers applied the questionnaire with multiple groups differing by position in the hierarchy or gender, and a third Center reported the distribution of responses among participants, as well as averages. Their results suggest that there is wide within-Center variation among staff in their assessment of achievements in gender equity. For example, in 1 Center a group of 12 diverse staff members produced rankings spanning the entire range of options (e.g., ratings of 1 through 5) for 23% of recruitment indicators and 400/o of career 14 The inter-group differences observed and discussed below could not be tested statistically due to the lack of disaggregated data. 14 parity and retention indicators. Consensus was greatest about the knowledge and skills indicators (the full range of possible responses was recorded for only 100/% of indicators). There was least consensus around leadership indicators, where 64% of indicators spanned the full range. The range for formal and informal systems indicators fell in between. This finding highlights the role of individual or group perception in assessing workplace quality. In some cases, it also reflects differential knowledge of staff about Center policies. For example, several Centers found most staff were unaware of key recruitment policies. Others observed that staff's experience of policies and the workplace environment depended heavily on characteristics of the individual senior manager of their division or unit. There also appears to be systematic variation among staff members according to their position in the hierarchy and their gender. Variation by position Staff members' experience of the Center workplace depends in part on where they sit within the organization. In general, senior management team members ranked their Centers significantly higher on most indicators than did other staff members, and international staff rankings were higher than national staff. For many indicators, response differed by 1˝/2 to 2 rank levels between groups defined by position in the hierarchy. In one Center, when staff were asked whether there were clear criteria for defining position classification and staff grades, senior managers responded that criteria were clear almost "to the fullest extent" (4.7). Yet nationally-recruited staff ranked those criteria as clear only "to a moderate extent" (2.8). This difference may be important for senior managers to address, as it is a basic determinant of staff perception of fairness or equity. In another Center, the senior management group ranked several indicators as achieved "to the fullest extent," which at least one other staff group ranked as being achieved only to "a limited or moderate extent." While most senior managers think "invisible work" is well recognized and salaries are clearly linked to grades, few others think so. Senior managers believe they are actively developing men and women leaders at lower levels of the organization, but this is not obvious to other staff. It is notable that although the leadership group believes it is committed to creating a work environment in which diverse types of people can thrive and contribute fully, other groups of staff do not always perceive that commitment. Through further discussions with staff to explore these differences in perception, it may be possible to identify interventions which serve the interests of both managers and staff. On the other hand, for several indicators the senior management team ranking was lower than all other groups. Senior managers graded their Center more poorly on two recruitment indicators-staff commitment to using professional networks to mobilize applications and staff attention to gender- sensitive interview questions. Interestingly, senior managers also ranked their Centers lower than did other staff on several key leadership indicators. They were less likely to perceive a respect for diversity in management and leadership styles, and most felt manager and project leader skills were inadequate to work with a diverse staff. They were less likely to report a strong and visible commitment from leaders and managers to minimizing the potential for bias in candidate reviews. These findings suggest that senior 15 managers may be particularly open to gender and diversity interventions that expand their options and skills as managers. Variation by gender Men's rankings were generally higher than women's, with the rankings of senior managers (predominately men) often 1 to 2 rank levels higher. In one Center, when asked whether women managers were given the same degree of respect and authority as men, male senior managers' answer was "to a great extent" (4.3) and the average for all groups was "to a moderate extent" (3.4). Yet IRS women felt that women received equal respect only "to some extent" (2.5). As above, this difference of perception might usefully trigger a discussion of more effective ways to demonstrate respect and confer authority, or the unrecognized ways in which respect is undermined. The average of women's scores were nearly a rank level lower than average Center scores on several other indicators. On recruitment, women saw less progress in monitoring of application rates by gender, recognition of the benefits of a diverse staf commitment to minimizing bias in candidate review, and manager accountability for gender diversity. In relation to parity, they perceived less progress in managers' skills to harness diversity, the inclusion of women on the senior management team, and senior managers' commitment to fostering gender equity at upper levels. On retention, women perceived less progress in monitoring attrition and in senior manager responsibility for controlling work pressures. In a second Center, a nearly all-female cross-functional group also ranked several indicators at least 1 rank lower than the Center average. These included the degree to which staff appreciation of the benefits of diversity, clarity of performance norms, managers' commitment to developing leaders at lower levels, reasonable work demands, broad input into decision-making, respect for work-personal life, and leaders' commitment to recruit women at upper levels of the institute. On the other hand, compared to other staff, women more often appreciated their Centers' efforts to recognize diverse styles of management, include women in senior management, consider diversity issues in performance evaluation, control work demands, and make managers accountable for recruiting women. 16 V. CONCLUSIONS We draw a number of conclusions from this evidence about the qualitative status of gender staffing in the CGLAR Centers, and system-wide priorities for future work. 1. The number of women is still a critical issue. The number of internationally-recruited women staff, as well as their proportional representation, is rising steadily and the number of women among nationally-recruited staff has increased significantly as well. Still, the numbers remain well below a critical mass in most Centers and still do not reflect the number of women in the intemational pool of scientists and professionals. The number and proportional representation of women among managers and senior managers remains low at 10 percent. This means that women still have limited influence in the decision-making that shapes the strategies, programs, management systems, and work environments of the Centers. 2. Recruitment efforts need to be more proactive. Centers reported that their leaders have a strong commitment to gender staffing and that recruitment efforts are reaching more women. But they also reported that, in general, the use of special efforts to "cast the net widely" in recruitment is not institutionalized; recruitment policies are not well known to staff and managers; and committees are not held accountable for gender equitable recruitment. Further benefits can be expected as Centers mobilize mechanisms and professional networks to "cast the net widely" during international searches; ensure that systematic and transparent policies and procedures are used in selection; and enhance staff skills for interviewing candidates in an effective and gender-sensitive manner. Improvements in recruitment practices to reduce gender bias are likely to enhance the effectiveness of recruitment generally, not only for women. 3. Policies to ensure parity in career development needfuller implementation, with attention to advancement issues. Many Centers have improved their formal systems ofjob classification and salary assignment. However, policies are not always implemented evenly across the institution, and there is inadequate orientation about policies and procedures for new staff members. There are relatively clear performance norms, but performance evaluation systems could be made more effective and unbiased and strengthened to recognize "invisible work." Centers leamed that intemal promotion options and limitations were often not clearly understood by staff. Although women managers are still not often found in core Center functions (e.g., research), they are perceived to be equally respected and Centers reported that there are no major barriers to female leadership or mentoring. Greater attention needs to be given to performance evaluation procedures, developing transparent criteria and systems for promotion, and management training. The Women's Leadership and Management Course is greatly appreciated, and some Centers feel that similar opportunities are needed for men. 4. Centers' ability to retain high quality staff-both wonen and men-depends on the qualit of the work environment. Centers reported that their leaders are philosophically committed to creating a work environment supportive of a diverse staff Almost all Centers now have formal sexual harassment policies and good family and dependent-leave policies. Despite considerable attention given to spouse employment by the Gender Program, few Centers reported having put in place support services to assist professional spouses in finding viable career opportunities. The visibility of this problem has increased as more senior male managers in the Centers have working 17 wives. There is widespread appreciation of the need to strengthen staff skills for managing a diverse work force. More pro-active policies to retain good staff; especially women, are needed. More attention needs to be paid to supporting dual-career couples, defining reasonable workloads, and implementing policies and practices that help staff to better integrate their work and personal lives. The "time famine" resulting from increasing workloads and pressure are affecting job satisfaction and retention rates for men, as well as women. These time pressures themselves militate against Centers allocating sufficient time for training, communications, mentoring, etc. When considered along with other Center limitations, such as short-term employment contracts, the isolated professional or personal environment and limited schooling availability in some Centers, and in some cases non-competitive salary structures, the CGIAR may be at some risk of losing its reputation as an attractive employer for first-class scientists. 5. Greater emphasis is needed to strengthen skills and leademhip for gender equity in the Centers. Formal policies and procedures are in place or under development in most Centers, and informal practices supporting gender equity are in place to a moderate extent. However, few Centers felt their staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to practice gender equity effectively or to manage a diverse staff productively, and few have mobilized leadership to address gender equity proactively. 6. Center would benefitfrom greater internal dialogue on gender staffing issues. Centers that implemented the taking stock exercise with diverse groups of staff found large differences on many indicators between the perceptions of senior managers and those of other groups of staff, such as women, middle managers, international and national staff. The taking stock process helped to stimulate a valuable exchange of ideas and perspectives among staff, and if implemented on a periodic basis may contribute to monitoring progress and identifying action plan priorities. 18 TABLE 1. CENTER SELF-ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW Indieator of ;en.er 40et wich ..Cinter which . Centet which gender equity Sample havt achieved We hataahieved 't haveachieved (averaging each (n=) a limted extent" a moderte "to a grat or to gropof or "notAt iwent(O".9) the fulest iidiatois (_3_ .J .S AllIndicators 11 4 7 Recruitment 12 5 6 1 Career Parit 1 4 5 2 Retention 11 3 7 1 Fomnal Policies and 12 5 7 Procedures Informal Practices 11 2 7 2 and Norms Knowledge and 11 7 4 Skills _ Leadership 11 7 31 19 20 ANNEX 1 :FRAMEWORK FOR TAKING STOCK OF GENDER STAFFING KEY FOR ASSESSING PROGRESS WITH RESPECT TO INDICATORS: To What Extent .......? 1. Not at all (e.g.: no policy in place, system not in place or not effective, little awareness by staff, no women in the senior management team, no training available, no expressed commitment by leadership) 2. To a linutedextent (e.g., policy being developed or in place but not often implemented, system somewhat effective, a few women found in senior positions, dialogue on values or norms has begun, minimal training provided, leadership supportive but not proactive) 3. To a moderate extent (e.g., policy in place and usually implemented, system fairly effective, some women found in senior positions, values or norms commonly expressed, training available for some staff groups, leadership clearly supportive) 4. To a great extent (e.g., policy fully in place and reliably implemented, system usually effective, many women found in senior positions, values or norns widely shared, training widely implemented, leadership strongly and visibly committed) 5. To thefullest extent (e.g., comprehensive policy fully implemented and monitored, system very clear and effective, women strongly represented in senior positions and equally empowered, values or norms widely shared and evident in actions, well-designed training programs regularly available for a large number of staff, leadership champions the issue) 21 LEVERAGE POiN'S FOR Formal Systems Informal Systems Knowledge and Skills LeadershiplManagement CHANGE Policies and Procedures Work Practices, Behaviors, Norms and Values RECRIUITNM T To what extent To what extent To what extent To what extent. Recruitment is a key leverage LI Does the center have an explicit equal []Are staff and managers I] Do staff and managers [].Is there a strong and point for 1) ensuring that the opportunity policy? committed in belief and serving on search articulated commitment centers are tapping effectively ii action to ensuring equal commnittees pay from senior and middle into the expanding pool of U Do position announcements express opportunity on the basis of attention to the gender managers to mobilizing women scientists and the centers' commitment to gender gender? implications of cerain applications from female professionals; and 2) for diversity and encourage women to M types of interview professionals? increasing the representation of apply? U Is there understanding and questions? in the centers commitment among staff to L Is there a strong and visible women job caters across LI Are systematic procedures in place to the advantages of recruiting L Do staff and managers commitment from leaders diversejob categories and "cast the net widely" in recruitment in from a diverse pool of serving on Search and managers to mininizing levels. These efforts are order to attract high quality female as candidates and building a Committees have the potential for bias in the important for ensuring that well as male candidates? diverse staff? training and skills in review of candidates? centers are reaching the best interview methods? possible candidates and not by- []Does the center have a process for LI Is there commitment LI Are Search Committees passing a major segment of the identifying female resource people in among staff to using their held accountable for pool. They are also important key disciplines to serve as contacts for professional networks and generating a diverse and for strengthening the diversity recruitment (e.g. a database)? contacts to assist in high quality pool of of staff which many view as an mobilizing applications candidates? asset for organizational LI Are policies in place to ensure that al from diverse candidates? performance candidates for a position are assessed n D Are managers held against explicit criteria and exposed to LJ Does the recruitment accountable for building a similar interview processes as a means process demonstrate respect gender diverse staff in their to guard against bias? for candidates and present Units and/or Programs? the center as a desirable []Are policies in place to ensure that place for diverse staff to both women and men are on Search work? Committees or interview panels? []Are policies/procedures in place to assist spouses of candidates in acquiring information about employ- ment or professional opportunities? D Does the center monitor the .________________________ application rates of men and women? 22 LEVERAGE POINTS FOR Formal Systems Informal Systems Knowledge and Skills Leadership/Management CHANGE Policies and Procedures Work Practices, Behaviors, Norms and Values PARITY IN CAREER To what extent To what extent To what extent To what extent.... DEVELOPMENT r Do magers and OPPORTUNITIES AND [] Does the center have clear criteria for [] Are female managers and teamoamaagersecn COMPENSATION defining position classifications (e.g. professional staff as a group d . n senior scientist, scientist, associate given equivalent respect, ad Does the senior mnanagement Ensuring equal opportunities scientist) and staff grades? legitimacy, authority, and and skills group include both men and msoures a nWenlwmers? recognize and harness women? for advancement and career resources as male managers? benefits of development for men and II Does the center have systematic A working with a []Is the senior management women is a fundamental procedures for assigning staff to Are female nangers diverse staff? team committed in belief and element of creating a gender specific position classes or grades? distributed across diverse action to fostering gender functions in the center, [ equitable work environment. [n "bu LJ Do managers and equity at the upper levels of While most centers have I Does the Center have a transparent arcludmsg core usmness supervisors have the organization? explicit policies barring dis- system liiking salaries to staff grades? areas su as research? training and skills in crimination, research has L Does the center have transparent O Are the norms about perfor- doing effective [] Does the senior management shown repeatedly that subtle, proessefor determining salary mance expectations for staff assessments c group seek to support and and oftenunconscius, biasprocesses frdtningsMam etsnddevelop male and female and often unconscious, bias increments and linking these to explicit and clearly providing leaders at lower levels of the can influence performance performance appraisals? articulated? constnictive feedback organization? appraisals of women, to statf? recognition and appreciation Oi Does the center have transparent criteria L Is the performance review of diverse contributions, and and procedures for determining staff process used to provide I] Does the center invest assessments of women's promotions? constructive feedback in order in management capabilities or appropriate-ness to promote staff development development training for specific types ofjobs (e.g. LI Does the center have systematic and and improve performance? for male and female regional coordinator). The transparent performance review criteria managers and team common belief in the principal and systems that mininize potential IE Do men and women in the and/or project meritocracy in science can bias from reviewers and provide center perceive that they have leaders? obscure the need for giving channels for questioning assessments? equal opportunities to assume leadership and managerial F Do men and women crflattention to ensuring []oe i Domnanvoe careful the distribution ofe_ Does the center explicitly value in roles? have equivalent equity in tedsrbfoofperformance assessments the more Flaccess to opportunities for career "invisiblecn aspects of work thatis for development. contribute to organizational effective- foster diversity in mentoring? ness, e.g. skils and achievements in management and leadership problem prevention, collaboration, or styles (e.g. a collaborative effective planning?. leadership style versus an authoritative style)? 23 LEVERAGE POINTS FOR Formal Systems Informal Systems Knowledge and Skills Leadership/Management CHANGE Policies and Procedures Work Practices, Behaviors, Norms and Values RETENTION To what extent To what extent To what extent To what extent . Retention of high quality staff [ Does the center systematically []Does the center promote the LI Do staff and managers [ Is the leadership group that is hospitable and supportive monitor attriton rates of men and value of diversity and ensure that have the knowledge and committed in belief and that is hospitable and supportive; women and examine reasons for staff of different identity groups sensitivity required to action to creating a work stpmulates stafds ftillest staff departures? are included and supported within appreciate and build on environment in which productivity and creativity; the organization? the different contribu- diverse types of people, with provides opportunities for [] Does the center have policies to tions of a gender diverse different skills, perspectives, professional growth; and en- ensure that diversity is considered U Does the center promote multiple staff? and ways of working, can genders commitment to the in representation of staff in project channels of communication thrive and contribute fully? organization. Developing such a teams, staff comnittees, and task across diverse levels and func- L Do staff and managers work environment for diverse forces? tions to ensure that staff receive have the facilitation skiUls U Does the leadership and staff entails: 1) fostering inclusion the infornation required to plan to foster the active con- management group monitor and not privileging one gender, [ Does the center have an explicit and do theirjobs effectively? tribution and paxticipa- and ensure that men and cultural, or racial identity group policy and grievance procedure for tion of staff from diverse women have equal oppor- over others; 2) recognizing the dealing oip[ sexual harassment Does the center actively seek in background, disciplines, tunities for accessing value of different contributions ts decision-making to draw on ideas and genders? resources, expertise, train- and ways of working and seeing U Does the center provide assistance from men and women with rele- ing, and staff required to this diversity as an asset e 3) to professional spouses seeking vant expertise at all levels of the LU Do staff and managers perform their work i t as an employent or career develop- orgazaon ? have the skills to work effectively? calling upon the ideas and employmentorcareerdevenment oppo?unifies? with differences in per-- expertise of diverse staff across U Do men and women have equal spectives and opinions L Does the leadership and levels and functions; and 4) [1 Does the center have and respect opportunities to represent the cen- and promote constrmctive management have the appreciating different constaints family and dependent care leave ter, attend conferences and other debate? practice of recognizing and faced by men and women (e.g. policies that recognize parenting professional activities, and meet giving feedback to staff for women's often greater responsi- and other personal life responsi- with appropriate visitors? [ Do staff and mangers achievements, innovations, bility for child care or greater bilities of both men and women? n have skills and knowl- and work well done? likelihood of having a spouse U Does the center emphasize skills edge to build effective n with career aspirations). These U Does the center seek to monitor in working effectively with dif- teams and foster collabo- U Does the leadership and issues are important both for and keep work demands within ferences and a diverse staff in ration across diverse management accept res- organizational performance as reasonable limits and support perfornance reviews? groups of staff? ponsibility for controlling well as individual job satisfaction. flexible arrangements so do staff work pressures and time Staff who feel marginalized do can better balance work and per- U Are policies for work-personal deynands on staff so that not perform at their highest levels sonal life responsibilities? life integration respected for use they can tfih responsibil- by both men and women without ities in both their profes- and leave pre-mnaturely. negative impacts on their profes- sional and personal lives? sional status? 24 . OVERVIEW How would you generally characterize the progress your center has made on gender staffing in each of the areas below over the past six years? What have been the most important achievements and innovations? What have been the most important constraints? What are the remaining challenges? RECRUrffMENT PARlTY IN CAREER OPPORTUNHIES RETENTION 25 26 ANNEX 2: RANK DISTRIBuTION FOR INDIDUAL INDICATORS* Indicator # Centers # Centers # Centers #Centers Range of (Full indicator statements iay be found in < 3.0 3.0-3.9 > 4.0 Center jArmex I) response IRecruirtent: Formal Syistems Explicit equal opportunity policy 12 2 5 5 2-5 Position arnouncements encourage women 12 1 3 8 2-5 to apply Recruitment "casts net widely" 12 2 9 1 2-5 Female resource persons help recruit 12 6 3 3 1-5 Unbiased interview process 11 - 3 8 3-5 Women on Search Committees 12 6 4 2 1-4 Employment assistance to spouses 12 5 2 5 1-5 Monitor application rate by gender 11 4 4 3 1-4 Recruitment: Informal Systems Commitment to equal opportunity 11 1 5 5 2-5 Understand value of diversity 12 3 3 6 2-5 Commitment to mobilize applications 12 3 5 4 2-4 Process respectful and attractive 11 - 2 9 3-5 Recruitment: Knowledge and Skills . ... ... ....... ..... . ......... .... Recognize gender sensitive questions 12 5 5 2 2-5 Search Committee nterview skills 12 6 3 3 2-4 Recruitment: Leadership/Mgn Senior Mgr. commitment 12 2 5 5 2-5 Committed to minimize bias in review 12 2 6 4 2.5-5 Search Committees held accountable 12 8 2 2 1.34 Managers held accountable 12 9 3 - 2-3 Parity: Formal S.1vems Clear criteria for position classification 12 1 5 6 1-5 Systematic assignment to class/grade 12 2 5 5 2-5 Transparent link of salaries to grades 12 1 5 6 3-5 Transparent process for salary increase 12 3 4 5 2-5 Transparent criteria for promotion 11 3 6 2 2-4 Systematic performance evaluation 11 4 5 2 2-5 "Invisible work" noted in evaluation 11 4 5 2 2-5,2-4.3 * Progress with respect to indicators: I = "not at all" 2 = "to a limited extenf' 3 = " to a moderate extent" 4 = "to a great extent" 5 "to the fullest extent" 27 ndcicator # Centers # CenAers # Centers #Centers Range of (Full indicator statements may be found in < 3.0 3.0-3.9 > 4.0 Center Anmnx 1) response Parit,: lnformal S,rstems Female managers equally respected 11 1 4 6 2-5 Female managers in diverse functions 11 7 3 1 1-5 Perfornance norms clearly articulated 10 4 3 3 2-5 Performance review used for staff dev. 10 2 5 3 2-5 Equal opportunities for leadership 11 3 2 5 2-5 Respect for diverse leadership styles 10 1 5 4 2.9-5 Parit: Knowledge and Skills Staff have skllls to manage diversity 11 4 5 2 2-4 Staff skiled in performance review 11 3 6 2 2-5 Center invests in mgmt. training 11 2 7 2 1-5 Equal opportunities for mentoring 10 3 2 5 1-5 Parity: Leadership/Management Senior management includes women 11 7 2 2 1-4 Senior commitment to gender equity 11 _1 6 4 2-5 Senior managers develop staff 11 1 5 5 2.9-5 Retention: Formal Systems Center monitors attrition by gender 12 7 4 1 1-5 Diverse staff on teams, committees 11 4 5 2 1.3-5 Sexual harassment policy, procedure 11 3 2 6 2-5 Career assistance to spouses 12 6 4 2 14 Family and dependent care policies 12 3 3 6 2-5 Reasonable, flexible work demands 11 6 2 3 14 Retention: Informal Systens Promote value of diversity 11 1 6 4 2-4 Multiple communication channels 10 - 5 5 3-4 Draw on ideas of both men, women 11 6 5 3-5 Equal support. for extemal exposure 11 - 3 8 3-5 Ability to work w/diverse staff valued i0 4 4 2 2-4 Policies to integrate work/life respected 10 5 4 1 2-4 Retention: Knowledge and Skills Staff appreciate gender diverse staff 0 3 6 1 2-4 Staff can foster work of diverse staff 10 1 7 2 2.74 Staff skilled to work w/diverse staff 10 1 8 1 2.7-3.3 Staff can build teams w/diverse staff 10 1 6 3 2.74 Retention: Leadeship/Management Leaders committed to Center diversity 11 - 7 4 3-5 Leaders monitor equal opportunity 10 1 6 3 2-5 Leaders recognize staff achievement 10 - 7 3 3-5 Leaders control work demands 10 5 3 2 14 28