Can women really rise to the top in big law firms?
Looking at some research into non-legal directors in top-100 law firms yesterday, I was shocked by the gender split at big firms for 'support' roles such as finance, IT and HR director.
'Just 12% of top-100 law firm FDs are female, and only 15% of IT directors are female,' says the research, while 'only one top-100 law firm has women across the board', which is Reynolds Porter Chamberlain. Good on them, I say – pathfinding stuff, that.
Apparently these numbers make it more likely to find a woman running a national newspaper than a law firm finance department. It's not like women can't do maths – I only have to look at my own family to prove that point. Hardly cold, hard statistical work needed there. I hope it's obvious that I think that, regardless of the role, people should land a job based on their skills, not their ability to have children.
The general 'argument' we hear when talking about the huge drop-out rate of women at the top level of management as age increases – in any business sector – is that women, because they have children, take time out of work just when men are playing hard for seniority. Thus, they never attain top roles in large numbers.
If you looked at just finance and IT director roles in law, you'd think that argument was correct. So why, then, are 66% of HR directors in top law firms women? Is someone dusting them with magic powder? Do they bring children in and keep them in their desk drawers?
Obviously not – the fact that HR directors are, in the majority, women is not just because in the past more women saw HR as an 'open' career path. It's because, to me, law firms and lots of other businesses 'feel' better about having women at the top of HR than they do IT or finance.
It's not hard to find a solicitor analogy here – if you're a woman solicitor, how would you feel to find out that, if you wanted a senior role in a top-100 firm, you'd have roughly a one in 12 or one in 15 chance of succeeding? Sounds like the 1970s to me.
Comments
Rupert, thanks for picking up
Rupert, thanks for picking up on our recent research piece.
The thread you have chosen i.e. lack of women in the roles researched in the Top 100 law firms, is perhaps - as quite a few people have pointed out already to me - not unfortunately the most suprising statistic. We've already had a comment along the lines of 'I knew it was low, but not that low', which makes it all the more important that this piece of research is now in the public domain.
I personally wonder if the increased mobility of directors, which is another angle that the research considers, will give rise to a change in the stats over the next few years. However, everyone will tell you that recruitment decisions are based on merit and ability and not influenced by other aspects, so maybe another angle for us to consider in the future is the gender ratio in relation to applications to these types of jobs, as the overall picture will never change if employers don't have the opportunity to chose women in the first place.
can women really rise to the top?
top? that's a bit ambitious, some of us are trying to stay above the status of trainees or assistants, never mind trying to get to the "Top" despite several years of pqe. Women take career breaks, its not necessarily a choice. I've worked in private practice for over 8 years and i have not received any contractual maternity when taking time off for a baby, am no better off financially or status wise than when i qualified.
happy days.
no wonder many of us decide not to come back to work and disappear off the radar...
Same issues, whichever way you look at it
well, anon, I think these issues are the same whether you want to make it to the top or not - surely it's a matter of equality, however you look at it? Though I'm sure you're allowed some maternity time by law aren't you?
Equality or double standards?
Few would dispute that we live in modern, and changing (challenging), times. If a father agreed to stay at home and raise the child (on formula of course! ... modern times!) why should he be discriminated against? ... no similar statutory paternity pay ... no right to return to his old job after a prescribed period of absence. And if an employee asked for a 9 months sabbatical for a reason other than "family enlargement" then would statutory sabbatical pay be paid? Of course not. If a parent wishes to return to work after raising a child then it should be encouraged but not forced and the legislation should be identical for either sex (just in case!) Life is wrought with double standards between the sexes: some are allowed to slide, for being considered tolerable, others are not. When discrimantion is mooted, in all unglorious forms, there is always a winner and a loser!
can women really rise to the top?
As much as we would like to think that society has progressed, this only shows how stagnant we have been!!! Still in the 70s??!!! As much as recruiters/ employers say that they want to promote staff base on meritocracy, excellent performance and skills, how can we ensure that the distribution of rewards is objective to begin with? Regardless of whichever reward system we use, at the end of the day we are subjected to the appraisal of our bosses and perhaps fit on some bell-curve to ensure the sustainability of the company.
Very often the double standards that are applied to both sexes are appalling . Why should men who take time off work to care of kids be frowned upon and women who attempt to climb the corporate ladder be deemed as cold, unfeeling creatures who will be bad mothers? To be honest, many won't be surprised to see such findings in Asia since it is still very much male-dominated (unfortunately). However, it is shocking to see such results in the West too! Very often, finance and IT tend to prefer men to women in their profession as people succumb to stereotypical views that men are better at math and technology etc...
There needs to be more equality between men and women for sure. Till date, women get all the maternity leave and benefits, but it just seems like legislation has made it even more official that women should be the ones to stay home. On the side note, it would be interesting to see how many men would make use of such benefits if extended to them!
Women rising to the top of law firms
The admin/managemen jobs are not the top of any law firm. They are largely ministerial and the jobs and/or people largely dispensable ( in many firms there are, or have been too many people living off the fat) The top jobs are the partnerships, and don't have any illusions about that. There are many good women partners, but if there are not "enough" (and who is to say how many that is?) it is simply because the women are not there when the time comes. You get promoted in your 30s in most large firms, and that's just when you are most likely to be out of action. On the whole you don't get enough time to make a worthwhile career for the benefit of the firm if you are in your 40s, so at best you are likely to be given a lower level of partnership - hence the large number of women salaried partners, also of course combining parenting with work. From my experience, it is the same with GPs. Until women (and their personal partners) are prepared to do what some significant exceptions to the above have done, and work full time with a family, this will not change, nor will it for the support staff