ENgAgiNg MEN iN gENdEr iNiTiATivEs - Catalyst

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5Survey Participants—Work-Related and Personal DemographicsManagement Status Champion Group (N=89) Comparison Group (N=89)Top Management 60.7% (54) 55.1% (49)Middle Management 22.5% (20) 32.6% (29)Lower Management 16.9% (15) 7.9% (7)Non-management 0.0% (0) 4.5% (4)Functional Experience Champion Group (N=85) Comparison Group (N=87)Line 42.4% (36) 57.5% (50)Staff 38.8% (33) 23.0% (20)Both line and staff 18.8% (16) 19.5% (17)Industries with highestrepresentation 82 Champion Group (N=99) Comparison Group (N=96)Chemical and energy 8.1% (8) 9.4% (9)Oil and gas 33.3% (33) 26.0% (25)Public accounting 9.1% (9) 29.2% (28)Age Champion Group (N=85) Comparison Group (N=79)26-35 4.7% (4) 1.3% (1)36-45 23.5% (20) 16.5% (13)46-55 42.4% (36) 59.5% (47)56-65 27.1% (23) 21.5% (17)>65 2.4% (2) 1.3% (1)Marital Status Champion Group (N=85) Comparison Group (N=79)Married 90.6% (77) 92.4% (73)Cohabitating 3.5% (3) 2.5% (2)Separated or divorced 3.5% (3) 1.3% (1)Single, never married 1.2% (1) 2.5% (2)Widowed 1.2% (1) 1.3% (1)Parental Status Champion Group (N=85) Comparison Group (N=79)Have children 94.1% (80) 89.9% (71)Have no children 5.9% (5) 10.1% (8)Gender of Children Champion Group (N=80) Comparison Group (N=70)Male only 17.5% (14) 24.3% (17)Female only 17.5% (14) 22.9% (16)Both male and female 65.0% (52) 52.9% (37)Nationality by Continent Champion Group (N=85) Comparison Group (N=75)Asian-Pacific 5.9% (5) 4.0% (3)European 22.4% (19) 14.7% (11)North American 67.1% (57) 81.3% (61)South American 4.7% (4) 0.0% (0)28 | Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives
Survey Participants: PersonalDemographicsOf champions, 42.4 percent were between theages of 46 and 55, while almost 60 percent of thecomparison group was between the ages of 46 and55. However, there was no significant differencein the proportion of champions and comparisonparticipants in the 36 to 45 age bracket (23.5 percentcompared to 16.5 percent), 83 the 56 to 65 agebracket (27.1 percent compared to 21.5 percent), 84or the 26 to 35 age bracket (4.7 percent comparedto 1.3 percent) 85 . Both groups of participants werealso similarly represented in the over-65 age group(champions at 2.4 percent and the comparisongroup at 1.3 percent). 86An overwhelming majority of both champion andcomparison group participants were married–90.6percent and 92.4 percent, respectively. Mostparticipants in each group were fathers (championsat 94.1 percent relative to the comparison group at89.9 percent), and more than half reported that theyhad both male and female children (champions at65 percent relative to the comparison group at 52.9percent).Lastly, a majority of participants were from NorthAmerica in both the champion and comparisongroups, with North American representationbeing highest among the comparison group atjust over 80 percent. Europeans had the secondhighest representation among both groups ofparticipants (champions at 22.4 percent comparedto the comparison group at 14.7 percent). Othernationality groups were represented in much smallerproportions including, Asian-Pacific (champions at5.9 percent compared to the comparison group at4.0 percent) and South American (champions at 4.7percent compared to the comparison group at 0.0percent).Instructional manipulation checks:Did experts apply the criteria given fornominating respondents as champions orcomparison group respondents?To examine what distinguishes men who championgender equality from those who do not, we reliedon diversity and inclusion experts to nominatepotential participants based on the criteriapreviously described. If these experts did notapply these criteria as instructed they would havecompromised our ability to draw conclusions aboutwhat differentiated men who had been championinggender initiatives from those who had not.Several points give us confidence that we were, infact, successful in selecting respondent samplesthat were differentiated based on the three statedcriteria. First, rather than relying on self-nomination,we asked third-party informants who werediversity and inclusion professionals to identifythe interview and survey respondents. Researchshows individuals are often not the best judgesof their own behavior and that assessments ofthird-party observers can be more accurate. Thisinaccuracy in self-evaluation is due to the fact thatindividuals’ judgments about their own behaviorare often influenced by motivations to portraythemselves in a positive light regardless of theiractual behavior or performance. 87 These findingssuggest that compared to a self-nominationprocess which would likely have compromised ourability to accurately designate participants to ourchampion and comparison respondent groups, ouruse of third-party informants was a more reliablemethod of selecting participants from our two targetpopulations.In addition, we found that champions were morelikely than men in the comparison group to beleading diversity and inclusion initiatives in theirorganizations. 88 Sixty-eight percent of championswere leading one or more initiatives, comparedto 54 percent of respondents in the comparisongroup. As shown in Figure 3, among respondentswho indicated that they were not leading anyinitiatives to promote diversity and inclusion, theWhat Change Agents Need To Know | 29
Page 1 and 2: UNDERSTANDINGMASCULINENORMSinitiati
Page 3 and 4: Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives:
Page 5 and 6: Table of ContentsAbout This Series
Page 7 and 8: About this seriesEngaging Men in Ge
Page 9 and 10: UNDERSTANDING Masculine norms“Tak
Page 11 and 12: HOW MEN COME TO RECOGNIZEGENDER BIA
Page 13 and 14: When I applied to [my company] for
Page 15 and 16: how men express Their awareness of
Page 17 and 18: One Factor Predicts Being aChampion
Page 19 and 20: A CHAMPIONFOR GENDER INCLUSIONRONAL
Page 21 and 22: Even though we and almost all corpo
Page 23 and 24: REcommendationsStrategies To motiva
Page 25 and 26: CATALYST VIEWPOINTWhy AB Volvo’s
Page 27 and 28: Fighting ApathyStudy interviewees,
Page 29 and 30: Discussion Starters for MenSend a s
Page 31 and 32: the study. The study description wa
Page 33: Interview Participants: PersonalDem
Page 37 and 38: Endnotes1 International Labour Offi
Page 39 and 40: of gender bias. We then conducted a
Page 41 and 42: What Change Agents Need To Know | 3
Page 43 and 44: ChairJames S. TurleyChairman & CEOE

ENgAgiNg MEN iN gENdEr iNiTiATivEs - Catalyst

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?