Networking and Pay
Dear Friends of Women in Science,
The Economist ran an article on November 12 that took a look at a study by Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of Toulouse School of Economics. They drew their study from a database of board members in the US and in Europe. What they found showed pay of the board members was influenced by the size of their networks. For example, if you were an executive director with 200 contacts, you'd make 6% less than a similar executive director with 400 contacts. For mere directors as opposed to the executive directors, a similar difference in network size resulted in a 14% pay gap.
The women executive directors on boards earned a 17% lower wage straight up. The authors of the study explained this discrepancy as women's inability to capitalize on networking. Mr. Seabright is quoted as follows, "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships." He went on to say that women were not as good at developming acquaintances into a netword and using that network for maintaining a high personal profile. It seemed to him that was why women could not remain on the radar of those who appoint directors, even when they have achieved success in business.
The authors noted that there was not much difference between men and women in pay for non-executive directors and they also appear to be similar in networking. The article noted that women's success at this lower level might be occurring from pressure for "gender quotas" on the boards. However, the authors noted that a director position was not the real seat of power. The power lies in the executive director level where women's success and pay was notably lower.
What do you think? Have you noticed any difference in interest or ability in the area of networking between men and women of science? Does this possibly apply to us too? Anyone know the results of the NSF study of women's networks that I responded to last year?
cheers,
Laura
Dear Amanda,
I looked at the graph and I think I agree with you. They say that most of the male-female difference is about networking payout. But female lines for pay are clearly lower for both small and large networks. I think they overstated the case. It's true the biggest difference is in high networkers' pay (men's far greater).
cheers,
Livi M
Hi Amanda,
Hmm, interesting to think about. When I was dean, I certainly had a network of scores, but maybe not 400. When I may have had a network that big was when I was president of CUR ( the first female president). Then I knew 10 or so faculty from scores of schools. I also had a run of departmental reviews then, and so I got to know more biology faculty all over the country. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if my network ran to 400 people who were acquaintances about whom I knew some significant facts (research, teaching, sometimes family). But I think I've devoted those neurons to other jobs these days, learning to write!
cheers,
Laura
Hi Laura,
Looking at the graph in that article, I'm not sure they interpreted their data right. But focusing just on the exec directors as a lot of that did, it sure looks like women's networks are less effective/extensive than men's. How many people are in your network, Laura? Did you ever have a huge network in the hundreds, say when you were dean?
ARC
Hi Cindy,
I think that could certainly be part of the reason men think of each other more readily for these talks and awards. I continue to think habit is a big part too, though.
cheers,
Laura
Hi Laura,
I filled out that survey for NSF last year too, but haven't seen the results yet. I think it's clear that men network better. To my way of thinking, that's why they are invited to speak more and win more awards.
Cindy R
