WAPPP Wire

Accepting HKS Class Day Award nominations

2013-05-03T13:26:00.001-04:00

Do you have great classmates organizing students around gender issues? Or a tireless advocate for women in the HKS community? How about an outstanding PAE or SYPA focusing on a gendered topic? Nominate your colleagues now!

The Women and Public Policy Program offers three awards on HKS Class Day. All nominations are due Friday May 10, 2013 by 5 pm, submitted via email to Megan Farwell at megan_farwell@hks.harvard.edu and recipients will presented their award on Class Day.

Keynote address by Rep. Barbara
Jordan, Democratic National Convention
July 12, 1976 (Library of Congress)
"The imperative is to define what is right and do it."
- Barbara Jordan

Barbara Jordan Award for Women’s Leadership

This award honors one graduating student at Harvard Kennedy School for her/his commitment to building community and for serving as a role model for women aspiring to be leaders.

Holly Taylor Sargent Prize for Women’s Advancement

This prize will be awarded to a member of the Harvard Kennedy School community (faculty, staff or student) who has done the most to advance the opportunities, situation and status of women within the HKS community.

Jane Mansbridge Research Award

This award recognizes an outstanding research paper (PAE, SYPA, etc.) whose analysis of an organization or topic is focused on women or gender.

Hannah Riley Bowles on Katie Couric's "Lean In" panel discussion

2013-05-01T13:50:00.001-04:00

Beyond the Glass Ceiling

2013-05-01T00:16:00.000-04:00

Today my friend sent me a link to Boys Clubs Tumblr – a visual collection of “the corners of the world where women have yet to tread.” It is mind-boggling how much progress we still have to make in closing gender gaps.

At WAPPP Seminars this year we discussed some of these “corners of the world.” There are the overwhelmingly male corporate boards, the merely 18 female CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies, and the female stock brokers earning less than their male peers. But we also heard about female leaders helping their countries address inter-group conflict, female professors inspiring young women to pursue STEM careers, and the women mobilizing their communities for land rights.

In the final seminar of the academic year, Professor Matt Huffman, of the UC Irvine Sociology Department and the Paul Merage School of Business, brought research to bear on another question – do women managers change the workplace itself?

There is some evidence that female managers do close gender gaps among their employees. One study found that wage gaps were smaller inlocal U.S. industries with many high-status females. Two other studies explored gender segregation and found that female managers increased female hiring and gender integration in the California savings and loan industry and in California’s state agencies.

Huffman set out to study these phenomena on a much larger scale, using Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s data. EEO-1 reports, which are filed by all “medium and large” firms under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, amount to a set of longitudinal workplace data spanning decades. Each report breaks out the managerial and non-managerial occupations at a specific work site and reports on the number of women and racial minorities in each category. Because the work sites are identified by name and address, the individual files are confidential and only available to a handful of researchers. For Huffman, this presents a goldmine for empirical analysis, complete with information on industry types, organization sizes, and other potential control variables.

Since the data did not include wages, instead of focusing on wage gaps, Huffman decided to study organizational segregation – a measure of how evenly men and women were distributed across the non-managerial categories in the organization. Using regression analysis on 1975, 1986, 1995 and 2005 data, he demonstrated that organizations with a higher percentage of women in management positions were less gender-segregated in the non-managerial ranks.

Though the most recent work places were generally far less gender-segregated than the older cohorts, even without female managers, the pattern across all four points in time was similar – higher percentage of female managers meant more integrated subordinates. In other words, breaking up the boys' club at the top, helped break the barriers among departments and functional areas below.

Huffman ran a series of other analyses to pinpoint aspects of the workplace context that amplified or diminished the gender-integrating effect of female managers on their organizations. He found that managerial formalization and company growth were both conducive to the gender integrating effect of female managers. Perhaps it is because formal structures can give women more access to power than a loose work environment might. It may also be because a female manager in a growing organization has more opportunities to hire people, altering the gender balance of her workforce.

Why does gender diversity and gender integration matter? First, women bring unique lived experiences to the workplace, and given that women are also half of the consumers, it is prudent to include their perspectives in developing and selling products and services. (Maybe if the Apple Inc. team added some women, someone would have thought that iPad could be a bit of an awkward name...). Second, companies with more female leaders make more money and women executives make venture-backed companies more successful, despite the fact that the venture capital world is still decidedly a boys club.

Finally, gender equality is the just and the smart thing to do, which is why WAPPP's work closing gender gaps in economic opportunity, political participation, health and education is so important.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Role Models as "Social Vaccines"

2013-04-23T16:03:00.000-04:00

Do you have everyday role models? Successful people in your field who look like you and aren’t superhuman?

Though I have become comfortable at male-dominated tables, I always look for fellow women in politics. I don’t just mean Hillary Clinton. She certainly inspires me, but she is a super star! It’s the regular women – the chiefs of staff, the policy advisors, and some Members of Congress – that I can look to and think “yeah, that could be me in a few years.”

Nilanjana (Buju) Dasgupta, Professor of Psychology at UMass Amherst, demonstrates that exposure to such role models can act like a “social vaccine” against negative stereotypes. This kind of vaccination by inspiration is especially important for minority groups in high-achievement fields – think women in politics, business, or science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) careers.

Professor Dasgupta and her team tested the Social Inoculation Model with numerous quasi-experimental studies in the real world. They focused on women in the STEM field, which is increasingly going to drive the economy. In STEM careers, women are both a numeric minority and a group facing negative stereotypes (perceptions that women are bad with numbers, etc).

In one study, unsuspecting college students signed up for a calculus class – a required gateway course for all STEM majors. There were 7 female and 8 male professors teaching 15 sections. The professors were also unaware of the experiment’s hypotheses. They had similar experience levels and teaching styles. The syllabi and tests were the same and the grading was done blindly by all professors across the sections.

Twice during the semester the researchers measured students’ attitudes toward math, their self-confidence with math (what grade they thought they would get), and their personal identification with the professor. They found that the female students taught by male professors were less likely to self-identify with math than did their female peers in the sections taught by female professors. Female students were also found to have negative attitudes toward math in sections taught by men, but not by women.

Women in male-taught sections were less self-confident about their mathematical ability – they estimated a lower final grade than did women in the sections taught by women. It is striking that with their final grades the female students in this study significantly outperformed men, regardless of their professor’s gender.

These women obviously had the aptitude for math, but they doubted their own competence...unless their professor was female.

Professor Dasgupta conducted a number of other studies to test various aspects of her theory, trying to understand the mechanisms by which the “social vaccine” worked. She also looked at effects of peers, exposure to experts through media and the effects of the teacher’s gender on students of younger ages.

Drawing on her experiments and the body of related literature, Professor Dasgupta makes a compelling case that for underrepresented groups in high-achievement fields ability alone is not sufficient to succeed. Exposure to relatable role models can mean the difference between staying in and dropping out.

That is why being able to look around and think “sure, I can do what she does” is so important for me and other professional women outnumbered in their fields. And it is even more important for the young girls considering a career in STEM, politics or business.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Agents of Change: Black Women Mobilizing for Land Rights in Brazil

2013-04-12T22:09:00.000-04:00

When I say “social movement leader” who comes to mind? I immediately think of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Ghandi and Cesar Chavez. When even your feminist blogger comes up with three men, there’s definitely an awareness problem. Keisha-Khan Y. Perry, Assistant Professor of Africana Studies at Brown University, spotlights poor black Brazilian women, who are indeed unsung social movement leaders.

Professor Keisha-Khan Y. Perry

The public image of these women in Brazil is that they lack the knowledge and political sophistication needed to organize social movements. In an extensive ethnographic study, Professor Perry documented and examined women’s participation and leadership in neighborhood associations. She demonstrates that the women are far from “passive undereducated servants.” On the contrary, they are savvy organizers and advocates plugged into the needs of their communities.

In her forthcoming book, Black Women Against the Land Grab: The Fight for Racial Justice in Brazil, Professor Perry brings to light not only the level of political sophistication that these women possess, but also the role they play in their communities as “political theorists.” Perry argues that women are the main agents of interpreting the racial, gender, and class dynamics of urban development. These women intentionally organize as blacks, as women, and as the poor, which provides key insights on precisely how intersectionality is mobilized for social change.

Gamboa de Baixo, Salvador, Brazil (photo by Helio Queiroz, Panoramio)

As poor all-Black neighborhoods in Brazilian cities come under threat of demolition and thousands of people face eviction – including for events like the World Cup and the Olympics – the women are leading the charge in empowering and radicalizing local communities.

So when you think of social movement leaders, think of women like Ana Cristina da Silva Caminha, who has led the grassroots movement against land expulsion in her community of Gamboa de Baixo in Salvador, Brazil. She fights not only for access to housing and clean water, but also for the preservation of her community’s soul – its bay-side location, its Afro-Brazilian spiritual practices, and its network of relationships.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Social Norms and Stereotypes: What Happens When Everyone's a Little Bit Sexist?

2013-04-08T09:13:00.003-04:00

Upon seeing one of those “reuse your towel” cards in a hotel, have you ever wondered how many people were actually reusing their towels? An experimental study found that when the message was supplemented with information that “nearly 75 percent of hotel guests reuse their towels,” the guests receiving the message became more likely to reuse their towel than the guests who got the standard note. This is an example of the power of social norms – when the desired action is perceived as the norm, compliance increases. The same mechanism is at work in reverse for an undesirable behavior – people are less likely to litter when they perceive that only a few “anti-social types” litter.

Social norms are often more powerful than explicit messages. The signs in the Petrified Forest National Park used to read something like this: “Don’t take petrified wood, 14 tons a year are being stolen in small pieces.” That last part essentially signaled to the visitor: “everybody is doing it.” When that part was removed, compliance improved.

Now, let’s connect this information to racial and gender stereotyping and bias – generally, people view bias as undesirable and actively work against it. However, the 2000’s saw a growing body of research on unconscious biases. The notion that most people have unconscious stereotypes and biases captivated the popular press. The cover of the Washington Post Magazine on January 23, 2005 read: “Many Americans believe they are not prejudiced. Now a new test provides powerful evidence that a majority of us really are.” So, it’s like the song from Broadway musical Avenue Q, “Everyone's a Little Bit Racist.”

But what does that mean for social norms? Does knowing that everyone has unconscious biases make it seem permissible to let our own biases slide?

Those are the questions Melissa Thomas-Hunt, Associate Professor of Business Administration at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, set out to answer with her colleague Michelle Duguid, Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Washington University in St. Louis Olin Business School. Thomas-Hunt and Duguid designed a series of creative experiments to test how messages of high and low prevalence of stereotyping affect behavior.

In one of the experiments, pairs of women and men were negotiating a car sale. All of the men were told to avoid thinking of others in a stereotypical manner. Some of the men were primed with a “high prevalence of stereotyping” message – they were not told what gender biases might be, just that an influential body of research finds that the majority of people do stereotype. Other men were primed with a “low prevalence” message – that very few people hold stereotypical misconceptions. Yet another set of men received a “high prevalence of counter stereotyping” message – that most people actively try to overcome biased misconceptions.

After the negotiation, the women, who did not know anything about these messages, were asked to rank their opponents' assertiveness. The researchers also compared negotiated price outcomes. The men who were told that most people stereotype, despite being cautioned not to do so themselves, consistently claimed more value in the negotiation and were ranked as more assertive by their female counterparts than were the men in both other groups. The division of value was more equitable in the pairs where men received “few people stereotype” and “most people work to avoid stereotyping.” The men were also perceived to be less assertive by their female counterparts. In other words, the men who perceived the social norm to be in line with stereotypes of women as weak negotiators were more likely to treat them as such, while the men who thought the social norm was to counter stereotypes treated their negotiating partners more equitably.

Thomas-Hunt’s and Duguid’s experiments point to the conclusion that it’s not enough to be aware that we have conscious and unconscious biases. We need social norms to counter these biases. We need a culture in which most people work hard not to stereotype. In companies, this could be a consistent internal message from the highest ranks, but in society it will take all of us holding each other accountable and working not to be even a little bit sexist.

Melissa Thomas-Hunt presented at a WAPPP Seminar titled, "Condoning Stereotyping: How Awareness of Stereotyping Prevalence Impacts Stereotype Expression in Negotiations and Beyond," on April 4, 2013.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

The Politics of Work - Family Policies in France, Germany, and Japan

2013-03-29T09:36:00.000-04:00

The issue of women, mothers, and work has received a lot of attention in recent headlines: which women have the choice to "lean in," try to "have it all," or find some balance that best fits their lives? Just how far can a mother (or father!) lean in when holding a small child without toppling over, and what kind of work policies permit more choice in these matters?

Patricia Boling, Associate Professor of Political Science at Purdue University, dove into these questions as she researched fertility rates, parental leave policies, and child-care options in three different countries. Fertility rates - more easily understood as the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime - are an important driver in adjustments to national work-family policies. France, Germany, and Japan have all faced low fertility rates. This is not necessarily a state concern about women choosing fewer children; rather, the concern here is usually about the economics of supporting an aging population with a decreasing working-age population.

France tackled the issue of declining fertility rates at the turn of the last century, and its pronatalist policies and outcomes may offer some guidance to nations looking to impact their declining populations. The long-standing French policies that support child rearing include a 3-year long gender neutral paid leave, free public school for toddlers, and tax incentives for additional children. Germany followed suit in 2007 by offering a year of paid leave and an increase in state child-care spaces for 1-year-olds. Japan has been adjusting family policies, known as "Angel Plans," since the 1990s, increasing dual-partner leave time, compensation, and supporting child-care programs.

These all sound great, but just how successful have they been? As Professor Boling points out, national work-family policies matter, but no country is a blank slate. Many factors influence a woman's choice to have children: their culture, the political economy of the labor force, gender wage gaps, and the practical impact parental leave has on career choices. The success of work-family policies is often constrained by these factors as well. Institutional capacities, the tradition of administrative political action, the relationship between national policies and local implementation, and the traditions of businesses as political actors and their relationship with training and expectations from employees also impact how these policies play out.

France has experienced some successes with its policies, though challenges remain with the gender balance of parental leave. The long parental leave offers low pay for the parent who chooses to take it, and there are only 11 days of specified paid paternity leave. As a result, women often take repeated leaves and stay in low-skilled jobs with little chance for advancement. While fathers could conceivably take the longer leave, the incentive structure and labor force economy are such that the "gender neutral" leave is in-name-only. Germany's adoption of child-care policies has a strong correlation with geography and history: the former East Germany has high rates of toddlers attending child-care, while the West and South have lower rates and a cultural aversion to mothers who do not stay home with their young children. Japan is more challenged by a number of institutional factors. It has the largest "mommy penalty" in the world: the gendered wage gap between women, men, and mothers. Businesses expect loyalty from employees and are hesitant to invest training in women of childbearing age. These same businesses play a major role in political processes, and may limit the success of attempts to adjust practices.

The lessons to be learned about work-family policies are still developing, as nations around the world continue to shape their responses to declining fertility rates. Professor Boling's discussion was a brief insight into a book currently underway. As our own national conversation continues about leaning in, stepping out, having what we can or want, it is worthwhile to keep our eyes open to other nations and their approaches to women, work, and family.

Valerie Kane is an MPP Candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Podcasting WAPPP Seminars

2013-03-27T10:11:00.001-04:00

Great news for podcast listeners: WAPPP seminars are now available through iTunes University. If you are unable to join us in person, now you can listen to the presentation and discussion on the go.

Here's the link:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/women-public-policy-program/id605400671?mt=10

Thanks for being a part of our community!

The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions

2013-03-15T08:59:00.002-04:00

Imagine for a moment that you are the head of a neighborhood council, a mayor organizing your city council meetings, or the president of a local worker's union. Though the mix of women and men in your group has started to even out over the years, you're finding that the official minutes of your meetings indicate otherwise. Men still make most of the comments on record, and file most of the motions. You're concerned that women's perspectives - and those of the women they represent - aren't being captured. What do you do?

Tali Mendelberg, Professor of Politics at Princeton University, discussed her research at yesterday's WAPPP Seminar that explores how gender gaps in representation affect women and men's voice and influence in small decision making bodies. Professor Mendelberg's research began with the hypothesis that there is a relationship between a group's decision rules, its gender balance, and the representation of women's voices.

By studying five-person School Boards, she found that the gender composition affects both the amount of time women speak, and the types of issues discussed. When there are at least three of five women in the body, it increases discussion of women's issues, or "care" issues, but only if the group makes decisions based on majority rule. If the group follows unanimous rule, where all five people must agree to pass the resolution, then women's issues are discussed more only when men outnumber women.

As for talk time, or discussion participation, women spoke significantly less than men UNTIL there were four women included in a five-member body. That's an 80% tipping point!

How was this measured? Professor Mendelberg and her team looked at the time men and women spent speaking in the group, and found that gender parity was only reached when women were the majority and the group followed majority rule. The group with unanimous rule found its gender parity declining as the number of women in the group increased. These findings carried over to the frequency at which "care" topics were discussed and the number of times women first mentioned these topics.

Professor Mendelberg's research into gender parity in group composition, both in body and voice, and how that impacts the group's decision making processes is a fascinating starting point. Meetings are the backbone of democracy. As more deliberative bodies -- boardrooms, neighborhood councils, even congressional commissions -- find themselves with an increasing number of women (or not!), they would be well served to consider the rules they follow to guide conversation and decision-making.

Further research could help indicate whether these findings carry over to dynamics of other minority groups: how does race, ethnicity, nationality, class, sexuality, or disability factor into deliberative processes? Our identities are multi-faceted, as are our proclivities to express ourselves and hold firm with our convictions and desired outcomes in diverse groups. If you were that leader described in the opening of this post, what would you do? How would you incorporate the voices of minorities in your group, and assure that group decisions reflect their concerns? The research presented yesterday indicates that not only should you look at the composition of your group, but you should look to the rules that you follow, as well. The rules that permit the highest integration of diverse views may shift, depending on the makeup of the group.

Valerie Kane is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School

Changing the Face of Corporate Governance

2013-03-13T10:54:00.000-04:00

In an attempt to promote gender diversity on corporate boards, a number of countries including Norway, France and Spain have adopted quota-based models. According to constitutional lawyers, such a model has no chance in the United States. So when large institutional investors lobbied the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to collect information about corporate board diversity practices, the US adopted a disclosure-based approach to the issue.

In 2010, the SEC began to require publicly traded companies to disclose in their proxy statements certain information about diversity considerations in board nominations. A proxy statement is a special report sent to shareholders in advance of the company's annual meeting.

Aaron Dhir, Associate Professor of Law at the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, combed through the proxy statements of all S&P 100 companies for 2010 and 2011. Two years is not enough time to actually see board composition changes, but Dhir’s qualitative and quantitative content analysis presents a picture of the corporate response so far and raises questions about the efficacy of the SEC rule as a nudge toward greater board diversity.

In contrast to the command and control quotas, the idea behind more subtle nudge-based new governance models is that behavior can be changed by regulations that facilitate reflection by senior executives upon diversity and disclosure of relevant outcomes to the interested public. The approach takes longer to bear results than a simple requirement would, but it is supposed to facilitate change that is perceived less as an imposed burden and more as an organic development.

Under the 2010 SEC rule, annual proxy statements had to include whether the board nominating committee considered diversity in director nominations, if so, how the consideration was made, and if there was a board diversity policy then how this policy was carried out and evaluated.

The SEC did not provide any particular definition of diversity. As a result, Dhir found that the vast majority of companies considered diversity in terms of experience. Some of them considered demographic factors alongside the experiential diversity, but a number of firms limited the discussion at experience, which is, arguably, something that any board would do without any rules. So while the SEC regulation shed light on corporate board practices, it may not have changed those practices in any appreciable way.

Berkshire Hathaway Board of Directors, photo by Gregg Segal, CNN Money

Further bringing into question the rule’s efficacy as a “nudge” is Dhir’s finding of very little change between 2010 and 2011 statements. Ongoing reflection about board diversity would, presumably, be reflected in some kind of practice change from year to year, but it seems like in this case the rule prompted creation of a boilerplate language to be used and re-used. This raises another troubling question – if the rule simply allows corporations to “check the box” on diversity, then it may actually inhibit meaningful progress.

While the spirit of the rule is arguably to foster greater corporate diversity, the letter of the rule as it currently stands does not push companies to change their practices in any way. In fact, it even allows for responses like Berkshire Hathaway’s:

“In identifying director nominees, the Governance, Compensation and Nominating Committee does not seek diversity, however defined.”

Since the rule does not require companies to consider diversity, just to disclose whether or not they do, BH's response is completely appropriate.

This is where the shame factor comes in. For a disclosure-based policy to be effective in changing behavior there has to be an internalized social norm that certain responses will be met with disapproval. However, if there is no such social norm then the disclosure is meaningless.

Dhir argued that while the importance of diversity has been recognized by corporations on an operational level, this mentality has not yet permeated the thinking of boardrooms about their own diversity situation. Several audience members went further, positing that diversity is not even a broadly recognized social norm in the U.S.

Having engaged in discussions on the matter and read comments on articles dealing with race and gender, I recon more Americans would endorse some notion of meritocracy than embrace the intrinsic value of diversity.

To change the face of corporate governance, I believe we need not only a stronger nudge from the SEC, but also more pressure on companies from the institutional investors who pushed for the rule from the beginning. (Like this "Say No to All-Male Boards" campaign). We also need to see more research from organizations like Catalyst, demonstrating that diversity is a smart business practice. Perhaps with a concerted effort we can convince enough people to tip the balance toward making diversity a widely-held social norm.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Happy International Women's Day!

2013-03-08T01:24:00.000-05:00

Unlike my American friends, most of whom do not know about International Women's Day, I have been celebrating it on March 8th my whole life. For a girl growing up in Russia, it was a combination of Mother's Day and "fun day when dad gave me flowers too!" Though I memorized many poems about moms during my elementary school years, I never learned the history of International Women's Day.

Trying to rectify this shortcoming just now, I came upon this website, which is a "global hub for sharing International Women's Day news, events and resources," run by a non-profit with an apparently large number of corporate donors. The history section informed me that this celebration of women began in the socialist movement back in the early 1900's.

The socialist movement kept the idea and the celebration alive for years, which is why the Soviet Union was all about the holiday, spreading it to other countries in its sphere of influence.

It also explains why many Americans have never heard of March 8th and why they stick with just Mother's Day in May. We can blame the Cold War. That is too bad though - I love celebrating mothers, but celebrating all women is a bigger party!

So today, take the moment to wish all the women in your life a happy International Women's Day! And share with them this beautiful song "One Woman" launched by UN Women to celebrate our unity and to raise funds for UN programs that improve the lives of women and girls worldwide.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Diversity to a Deadline: Delivering Everyone's London

2013-02-22T10:27:00.000-05:00

The research is growing: for those of us concerned about diversity and the incorporation of traditionally excluded groups' members and voices into realms ranging from politics and boardrooms, to cubicles and community functions, there is probably a report or an experiment to which we can turn. We can examine the resilience of diverse groups, the challenges they face, and the styles of leadership that guide them best.

Reports and experiments are valuable, but when an entity embraces a goal to integrate diversity and inclusion throughout all functional areas, what does this actually look like?

Stephen Frost, WAPPP Fellow and former Head of Diversity & Inclusion for the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, was faced with this challenge. He spoke yesterday not as an academic, but as a practitioner. Before we begin, watch this fun video for a quick recap of the history of the modern Olympic Games and how this factors into the need for an intentional focus on diversity and inclusion.

Frost approached the task before him with an important guiding principle: it doesn't just happen. Diversity and inclusion (D&I) could not be taken for granted as a given in international games, nor could it be seen as a extra little side program. Rather, D&I needed to be a commitment integrated into all functions and decisions. The question "had to become not why would you do the program, but why wouldn't you?"

The D&I process for the London Olympic Games had three components: understand, lead, and deliver. London's vision was to use the power of the games to inspire change. The bid to the Olympic Committee highlighted diversity - of age, ethnicity, ability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and social status. A wonderful goal, to bring the experience of the Olympics more in line with the myriad of lives gathered in the audience, serving as volunteers, or employed as staff, but how?

Leadership is the key. Frost brought in Desmond Tutu to inspire the board and agency managers. Nearly all at the upper and mid-management level signed the diversity leadership pledge. There were no quotas for hiring; instead, information was monitored and frequently shared. No department wanted to rank at the bottom of this shared list, creating an internally competitive dynamic to meet and exceed all targets. The media caught word of this process, and unfortunately mocked it with headlines like, "Will Britain Take Gold for the Most PC Olympics Ever?"

The proof, however, was in the pudding. This process was not about being politically correct. It was about showing that a commitment to diversity and inclusion could be realized to exceed expectations in a large organization - and that these were, indeed, the people's games. The final part of the D&I process, delivery, illustrated its success. Frost highlighted the D&I efforts in workforce, procurement (supply chain/contractors), and service delivery. Specialized programs reached out to traditionally excluded groups for the workforce, no contract over £20,000 could be awarded unless the contractor met certain D&I standards and was approved by the Diversity Team, and the various needs of different groups were taken into account while designing details such as counter heights and entrances.

Frost challenges practitioners to reframe their perspectives on diversity and inclusion. While a commitment is necessary, there need not be additional programs or requirements - creating a more inclusive workplace need not be a burden. The key is removing barriers to entry, and accepting diversity and inclusion as critical aspects of every day business.

Valerie Kane is an MPP Candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Collective recruitment limits discrimination in hiring

2013-02-19T10:16:00.002-05:00

By Julie Battilana, Associate Professor, Harvard Business School
Originally published in French in Le Monde

February 11, 2013

If the last decade was marked by the willingness of businesses to fight discrimination against women and ethnic minorities, both in hiring and promotions, it should be noted that good intentions haven’t always been followed by results. In fact, far from it.

Among active women in France, only 6% occupy top managerial positions, the same proportion as... 1995. As for ethnic minorities, although the collection of statistics concerning them is not allowed by law, an examination of the French leading class is enough to note their poor representation.
To end discrimination, stereotypes must be eliminated. Yet, these die hard, as a recent study conducted by three researchers at Havard University ("When Performance Trumps Gender Bias : Joint versus Separate Evaluation" working paper published on Social Science Research Network, www.ssrn.com) reveals.

Wanting to better understand hiring and promotion decisions, Iris Bohnet, Max Bazerman and Alexandra van Geen conducted a series of experiments, the results of which suggest a direction for effectively fighting discrimination.

Neutralizing Predjudices

Among the 654 participants in their study, which included men and women, some took on the role of employers and others that of potential employees.

The latter completed a task that tested their aptitude in mathematics. Their performance levels were, afterwards, communicated to employers so that they may choose an employee who would perform this task once more, this time to the employer’s benefit.

The results showed that employers had a negative bias against female candidates when their performances were presented individually and independently from other candidates.

Male candidates whose scores were slightly inferior to the average were selected, while female candidates whose scores were at the average were not. The stereotype according to which women would be less competent than men in mathematical tasks thus heavily skewed employer’s decisions.

Avoiding Selecting Candidates One After the Other

Interestingly, a simple manipulation allowed to do away with this bias: when the performances of female candidates were presented not individually, but at the same time as those of their male counterparts, those with performance levels greater than the other candidates were selected.

To effectively fight against discrimination, businesses should thus avoid selecting candidates one after the other, and instead use a collective method. This approach is being used more and more in recruiting, but it is less widespread in promotion decisions.

This approach is, however, essential because it forces decision makers to rely on the comparative analysis of objective information, which neutralizes prejudices. It is time, for all private and public organizations, to recognize the importance, still today, of these prejudices and to act on them.

Translated from French by the author.

Do Female Leaders Mitigate Negative Effects of Diversity? The Case of National Leaders

2013-02-15T09:59:00.000-05:00

Many of us are familiar with this scene: the boardroom is transformed from a place of suits and reports to one with mellon balls, cheese plates, colorful paper napkins, and mingling coworkers. Yes, this is your average company party. No, the intention is not to keep you in the office longer or find out who has the strangest sense of humor. Rather, these parties are part of a technique utilized by many organizations to overcome what Columbia Business School professor Katherine Phillips calls "the negative effects of Diversity 1.0."

Professor Phillips spoke yesterday about reframing our understanding of the challenges diverse groups face, and the leadership styles that could offer more opportunities for group cohesion and success. Diversity 1.0 represents the interpersonal dynamics that sometimes challenge these groups - often experienced as increased emotional conflict, explained in part by similarity attraction. Diversity 2.0 is the effort to understand what is causing the challenges in 1.0 - what are the underlying structural issues, and how can these be ameliorated?

Let's use some buzz words to frame Diversity 2.0: structural inequality, power differentials, status, disenfranchisement, lack of an empowered voice, and, on the national level, "ethnic fractionalization." With all that these words bring up, can you imagine that company parties would meet the level of challenge highly diverse groups face?

Professor Phillips presented her hypothesis that on the national level, female leaders are particularly fit to confront the challenges of Diversity 2.0. Working with Susan Perkins and Nicholas Pearce, Phillips conducted a nation-wide experiment. The subjects were presented with two different scenarios describing the fictional country Elmoa. Elmoa is either highly diverse, with many different ethnic groups making up the constituency, or has low diversity, with one dominant group making up the significant majority of the population. With very little other information, who do you think should be the next leader: David or Marsha? Who would be the most effective leader? Who will help improve ethnic inequalities?

How do you think the test subjects answered? Interestingly, they chose Marsha as the next leader, who would be the most effective and also improve ethnic inequalities. This was true for both the highly diverse Elmoa, and the low diversity Elmoa. The key finding is the difference between the two candidates: Marsha would be the most effective leader in either scenario, but only by 10 percentage points in the low diversity Elmoa, and by nearly 60 percentage points in high diversity Elmoa.

Okay, great. So now we know something about how test subjects would vote for and rank hypothetical nondescript candidates in a fictional country; how does this translate into real life?

Professor Phillips and her team did not stop their analysis here. They took their hypothesis to real-world data collected on national female leaders who served from 1950-2004. The good news? The number of female leaders has quadrupled in the last fifty years. The bad news? Female leaders were only 5% of all leaders during this time, and some of these were queens. Phillips removed those with royal regalia from the analysis.

How did these female leaders perform, especially in countries with high diversity and high levels of political and social difficulty? Pretty well, it seems. One way to measure performance is growth in GDP. Running statistical tests, Phillips and her team found that women leaders did indeed have a measurable effect in positively improving GDP growth in highly diverse, difficult-to-manage countries.

Does this mean that you should boycott company parties, believing in their futility, until you get a female CEO? Probably not. Does it mean that highly diverse nations with many social and economic difficulties are destined to struggle more if their leader is a man? Certainly not. These findings offer a beam of light onto the questions of gendered leadership style - actual and perceived - and outcomes. They offer information, and questions to keep the conversation alive and moving.

Valerie Kane is an MPP Candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School.

The Stories We Tell Ourselves

2013-02-08T01:30:00.000-05:00

Photo courtesy of Forbes.com

“Most of us think that we’re better drivers than the average person, and we really think we’re more honest and morally upstanding than the average person,” says Michael Norton, Associate Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. He has been studying how people can lie and yet think that they are perfectly great, honest individuals. You might think he is interested in politicians or car dealers, but actually this is about regular people like you and me. We are quite prone to engaging in questionable behavior, yet we are very good at finding excuses for problematic decisions and even tricking ourselves into believing that we did not cheat.

He described a simple experiment – college men were asked to pick between subscriptions to two sports magazines. The magazine descriptions were identical except for the fact that one offered more articles per issue and the other covered a broader array of sports. The preferences split half and half. However, when one of the magazines also offered a swimsuit edition, that magazine became the overwhelming choice. They were then asked to explain why they picked the magazine. The men in the group whose “more articles” magazine offered the swimsuit edition explained that they valued having more articles, while the men whose swimsuit issue was packaged with the “more sports” magazine were equally emphatic that they liked reading about a wider variety of sports.

Perhaps the guys just did not want the researchers to know their true motivation, but what if they were not even aware of their choice process? And what if their decision was more consequential? In a similar experiment, hypothetical managers of a cement manufacturing company (a stereotypically male field) were asked to select between two applicants – one had more education, the other more experience. Those ‘employers’ whose more experienced candidate was named Lisa, overwhelmingly chose the other candidate named Dan, citing the importance of education credentials. But those whose Lisa was more educated, hired Dan because he had more experience. When told in advance that they would be accountable for their decision, the subjects simply became more vociferous in explaining the importance of whichever non-questionable characteristic they picked, sometimes writing whole essays about their choice and how they never took gender into account.

These experiments have implications for hiring, promotions, political recruiting and college admissions, among other fields. Are we really guided by objective criteria when we read an application, interview someone or consider them for promotion? All signs point to people making the biased choice and then justifying it with the most conveniently available “objective” information. Perhaps even more troubling is the notion that you and I might be completely unaware of our own questionable behaviors, whether they are gender-biased, race-biased or simply dishonest. After all, we are more morally upstanding and more enlightened than the average person, right?

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

The Conversation Continues

2013-02-05T18:24:00.000-05:00

In the last month, a couple of important things happened in the world of gender news:

U.S. Department of Defense removed the ban on women serving in combat roles.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - arguably the most powerful woman in American politics - ended her tenure at the State Department, highlighting gender equality as "the unfinished business of the 21st century."
WAPPP Wire ran its first guest blogger series, inviting men to write about gender.

Ok, one of these things is not quite as high-profile as the others, so if you missed #3, please take a look at the statistics in "Why Diversity Matters in Medicine" and read the story of a brave woman named Pashtana in "Providing a Voice to Afghan Women". I would like to thank Robert and Dan for taking the time to engage in this conversation. I hope that by adding their voices to the discussion, they reached a new audience of American men, like Pashtana did with Afghan women.

To continue the conversations on gender issues affecting all of us, I hope more HKS men will attend the weekly WAPPP Seminars held on Thursdays at 11:40am in the WAPPP Cason Seminar Room. This semester's line-up will range from the Olympics to the boardroom to "questionable behavior." Intrigued? Come this Thursday, February 7 (there is lunch too!).

And if you (man or woman) have an idea to contribute to this blog, please contact me at anya_malkov@hks13.harvard.edu, and let’s keep talking about gender!

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Guest Post: Providing a Voice to Afghan Women

2013-01-17T13:39:00.000-05:00

On a quiet Friday morning, as I exited the gates of the Afghan Special Operations Compound on the outskirts of Kabul, my interpreter and I set out to pick up Pashtana, the first woman DJ I hired to work at my radio station. As the three of us returned to the checkpoint, we were stopped at gunpoint. Through the yelling and gesturing, my interpreter relayed to me that the guards assumed she was a prostitute. Was it even possible that this was the guards’ only logical conclusion for her presence at their base? Sadly, it was.

After over a decade of American involvement in Afghanistan, the all too familiar plight of the Afghan woman has become an unfortunate symbol of sluggish progress made in the country. Although there are some successful efforts to advance the status of women in Afghanistan, the push toward equality cannot be too strong and the results cannot come soon enough. In the war-torn society with deep-rooted gender roles, empowering Afghan women to seize a leading role in educating their society could prove to be successful in the fight against inequality.

Photo by Tech. Sgt. Gloria Wilson

Two years ago I deployed to Afghanistan as an advisor to the Afghan Special Operation Command. I was charged with training the Afghan Commandos in operations to inform the civilian population and counter enemy propaganda, helping build trust between the civilian population and the government. In distant, hard-to-reach villages, where illiteracy is rampant, Commandos use radio stations to disseminate their message to a wider audience.

Our largest radio station, in Kabul, employed Afghan DJ's who devoted much of the programming to interviews pertaining to military operations, presenting a dominantly male perspective. It soon became clear that we were ignoring half the population. The strategy of employing women on the front lines to reach out to other women has grown in popularity over the years in Afghanistan, where men and women often live segregated lives. Thus, I sought out local Afghan women who were interested in devoting their time and, consequently, risking their lives to reach a female audience over the radio.

Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Marcus Quarterman

Through radio broadcasts, Pashtana became our link to Afghan women and, in turn, the station became Pashtana’s means for advancing the discussion of gender equality. Each week she would record commentary and interviews on location, for instance, at a women’s health clinic or a girls’ school. Then after each feature aired on Friday, she opened the phone lines to discuss topics of interest with the audience. With each broadcast we received hundreds of calls from both men and women willing to openly discuss these culturally sensitive topics. And over time, the success of her weekly shows demonstrated just how significant such communication can be in terms of enhancing the exchange of ideas and increasing our understanding of public sentiment.

I remember standing at the gate to the Afghan military compound on Pashtana’s first day. I noted how stoically she sat, unfazed by the accusations and AK-47s. We were eventually granted access and the next day I sat quietly in the Afghan Special Operations Commander’s office. He expressed his apologies to Pashtana and articulated her essential role at the radio station; and I couldn’t have been more proud as she graciously accepted, determined to assume that responsibility.

Dan McConnell is a former US Army Officer and current MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School. You can reach him for questions or comments at dan_mcconnell@hks14.harvard.edu.

Guest Post: Why Diversity Matters in Medicine

2013-01-10T09:00:00.000-05:00

Earlier this fall, I had the opportunity to attend the 97th Annual Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons. It's the meeting of the bigwigs. Surgeons from across the country travel to Chicago to attend top-notch skill sessions, expert panels, and lectures on leading research. Speakers feature the premiere innovators and investigators in their specialties. As a medical student, I attended residency interview training sessions and resident panels. I also made sure I took the opportunity to take a step back and soak in the entire experience. I wrote down some of my first impressions...

#1 - There are lots of white men here.

I've written quite a bit about the importance of mentorship on my blog, specifically about how mentors have shaped my career trajectory. I'm not sure that I would've chosen General Surgery without the skilled and caring surgeons I worked with in Asheville and Linville, NC. I certainly wouldn't have considered rural surgery without briefly living the craft, getting to know surgeons who have worked in a rural area for many years and then moved back into academia. I cannot stress how important it has been that people like me are already doing what I want to do. With this knowledge, I believe I can accomplish as much as they have, and even push the boundaries.

Aspiring leaders want to know that their dreams are reachable. First, they must have access to the necessary resources (e.g. students of low socioeconomic status must have the educational and financial means to even get to medical school). Second, they want to see someone who has come from their position... and succeeded. Politics aside, it is no longer a question whether an African American can be the President of the United States. We now have a black Commander and Chief. It is no longer a distant dream of possibility; the path has been forged. Resources and mentorship: our youth need both to succeed.

So why is diversity a problem for medicine? I've focused quite a bit on rural disparities. One quarter of the US population lives in a rural area, yet only one out of every ten physicians works there. This population is in dire need of primary care physicians and general surgeons. Studies have shown that women are more likely than men to go into primary care and minority medical students are more likely to care for underserved and indigent populations. Yet only 6.3 percent of the American physician workforce is black. And women make up only a third of all physicians.

Of course, in 1970, women made up less than one tenth of all physicians, so great strides have been made. But the progress is slow, and often the leadership lacks diversity. I guess this is to be expected, since the more experienced clinicians trained at a time when the medical profession was almost exclusively white men. And their mentors were probably white men, and their mentors were white men.

To change this pattern we need to work on access to resources, and make sure there is an increasingly diverse group of mentors. In both regards, medicine can (and will) improve.

Of course, I am another white man. So I guess I'm not helping the statistics.

Robert Swendiman is an MD candidate at UNC School of Medicine and an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he is also a Dubin Fellow at the Center for Public Leadership. You can read more on his blog The Language of Medicine.

Let's Talk About Gender

2013-01-03T11:00:00.000-05:00

Today the 113^th Congress is getting sworn in. There is more gender diversity this time than ever before – 20 out of 100 Senators and 81 out of 435 Representatives are women. Still, the gender gap is evident.

There is also a gender diversity issue among people who like to learn about gender gaps. Among attendees of weekly WAPPP seminars last semester, the percentage of men in the room never got above 30 percent. And when 60 people crowded into the room for a particularly well-attended session on “Race, Gender and Dynamics of Social Hierarchy Reversal”, only 7 of them were men – 12 percent.

This is disappointing to me. I want to discuss gender with women and men, because social and political implications of gender affect all of us. Instead I face the situation that Debora Spar described best:

“All too often, women are scared of raising the topic of gender with men, thinking it will brand them as radicals or troublemakers, while men are terrified of saying or doing anything that might classify them as politically incorrect. The result, of course, is that no one says anything productive at all.”

This observation stood out to me as a rarely-acknowledged truth, even though it was not the focus of her article.

In an attempt to spark dialogue, I asked a few of my male colleagues at the Harvard Kennedy School to share some thoughts on gender in the context of their personal and professional experiences. I will feature their posts over the next couple of weeks.

If you are a male reader interested in contributing to these guest-blogger series, please contact me at anya_malkov@hks13.harvard.edu, and let’s talk about gender!

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Young Women in Congress: Kyrsten Sinema

2012-12-27T12:24:00.000-05:00

As soon as she walked into the Newly Elected Members of Congress Conference at Harvard, Congresswoman-elect Kyrsten Sinema lit up the room with her personality – exchanging greetings with her colleagues like they were old friends, meeting Kennedy School staff and students with genuine interest. It was refreshing to see this dynamic young woman, stylish and hip, in a room dominated by suits, grays, khakis and blues. Her personal style reflected and amplified this energy – a splash of color rivaled only by Congressman-elect Joe Kennedy’s bright red hair.

Before I get in trouble with fellow feminist bloggers for focusing on looks – I was impressed above all by Congresswoman Sinema’s seriousness of purpose and sharp political sense. Her relentless commitment to her constituents was evident and her energy contagious.

Below is a recreation of our conversation based on my notes.

When did you know you would run for office?

I was a social worker, and I saw that the system was not set up for these kids to succeed. So I figured if I just go down to the state legislature and tell them what needs to be done to fix it, they would fix it. So I did that, and they all thought it was so cute…and they didn’t do anything. That’s when I said, ‘you know what, I will take your job and do it better’. That’s when I decided to run.

What was most challenging about the congressional campaign?

Everything! It was a tight race that turned nasty with lots of outside money. The worst was hearing terrible things said about me on TV, knowing they weren’t true, but not having any recourse. I just had to keep on telling my story.

What (if anything) was easier than you expected?

I am lucky – I grew up in Arizona and I had been a community organizer for years, so I know the people in my district. What was amazing is that when I asked people for help, they came out in droves and helped. It was inspiring.

Did your community organizing experience translate into your campaign?

Oh, it’s the same thing! Community organizing is all about getting people to come together and be part of solving a problem, which is what campaigns are supposed to be, right? When people truly are invested and feel that they are part of the solution, that’s very powerful.

Advice to young women thinking about running for office?

If someone tells you that you can’t do something – ignore them. Look, I’m young, a woman, openly bisexual, not a member of a faith community, so yes, some people were telling me I shouldn’t run, that I couldn’t win, but I did.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Young Women in Congress: Tulsi Gabbard

2012-12-19T19:51:00.000-05:00

Congresswoman-elect Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from the 2^nd district of Hawaii, stands out in the newly-elected Congressional class. She and Tammy Duckworth are the first female combat veterans elected to Congress. At 31, Gabbard is also among the youngest House members.

At Harvard's Newly Elected Members of Congress Conference last week, I found her at a reception, surrounded by a tight circle of admiring, attentive students. Most of the students were women of South Asian descent. They were clearly inspired by Congresswoman Gabbard, who also happens to be the first Hindu-American elected to Congress.

She was genuinely focused on the students, and when we finally had a moment to talk, she answered my questions with the same earnestness.

Below is a recreation of our conversation based on my notes.

When did you know you would run for office?

At 21. I had no political ambition growing up, I am an introvert and the quietest one of my siblings. But I always wanted to serve, to be part of a greater good. So at 21 I was taking a break from college and there was an open state senate seat, so I figured I could be in the classroom, talking about making a difference, or I could actually be making a difference in this position.

What did you find most challenging about the Congressional campaign? What, if anything, was easier than you anticipated?

Fundraising was the most challenging. The most fun part was being out there connecting with voters.

Even for an introvert?

*Laughs* I got better at it. But really, I love being with constituents and listening to their stories and their problems. It’s about letting them know that they are my boss – that I am working for them. One of the things we do in Hawaii, when you run for office, you have to stand on the side of the road in the early morning as people are going to work, and I loved doing that, just meeting constituents and getting to know them.

What would you tell young women considering running for office?

Anything is possible if your motivation comes from the right place. It has to come from the heart, it has to be genuine servant leadership, because if it’s not genuine then the voters will know. If you’re not connecting with them genuinely, they will see that and they will ignore you.

After we spoke, another group of students surrounded the Congresswoman-elect, and she greeted them as warmly as she greeted me, answering their questions with unflagging energy.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Under Pressure!

2012-12-08T13:36:00.000-05:00

Papers, finals, job search, the holidays – the pressure of it all! I was hoping to learn in this seminar that being a woman would somehow improve my performance. What I did learn was not quite so straightforward, but still fascinating. Some experimental studies in recent years had found that in a mixed-sex environment, the pressure of competition improved men’s performance, but not women’s, and that women often opted out of competitive environments. Olga Shruchkov, Assistant Professor of Economics at Wellesley College, noticed something about those experiments. The “tasks” which subjects performed under competitive pressure were invariably math-oriented, like addition problems and mazes, and there was no range of performance quality, only right or wrong answers.

Shruchkov designed an experiment that would fill these gaps – a Boggle-like verbal task, a comparable math task and a difference between competitive pressure and time pressure. This experimental design was not only creative, but also rigorous, with relevant controls, task-consistency mechanisms and a whole range of variables to measure. The experiments replicated previous findings that under time pressure on math tasks men attained higher scores and had a higher propensity to select into tournaments.

The innovative experimental design also yielded important new insights. On verbal tasks under time pressure, women performed as well as men and had a similar propensity to enter competitions. In a verbal competition under time pressure, women did slightly better than men. Things really took off once the time pressure was lowered – women outperformed men on the verbal tasks under competition. On the math task with low time pressure, women and men performed similarly both with and without competition. Interestingly, giving more time for the math task doubled the number of women who elected to compete. So it’s not the pressure of the competition or inherent math abilities that were hurting the performance of women in earlier experiments – it was time!

Why did time help women so much more than the men? Making the competition about total points, not speed, allowed for a measurement of the quality dimension. A look at the kinds of words women were finding when given the time reveals an emphasis on quality – they made longer words and made fewer mistakes. The men, on the other hand, went for quantity of words and in the process lost points for misspellings and typos. Perhaps more women participated in the math tournament when they had more time, because it allowed them to check their calculations more thoroughly.

Professor Shruchkov was careful with drawing policy implications out of experimental results, but she suggested that take-home exams in math and science might help more girls excel in those subjects early on, which could get more of them interested in pursuing those careers. Personally, I am tempted to use the results to ask for a final paper extension right now! I wonder what Shruchkov tells her students when they try to do that.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Marriage Market: Love and Financial Planning

2012-11-29T23:30:00.001-05:00

“I take thee as my lawfully wedded husband and my social insurance for old age” makes for an awkward wedding vow, but a plausible one. Petra Persson, Ph.D. Candidate at Columbia University and a WAPPP fellow, examined the effects of social insurance policies on the marriage market. Through econometric modeling, she demonstrated the effect of a specific policy change in Sweden in 1989 on the decision of couples to marry.

The idea is that when Sweden changed its survivor benefits policy in 1989, there was an announcement that unmarried couples who had a child could get married by the end of the year and still qualify for the “old” benefits. The new benefits were significantly lower – a one-time payment to the surviving spouse, versus an annuity to the surviving wife under the old system. Lo and behold, a record number of couples got married in the last quarter of 1989. There were also differences in divorce rates and other indications that the marriage market responded to the change in social insurance policy.

In the case of Sweden, the reform was not intended to incentivize marriage, but the fact that there was a marriage market response has implications for when it’s optimal to separate social insurance from marriage. Ms. Persson argues, convincingly and quantitatively, that the society’s gender wage gap is the key determinant of whether it’s optimal to separate social insurance from marriage.

In a hypothetical country with large gender gaps and a traditional structure where everyone marries for life and husbands are the breadwinners, there are economic gains from tying benefits to marriage. The social insurance helps the surviving woman who cannot provide for herself. In the opposite hypothetical scenario, where not everyone marries but everyone works, there are no gains from tying benefits to marriage. In fact there are losses when money is transferred to a survivor who is self-sufficient without it. In a realistic society where there is an intermediate gender wage gap, a social planner faces the trade-off between protecting the elderly women from poverty and distorting the marriage market.

To illustrate the trade-off, consider that the reforms in Sweden took place for budgetary reasons, but were couched in gender equality rhetoric – under the new system, it didn't matter whether a man or woman was the survivor, he or she would get the same one-time benefit. Sweden in the 1980’s, of course, still had its share of traditional marriages and women who did not work. Since women typically live longer, the removal of the widow annuity resulted in an increase in number of destitute old women. The government then had to step in again and provide welfare payments to these women – essentially creating a safety net program where the social insurance proved insufficient.

On the one hand, providing a safety net for the elderly is more equitable – a social safety net does not distinguish whether the man or woman was ever married. Why should we reward marriage, distorting the marriage market? On the other hand, social insurance is something every working individual pays into to tap in old age; so if this person dies before claiming the benefit, it is plausible that his or her family deserves some share of that money.

These are the fundamental questions of social policy design. As evidenced by the Swedish example, the policies that flow from these questions have practical financial planning implications for couples contemplating taking the plunge…because nothing says “I love you,” like a conversation about social insurance.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Winning Without the War on Women

2012-11-27T20:45:00.000-05:00

The euphoric post-election story goes something like this – women rocked the vote, both as voters and as candidates. There are now 20 women in the U.S. Senate – a historic number. Our very own Massachusetts elected its first woman to the Senate. New Hampshire became the first state to have an all-female Congressional delegation and a female governor.

As we celebrate this historic moment, however, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that women are on some kind of irreversible trajectory to reaching political parity. The current advances are a product of targeted efforts by political parties. Unless female politicians and aspiring candidates want to remain dependent on the salience of ‘rape’ and ‘abortions’ in the next election cycle, they must use this moment to push beyond the so-called “women’s issues.”

It is tempting to say that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recruited record numbers of female candidates simply because its chair, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), is a women’s champion. She is, of course, but she is also an astute political operator, as is her counterpart at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), who recruited a record number of female candidates for the House. Political parties are not altruistic actors.

Parties can play a major role in bringing about gender parity, but the goal of party establishments is to win a majority. Parties do not recruit a certain type of candidate because it would build a more representative Congress. Parties recruit candidates who can win. It is not difficult to surmise that in the context of a “Republican war on women,” the best Democratic candidates would be women.

The success of Democratic recruitment efforts is evident. Of the 20 women in the Senate, 16 are Democrats and 4 are Republicans. The House, with 58 Democratic and 20 Republican women, beats previous records, and white men are no longer the majority of the House Democratic Caucus. Clearly, when parties decide to recruit and elect women, they are able to do so.

So what happens in the next election when there is no more “war on women”? The political establishment will search for candidates who can win on whatever issue dominates the discourse. If women want to be in the game, then they have to use the current wave to assert their leadership and demonstrate the value of a female perspective on all issues.

Yes, it is unfair – men as a group are never required to prove their fitness to govern – but if any group of women could change the game, it is the newly elected class. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), has big banks shaking in their boots. Wall Street lobbyists are working overtime to prevent her from getting on the Senate banking committee, and she has not even been sworn in yet. Enemies foreign and domestic should be likewise terrified of Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). Both have served in combat with distinction, and Duckworth has the prosthetic legs and the Purple Star to show for it.

These are just a few examples. Let’s hope that the women in Congress can show their parties, their constituents and the country that they are not to be confined to a narrow set of issues. Until this happens, progress toward parity will remain slow, uneven and reactionary.

*****
For more information:

Center for American Women and Politics, Election Watch Fact Sheet

Time, "Four Ways Women Won the 2012 Election"

Forbes, "Did America Just Elect its First Woman President?"

Washington Post, "Women Make Historic Gains in the US Senate"

The Telegraph, "US Election: Here come the girls as women make historic gains"

*****

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Empowering Afghan Women

2012-11-15T23:25:00.000-05:00

Whispering wind skims sides of sand dunes. A young girl, maybe eight years old, is heaving yellow plastic canisters toward a clay hut. In an Afghan village, where the gray beards make all decisions, fetching water is a girl’s duty. This is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman, but one woman – MIT Professor Fotini Christia – keeps coming back. She has interviewed war lords, studied alliances of Taliban fighters, and now she is surveying villagers to evaluate the impact of the National Solidarity Program.

The NSP is the largest development program in Afghanistan’s history and is unusually popular. Though it is funded by the World Bank and foreign governments like any other development scheme, the Afghans own the process. Afghan government administers the NSP to 29,000 villages through a system of elected local community development councils (CDCs), which decide on infrastructure projects for their community. These councils are not the usual circles of bearded men. For a village to receive aid, half of the CDC members must be women and at least one project must be targeted to women’s needs.

What is the impact of this program on women in this male-dominated society? That is one of the parameters Professor Christia is evaluating in a randomized field experiment. Because the program could not be delivered to all villages at once, she was able to select 250 villages for the treatment group and 250 similar villages for the control group. Her team of dedicated enumerators trekked to these remote villages to survey and interview residents in 2007, before projects commenced, then in 2009, and finally in 2011 when the projects were completed. The final evaluation results are not yet available, but Professor Christia shared some preliminary findings.

The most hopeful results were in relation to attitudes toward women’s civic participation, socialization and economic activity. Namely, in villages that received the NSP both men and women were more likely to say that women should have input on electing the village head and that there is at least one woman in the community who is well respected by both men and women. These villagers were also less likely to say that women should not have any decision-making roles. Moreover, women in the treatment villages were more likely to have become engaged in an income-generating activity, and to have developed support networks with each other. On the family attitude front, however, no statistically significant differences were observed with regard to women owning assets or being consulted about family spending decisions.

Changing entrenched gender roles is difficult enough at Harvard and MIT, not to mention a conservative village in the heart of a country ravaged by civil war.With that in mind, Professor Christia makes a compelling case that the NSP and the ongoing participation of women in local decisions is critical to moving Afghanistan forward. For instance, in selecting infrastructure projects for their communities, women were more likely than men to invest in wells and schools. Perhaps with a shorter distance to haul water, their daughters will be more likely to go to school.

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

WAPPP Wire

Accepting HKS Class Day Award nominations

Keynote address by Rep. Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention July 12, 1976 (Library of Congress) "The imperative is to define what is right and do it." - Barbara Jordan Barbara Jordan Award for Women’s Leadership

Holly Taylor Sargent Prize for Women’s Advancement

Jane Mansbridge Research Award

Hannah Riley Bowles on Katie Couric's "Lean In" panel discussion

Beyond the Glass Ceiling

Role Models as "Social Vaccines"

Agents of Change: Black Women Mobilizing for Land Rights in Brazil

Social Norms and Stereotypes: What Happens When Everyone's a Little Bit Sexist?

The Politics of Work - Family Policies in France, Germany, and Japan

Podcasting WAPPP Seminars

The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions

Changing the Face of Corporate Governance

Happy International Women's Day!

Diversity to a Deadline: Delivering Everyone's London

Collective recruitment limits discrimination in hiring

Neutralizing Predjudices

Avoiding Selecting Candidates One After the Other

Do Female Leaders Mitigate Negative Effects of Diversity? The Case of National Leaders

The Stories We Tell Ourselves

The Conversation Continues

Guest Post: Providing a Voice to Afghan Women

Guest Post: Why Diversity Matters in Medicine

Let's Talk About Gender

Young Women in Congress: Kyrsten Sinema

Young Women in Congress: Tulsi Gabbard

Under Pressure!

Marriage Market: Love and Financial Planning

Winning Without the War on Women

Empowering Afghan Women

Keynote address by Rep. Barbara
Jordan, Democratic National Convention
July 12, 1976 (Library of Congress)
"The imperative is to define what is right and do it."
- Barbara Jordan

Barbara Jordan Award for Women’s Leadership