According to new research, IPO firms with male CEOs get the advantage with investors, compared to those with female CEOs. This news probably comes as no surprise, but the nuances revealed by the study point to a conclusion that should be concerning to anyone who works in a field characterized by the term “meritocracy.”

More and more research is showing that gender weighs heavily on the equation when it comes to jobs, promotions, paychecks, and – in the case of the study – how much investors are willing to pour into a business.

A working paper recently released by researchers from the University of Utah and Washington University in St. Louis suggests that female led IPO firms do worse than male ones. The study says, “Despite identical personal qualifications and firm financials, female Founder/CEOs were perceived as less capable than their male counterparts, and IPOs led by female Founder/CEOs were considered less attractive investments.”

Moreover, the researchers say, even though prospective investors were presented with identical information on performance, experience, and qualifications, “Female CEOs were seen as less experienced, less able to lead, less able to resolve TMT disputes and board deadlocks, as well as a less favorable representative of the company in the eyes of the public.”

Women continue to be perceived as less capable leaders than men, simply because they are women. While many companies purport to be meritocratic in the way they reward top producers, studies like these show that we’ve got to wonder what kinds of gender biases play into sponsorship and promotion within companies, as well as investments into IPO firms.

Cultural Bias Against Female Leaders

This study, which will be published in an upcoming edition of the Journal of Management, shows that gender bias is not about the numbers – it’s about attitudes and culture.

Lyda Bigelow, co-author of the study and assistant professor at the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business, said, “Bias against top-level female executives seems entrenched despite strides women have made in filling management positions within firms making their initial public offerings (IPOs).”

Along with Bigelow, the other researchers included Leif Lundmark, University of Utah – Department of Management; Judi McLean Parks, Washington University in Saint Louis – Olin Business School; and Robert Wuebker, University of Utah – David Eccles School of Business.

The experiment presented groups of MBA students (about 20% female) with data on fictitious companies, and the students were asked to assess whether the firms would be good investments. The study authors also noted that the skill level of the participants wasn’t far from the real world – “the initial analysis of IPO firms is a task of junior staff in an institutional investment firm (often a recent MBA graduate).”

The researchers switched only the gender make up of senior individuals in the company (switching names and photos, but keeping all the other information the same). It turned out that the gender make up of the management team didn’t have much of an effect on investment decisions, but the gender of the CEO had a significant impact. The researchers wrote:

“The recommended percentage to invest in the IPO was almost four times higher for firms with male CEOs at the helm than for those with female CEOs. Moreover, the anticipated share price of IPOs led by male CEOs was approximately 11% higher than those of female led IPOs.”

Even when presented with identical data (the researchers even went so far as to screen the management team photos in advance to ensure they were of equal attractiveness), investments decisions are influenced by leadership gender.

As many recent reports have pointed out, sponsorship is how individuals move up the ladder in companies. A sponsor is a powerful senior ally who advocates for individuals they believe in. Gaining access to sponsors is critical for getting the stretch assignments that lead to advancement.

Acknowledging that these relationships are the real force behind who gets promoted, especially at more senior ranks, has led companies to develop programs to increase the sponsorship of women and minorities – people who powerful individuals within companies (usually white males) may overlook.

But the key factor is that sponsorship is all about individual relationships. It is difficult to create corporate programs that encourage individuals to build relationships that are based on trust and power. These programs seek to institutionalize relationships that have been, in the past, invisible or political.

The challenge is not simply to get one person to sponsor someone they might not normally think about – it’s to get lots of people to sponsor new faces. Scaling up sponsorship requires a cultural shift in attitudes and the acknowledgement on behalf of senior individuals that they must be part of this change.

Here are three factors that companies need to implement in order to successfully scale up sponsorship on a programmatic basis.

1. Understand the Risks for Leaders

Recently Ernst & Young released a report discussing best practices for overcoming the challenges associated with sponsorship, “The Corporate Sponsor as Hero: Advancing Women Into Leadership Roles.”

The firm suggested that companies need to recognize the inherent risks that leaders themselves face in supporting individuals who, traditionally, may have been overlooked for leadership.

For example, the report discusses work done by Noor Abid, Ernst & Young’s Assurance Leader for the Middle East and North Africa. Based in Bahrain, the report explains, “…he is leading efforts to overturn customs that hinder women’s progress in business.” This takes courage, EY says. “A sponsor puts his or her reputation on the line to advocate and often advance women for leadership positions, often in the face of significant resistance.”

2. Hold Leaders Accountable for Sponsorship

EY also recommends keeping track of advancement metrics related to sponsorship programs, in order to ensure executives will take them seriously. For example, the report says:

“At Chubb, executives are accountable for increasing the number of women in senior ranks. The process is built into Chubb’s management practices, such as ‘very robust’ succession planning and mentoring programs that transcend borders. While there are no quotas, there are performance metrics for expected outcomes…”

Keeping track of program outcomes, and communicating to leaders that they will be evaluated on these outcomes, will compel them to participate meaningfully.

3. Express that Talent Management Transcends HR

Finally, the study also points out that, particularly at the upper levels of a company, leaders must understand that they are a critical piece of the talent management pipeline. By giving them a stake in succession planning, the future of their company becomes part of their job as well, not just something for HR to figure out.

The report explains, “Getting to that point involves a multi-¬faceted plan with champions at all levels, and across it all is a high-¬level version of sponsorship that acts on behalf of the organization to create the environment and imperative for sponsorship of specific individuals.”

For example, it continues, at Harris, executives make time for strategic talent management about every quarter. “Three or four times a year… executives come together for a strategic talent review. Leaders across each of the business units inventory the pipeline of talent and skills in light of current or anticipated openings among the leadership ranks.”

By creating an environment in which leaders have an understanding of sponsorship as a means to influence the future of the company, sponsorship moves from an individual relationship to an institutional program.

Recently North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue told MSNBC that the state’s ban on gay marriage would hurt its business environment. The Hampton Rhodes Pilot quoted:

“This is a big day for North Carolina. Chuck, this hurts our brand,” Perdue said. “Our state has been known around America and around the world as a progressive leader, as an inviting state, the hub of business and opportunity. This is bad for business.”

In fact, she’s not the only one. Many of the state’s corporate leaders have been outspoken on North Carolina’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, which passed last week. For example, as the Advocate mentioned recently, “Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy, has compared the amendment to the Jim Crow laws, and Cathy Bessant, technology chief at Bank of America, taped a video saying that the amendment would signal a ‘backward-looking economy.’”

These are strong words, and for these business leaders to come out so strongly in support marriage equality in a fairly conservative state, it no doubt took a lot of courage as well. Does the fact that some – like Bessant – have related their public stance on these values to business indicate that they have their company’s support or speak for their company? For that matter, when a CEO makes his or her personal beliefs public – like Rogers, are they ever separate from his or her company’s cultural values?

Leveraging Clout

At the recent Out on the Street conference at Bank of America in New York City, several business leaders spoke about their support for LGBT inclusiveness. For example, Brian Moynihan, Bank of America’s CEO, said that he wanted to make sure the company was a place where employees could come to work without leaving part of themselves at the door.

But this is a discussion of talent management, not a political statement. On the other hand, when Lloyd Blankfein appeared in a video proclaiming his support for marriage equality he equated it with good business sense, the situation was explicitly tied to politics. The Goldman Sachs CEO also signed an open letter on the same subject in 2011. The open letter, signed by 25 top business leaders in New York explained how marriage equality was critical for the competitiveness of the state, in remaining an attractive location for the best and brightest.

“Increasingly, in an age where talent determines the economic winners, great states and cities must demonstrate a commitment to creating an open, healthy and equitable environment in which to live and work.

“This is why it is so important that New York State grant full rights to all of its citizens by passing marriage equality.”

In this case, business leaders used their clout to support an issue that is personal, professional, and political. That might not be too difficult in a location like New York City, where same sex marriage had the support of the majority, and ultimately was legalized last year.

Leadership and Values

The situation is different in North Carolina, where support for LGBT inclusiveness or marriage equality is not as mainstream. In fact, at the OOTS event, Blankfein said that it made sense for him to voice his support publicly, in that it was in light with the firm’s values and business objectives. But he could see how it wouldn’t have been as easy for someone else – based on geography or industry.

The Advocate featured an interview with Nation Hahn, director of online engagement for Protect Families NC, on the subject. “North Carolina companies are not used to speaking out publicly,” he said. The article continues:

“He said that from the perspective of those fighting the amendment, when a corporate leader speaks, even as an individual, it still carries significant weight. And notably, far more members of the North Carolina business community have spoken against Amendment One than in support of it.

“’We’ve received incredible support and press based off the business leaders,’ said Hahn. ‘The story is the willingness of business and civic leaders to speak against the amendment, and how few have spoken for it.’”

Nevertheless, the amendment passed, and only time will tell if North Carolina loses key talent because of it. But by advocating for marriage equality in the face of adversity, these business leaders showed a level of courage that must be meaningful to their workforces – which will likely at least impact employee retention.

Late last month, a Boeing 747 carrying the retired Enterprise space shuttle touched down at JFK airport in New York City. The shuttle had been acquired by the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum, where it will ultimately end up this summer. Its arrival in New York was the result of the work of many people, including a pro bono team from the law firm Paul Hastings LLP.

“It was the coolest thing in the whole world,” said Paul Hastings real estate partner Robert Wertheimer. Nathalia Bernardo, real estate senior associate, agreed. She said, “Seeing the Enterprise come to New York, and all of that labor come to fruition, was amazing.”

According to Wertheimer, the firm has long history of active pro bono work – so much so that it’s become part of its culture.

Making Pro Bono Work

Paul Hastings has been advising the Intrepid museum for about ten years, Wertheimer said, and the firm also has relationships with many non-profits and public schools. “We have a track record of working with every community we’re involved in.”

“It allows lawyers to be connected to communities. And it’s also nice in terms of working on teams – people get to work with colleagues in a way that breaks down barriers,” he continued. “It’s consistent of our values of not being too full of ourselves and remembering what’s important.”

Bernardo added, “Every pro bono hour is treated exactly the same as an hour spent on a paying client. And there’s no max-out on pro bono hours for the year.”

Jamie Broder, CSR Partner at the firm and leader of the pro bono practice, says the firm had historically been active in the communities in which it operates since its founding in the 1950s, and is strongly committed to pro bono work. Several years ago, she became responsible for growing and developing the pro bono practice globally. “We wanted 100% participation by our attorneys,” she explained. Broder and her team work to get attorneys involved in pro bono cases. The team also seeks to establish relationships with pro bono organizations to enable the firm to attach pro bono cases and matters, including signature projects such as the firm’s work on the Enterprise.

She explained that pro bono work is important in helping associates hone their client relationship and business development skills, in addition to sharpening legal acumen. “It’s a great experience for lawyers who otherwise wouldn’t have first or second chair experience with other client work. And our attorneys seem to love it.”

The Enterprise team (Bernardo, Wertheimer, and two other lawyers, litigation partners Charles Patrizia and Robert Sherman) handled every aspect of the legal negotiations with NASA. Wertheimer described how much of the process was learning to speak NASA-ese, with its wealth of acronyms and “space talk.” Moreover, he continued, it was an opportunity for Bernardo to develop her own professional skills – handing clients and dealing with logistics, even making a trip to Florida to work with the space agency. “She had to learn to speak with people who aren’t used to giving things away,” he added.

Culture as Recruitment

Bernardo says that the firm mentions its commitment to pro bono work during recruitment conversations – discussing what kinds of work the firm does, how its system works, and whether people actually do it. “It’s nice to have people answer freely about this.”

Wertheimer cautioned, however, that he feels people are asking about it less, given the economic situation. “I think they’re worried about seeming less interested in doing paying work for the firm.”

But, he added, just because people aren’t asking about it as much, “it doesn’t mean they’re not doing it.” And, in fact, new lawyers (in New York State at least) are going to be doing a lot more of it, based on a recent announcement that applicants to the bar will need 50 volunteer hours of law service, beginning in 2013.

But the firm doesn’t exactly think of it as a recruitment tool, so much as a way of work, Wertheimer emphasized. “People want to come to Paul Hastings because it’s a top notch law firm with a great culture. Embedded within that is a commitment to pro bono in a meaningful way. It’s part of the whole gestalt of why you want to work here.”

He continued, “We want to work with people who are into what we’re into. It’s just part of the fabric of the firm.”

Bernardo added, “It’s something people look at as one piece of the overall puzzle when they evaluate our firm.”

According to a new study by Treasury and Risk magazine, twice as many women as men in finance (80% versus 41%) see a glass ceiling for women in the corporate space.

This is only one of the notable divergences in views between men and women about gender in the corporate workplace. For example, the study also revealed that women are generally dissatisfied with corporate efforts to promote senior level diversity – only 43% of women would give their company’s initiatives an A or B grade, while 80% of men would.

But while it’s clear that more women see challenges to their advancement than men do, times are changing. In fact, the percentage of men who do acknowledge that there are unseen barriers to women’s advancement is increasing at a rapid rate. The percentage of men who do acknowledge a glass ceiling has increased significantly since just last year when it was only 29%.

Is it this just a statistical quirk, or does it mean times are changing for women in the industry? Either way, there is a big difference between male and females regarding the perception of fairness for women in the industry. Despite (or maybe because of) decades of work to promote diversity in finance, the majority of men do not believe there are hidden biases that prevent women from advancing as quickly as they do – and this could be a barrier in itself.

Is Finance Fair for Women?

When asked about their own opportunities for career advancement, men and women gave roughly equivalent answers, with men responding slightly more positively than women (37% of women and 36% of men replied “good,” 24% of women and 28% of men said “very good,” and 8% of women and 11% of men said “excellent”).

On the other hand, when asked specifically about the advancement of women, responses varied significantly between the genders. Only 56% of women said that finance is a great field for both men and women, compared with 87% of men. One reason for this may be a discrepancy in fairness.

For example, a full 90% of women in finance said that “lucrative pay packages are more often offered to men.” Only 45% of men said the same.

Similarly, the vast majority of women surveyed – 92.4%  – said they think women have to work harder to gain the same level of recognition as men, while only 34% of men agreed.

Eight percent of men said they believed companies were quicker to get rid of women executives when problems develop at a company. Over six times as many women (39.9%) said the same.

Perception of (Un)fairness

Most individuals who took the survey said they believed women face “harder choices and bigger sacrifices” than men, particularly around work life issues (91.1% of women compared with 62.7% of men).

But what most men don’t seem to see is the every-day challenges that make the workplace less welcoming to women – unequal pay, having to work harder, less career security. These issues come down to cultural fairness.

This perception of fairness on behalf of men – the majority of individuals in the finance industry – as well as their overall belief that diversity programs are working just fine, may be part of the reason that there are so few women at the top. Almost half of respondents to the survey (46.5%) said that women were less than five percent of top executives of their firms.

When such a large percentage of the finance workforce is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the uneven playing field that exists for female talent, it may make the climb to the top less attractive, or simply less tenable, for women. Encouraging senior men to own up to their own may help create the fairness that could enable companies to balance the gender equation for their workforce.

Accenture recently announced a new LGBT component to its Skills to Succeed corporate citizenship program. As part of the goal of Skills to Succeed (training 250,000 people around the world to get a job or build their own business), Accenture is teaming with Out & Equal to honor a non-profit group whose mission is to provide job training to LGBT individuals.

Matthew Coates, Accenture senior executive and Global LGBT Network lead, explained that coupling diversity goals with Skills to Succeed seemed like a natural step. “We believe we’ll get more value as far as our diversity goals – that’s why this crossover has occurred.”

He continued, “The outcome is trying to help people succeed in the workplace – in this instance it’s about LGBT.”

Additionally, Coates said, Accenture believes that combining the diversity goals with Skills to Succeed enables the company to send a message to its workforce – and potential recruits – about the company’s values.

Communicating Values

“There are a couple of things we try to achieve from a diversity perspective. One is creating that workplace where people can be successful, regardless of where people come from or their background,” Coates said.

“Second, we’re saying to our employees that this is something important to us. It sends a very clear message to our employees that this is something we, as a company, value. And third, we’re saying that externally as a major employer and corporate citizen. We want to recognize the high performance of organizations that have done something amazing as far as helping LGBT people get the skills they need to succeed.”

The company’s efforts toward LGBT diversity come mainly from the top, he said, although there is also a grassroots component to the initiative. “It’s driven from a number of components, including what leadership wants to create as a company and how we’ll be successful in the future. There’s a constant drive to develop the diversity of Accenture. It’s quite an amazing place to work.”

He added, “And part of this is doing the right thing and realizing there’s still work to be done around many of the agendas around diversity. It’s part of a complex web, considering geography.”

For example, he explained, the LGBT community is a difficult one to track, since members have to self-identify. Second, he said, in many countries, companies are not allowed to ask whether an employee is LGBT in the first place.

Next Level Diversity

The company believes that by sending internal and external messages about its commitment to LGBT inclusiveness, it is better equipped to change the status quo when it comes to diversity. Coates explained, “Accenture continues to be on a journey from a diversity prospective and we always want to push the envelope. When you are a big global company you have different countries with different laws, but still have policies and a culture that transcends geography.”

He continued, “In our other diversity areas we do things that are innovative and move the agenda. What’s the next frontier we need to conquer from a diversity perspective? How can we really get specific around LGBT and help people get work? That’s how the partnership with Out and Equal was devised.”

The award will be presented at this summer’s Global LGBT Workplace Summit in London, which is followed by the World Pride Parade in which Accenture’s LGBT and straight ally employees will be marching.

Coates remarked, “Sending a strong signal externally is great, but for me, what’s important is the change that comes about in the organization.”

Accenture and Out & Equal created the Accenture Skills to Succeed LGBT Award to honor a non-profit group or non-governmental organization working to equip people in the LGBT communities with workplace and entrepreneurial skills. The deadline for application submissions is Friday, May 11th, at midnight Pacific Standard Time.

Organizations interested in applying for the award should go to http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/skillsaward for an application and instructions.

While the mention of mentorship has become almost ubiquitous in the workplace, it’s uncommon to receive a behind-the-scenes look at a successful program. Recently, we had a chance to take an inside look at how one company is using their mentorship program as part of a broad array of talent management initiatives that help to develop high-potential employees, both male and female.

Sarah O’Hare, vice president of human resources for Freudenberg-NOK Sealing Technologies (FNST), championed the concept of a mentoring program at her company back in 2006, specifically because she believes mentoring is an integral strategic element of corporate talent management programs. “Mentoring helps companies grow and retain talent, fortify their succession plans, and amplify their cultures of continuous improvement,” says O’Hare.

Complementary corporate initiatives for talent development include leadership, diversity, and cultural training, as well as ongoing program and process courses and curriculums. Additionally, the company offers some employees opportunities to explore foreign and cross-functional assignments, and supports their pursuit of graduate degrees.

Within this mix, O’Hare says that mentorships and sponsorships are crucial to FNST’s efforts, because they involve outreach to individual employees whom management has identified as having strong potential for growth and advancement. Cross-functional teams select these employees and invite them to participate in the mentoring program. “Our mentoring program is founded on the belief that continuous improvement and new opportunities must be present in every employee’s career in order to keep them engaged and challenged,” says O’Hare.

How It Works

The mentoring program at FNST is a formal guided program built around employees’ talent development needs, and it involves specific time commitments and project deliverables. FNST’s mentor pairs generally speak at least twice a month and meet in person on a quarterly basis. In addition, there’s a formal kick-off event, a mid-year check-in by the program leader, and a wrap-up session to conclude the year.

The company also encourages sponsorship opportunities as a component of mentoring, though the sponsorship part of the program is less structured. In general, sponsorship relationships are developed through the initiative of an executive and an employee and are individually structured rather than corporately structured.

Whether mentorship or sponsorship, FNST has instituted a company policy to help both mentors and sponsors overcome the obstacle of limited bandwidth: mentors, sponsors, and employees are empowered to take time during the work day to pursue projects, conversations, and initiatives related to developing these important relationships.

“We don’t want these relationships to be extracurricular,” says O’Hare. “They are part of work and must be accepted as work by our leadership. We work hard at FNST to instill this concept and ensure that people who are engaged in these kinds of activities understand they can pursue them during their regular work day.”

Case Studies

How can mentoring help with talent development? O’Hare shares a few firsthand examples of how FNST’s mentorship program, along with its sponsorship component, helps employees navigate uncharted professional experiences and establish boundaries that they have not considered in the past.

Heidi, one of the company’s GenX directors, is a 40-year-old working mother—and a no-holds-barred go getter. Heidi recently shared with O’Hare that when she first became a manager, one of her employees was having serious personal issues. Since Heidi is an expert at risk management, her immediate response was to dive in with both feet and put together a personal action plan for the employee, making specific recommendations about how she could solve her problems (i.e., call an attorney, contact banks, etc.) Though Heidi admitted to O’Hare that it didn’t feel quite right as she was doing it, she resorted to her natural talents and strengths to try to help her subordinate through some uncharted management territory.

When Heidi spoke to her mentor about this situation, he immediately raised a red flag and counseled her that the more appropriate management response was to provide this employee with the phone number to the company’s Employee Assistance Program, and keep detailed personal information out of their professional relationship. O’Hare summarizes how the mentorship program helped steer this high-potential manager back on track:

“In the absence of experience, I think we all default to our natural tendencies,” says O’Hare. “In women, this generally means we resort to our experience as collaborators, caretakers, and problem solvers. The mentorship program helped her navigate a tight space between working with employees as a manager as opposed to a female manager.”

In another case, O’Hare hired Melanie as an HR analyst in her department. Melanie was sitting in a smaller, administrative-type cube doing her work. Her mentor told her she needed to secure a larger space more befitting of an employee who was managing important research and analysis for the organization. It was a detail that O’Hare had missed, but her mentor hadn’t. HR modified Melanie’s workspace, and the perception of Melanie’s role within the organization radically changed.

What about sponsorship? O’Hare describes Heidi as someone who completely “gets” the sponsorship–career advancement connection. As such, Heidi set up an informal sponsorship with the global director of her organization because the director had specific, strategic knowledge that Heidi wanted to gain, and specific visibility she wished to achieve. Heidi approached the director on her own initiative and asked if he would sponsor her, allow her to attend his leadership team meeting, and allow her to attend important business meetings as well.

Heidi’s enthusiasm and thirst for learning about the business and her global division drove her efforts to engage a sponsor herself. “This is an important point,” emphasizes O’Hare. “Heidi spent time looking at her career and assessing what skills and opportunities she needed to push ahead, and then sought out sponsorship from the person she thought could best deliver this to her. She created her own opportunities for sponsorship and advancement by embracing self-promotion and understanding her capabilities, but also by acknowledging that sponsorships and the experience they deliver are critical in the work world.”

O’Hare concludes that the company’s mentoring and sponsorship program is key to ensuring that their potential and high-potential employees have what they need to succeed, and that career coaching and talent development is personal and targeted to the individual. “We have already spent a tremendous amount of time recruiting them,” says O’Hare. “Now that they are here, we need to spend an equal amount of time ensuring that they feel valued, capable, excited, satisfied, and heard.”

According to a new McKinsey report [PDF], not all talent pipelines are the same. Factors like industry, leadership, heritage, and more affect what the pipeline of women to senior leadership roles looks like.

When embarking on a program to develop, retain, and advance women from the entry levels to the c-suite, it’s important for leaders, diversity practitioners, and people managers to know where their company is on the gender diversity continuum.

Report authors Joanna Barsh and Lareina Yee write, “Each company’s transformation plan depends on its industry context and starting point—but wherever companies are today is a great place to start.”

Funnels and Pipes

In least year’s report, McKinsey researchers suggested that companies work to help women at mid-management levels stay in the pipeline to the top. It seems that more women drop out of the workforce at this time, in part due to family responsibilities and in part due to inhospitable workplaces. By working to retain women at this critical career juncture, companies can insure a robust flow of women to senior levels.

This year, the researchers have identified two common pipeline shapes for companies that have above average numbers of female talent at the top – funnels and pipes. “Funnel” shaped pipelines are usually in industries that attract a lot of women in entry level roles – like healthcare. Because there are so many women going into the pipeline from the start, even though many women drop out of the workforce through the years, there are still decent numbers flowing into the c-suite.

On the other hand, the “pipe” shape usually developed in companies that took in fewer women initially – for example, in the tech industry – but through steady work and recruitment at every level, still delivered a significant number of women to top roles.

Neither pipeline produces better or worse quality of leadership, Barsh and Yee say. For example, when it comes to senior women who have navigated funnels, “those women were strong role models, showing younger women that success was within reach.” As far as pipes, women who reach the top may be more committed from the start.

Nevertheless, they add, understanding pipeline shape is important when it comes to developing a strong talent strategy.

“If a company is a natural funnel, it might choose to focus on recruiting and helping midlevel women develop their skills. If a company takes in less than 30 percent of women, it can review its practices at every level to remove the barriers that discourage all but the most resilient women.”

Getting an understanding of pipeline shape can help influence the success of a company’s gender diversity talent strategy.

Factors for Pipeline Success

The study is based on interviews with 350 “CEOs and senior business leaders, human-resources and diversity professionals, and well-respected female executives” at 60 corporations and 300 entry and mid level employees at 14 companies, as well as work by academic and non-profit leaders.

The study found that there are several institutional barriers that companies can work to remove, in order to help women achieve their full potential in the workforce. A few characteristics of successful companies include:

1. Full vocal and visible commitment by leadership.
2. Active talent management, utilizing performance metrics and accountability standards for diversity.
3. Continuous discussion about talent diversity at every level.

The researchers explained:

“As always, what’s measured is what matters, and over time new standards can affect practice and culture. Detailed data are shared broadly so that everyone has the facts. Discussions are scheduled regularly. The business executives responsible for a function or division report on progress and setbacks, engaging with senior leadership on problem solving. In consequence, the leaders get to know the women in their organization and strategize with them about potential career moves. They become sponsors as appropriate and are, at minimum, accountable for what happens next.”

Companies that are successful at keeping the flow of women to the c-suite robust are the ones where discussions about diversity take place continuously; so much that diversity is woven into the fabric of the culture. By creating a culture of talent management (rather than a series of diversity initiatives), companies can ensure work to develop the pipeline of female talent is successful.

A recent study by the Families and Work Institute and the Society for Human Resource Management revealed that flexible working arrangements are on the rise in corporations. Most employers feel that workplace flexibility enables them to attract and retain employees at all skill levels.

The study says, “It is clear that employers are motivated by a combination of business reasons—retention and recruitment—as well as the desire to help employees.”

But, the study points out, while in many cases the policies are in place, whether employees are encouraged or empowered to use them is another question.  In many cases, employees don’t even know they exist.

The study explains:

“The majority of employers responded ‘very true’ to statements assessing whether supervisors are encouraged to … be supportive of employees with family needs and by finding solutions that work for both employees and the organization (58%). Far fewer employers, however, responded ‘very true’ to statements asking whether management rewards those within the organization who support flexible work arrangements (12%) and whether their organization makes a real and ongoing effort to inform employees of the availability of work life assistance (25%).”

The issues the FWI and SHRM discuss come down to culture. Employers don’t seem to be emphasizing to middle management the importance of flexibility when it comes to retention and recruitment goals, or utilizing accountability measures to ensure policies around flex work are expressed and enforced.

Cultural Flexibility

Some measures of cultural flexibility are decreasing, the researchers note. Since the last time the survey was performed, “fewer employers report that management rewards those within the organization who support effective flexible work arrangements in 2012 (12%) than in 2005 (31%).”

But simply creating rewards for managers supporting flex work won’t get the job done either – especially since much of the middle-management resistance to flex work is a result of fears that they will simply have to do more with less if employees are working outside the office or taking time off for family responsibilities.

Additionally, simply creating a top-down directive about flexible arrangements won’t work either to ensure managers carry the banner for an entire initiative. In a recent Fast Company blog post, workplace flexibility expert Cali Yost explained, “In my experience, a top-down policy and an ultimatum will fail. It only creates more resistance.”

The first step in ensuring middle managers are serving as stewards of cultural flexibility is make sure they buy into the business case for it themselves – by discussing the issue and coming to an understanding about it with their peers. Yost explained, “At the end of the process, people feel invested in this approach to flexible work that they developed themselves, bottom up and top down.”

She also suggests emphasizing the give and take aspect of workplace flexibility. Employees must see flexibility as a partnership, in which they work with managers to create a plan for ensuring the work gets done.

She explains, “Too many organizations put the responsibility for all aspects of work flexibility on the middle manager. They are expected to figure out what will work for the employee, how it will be managed day-to-day, and how the work will get done. No wonder managers don’t support it!”

In this scenario, individual employees take the lead on creating a plan and works with managers to assess frequently if the flex arrangement is working. If not, they make changes.

Finally, Yost advises, it’s critical that middle managers are engaged in the process of designing flex programs, and that they aren’t the only ones responsible for making flex work. She writes:

“As long as we make middle managers solely responsible for the success of something that they don’t help create, that doesn’t acknowledge their realities, and that they don’t fully understand, flexible work will continue to hit the roadblock of their resistance and fail.”

By ensuring that middle managers are engaged in flex programs, companies can be sure they are benefiting from the recruitment and retention perks that come with a culture of flexibility.

According to a new study, corporate onboarding programs designed to imbue new recruits with the cultural values of the organization can backfire if they don’t also take into account the unique traits and skills each employee brings to the company.

The study, a new Harvard Business School working paper, explains how “socialization leads to more effective employment relationships when newcomers can express their personal identities from the start.”

The authors, Dan Cable, London Business School, Francesca Gino, Harvard University, and Brad Staats, University of North Carolina, believe that companies can build better, longer-term relationships with employees when the socialization process focuses on authenticity and personal values.

They write:

“…successful socialization results in productive, committed employees who are excited to come to work and proud of their role in helping their organization advance. We found surprisingly large and valuable changes in employees’ quality and retention by making relatively small investments in socialization practices that focus on newcomers’ personal identities.”

In fact, the research shows that when cultural socialization programs encourage new employees to showcase their authentic personalities and skills, they are more likely to stick around in the long run. Additionally, by focusing on individual strengths, companies could also build a reputation that enables them to attract high performing employees who value the opportunity to express themselves authentically.

Onboarding and Corporate Socialization

When it comes to the corporate space, socialization is a process by which companies express their values and culture to new recruits, with the goal of ensuring the new employees take on these values. “Research has confirmed that the more institutionalized socialization tactics are, the greater the post-entry value congruence between newcomers and organizations,” they write.

But, according to the researchers, when individuals are ignored in the onboarding process, tension is created at an already stressful time, and this can drive conflicts. They explain:

“Given that organizations are made up of people, and many people spend the majority of their waking hours at work, the human drive for authenticity creates a basic tension for organizations. On one hand, employers can address employees’ essential yearning for authentic self-expression, helping them articulate, project, and exercise their distinctive perspectives and strengths at work. On the other hand, organizations need to ensure continuity and control: they need their employees to behave in certain ways and express particular emotions in order to be productive and succeed in the market.”

But companies can work with human need for self-expression and authenticity to create more engaged and more productive employees. In observational and laboratory experiments, the researchers found, by appealing to new employees’ personal strengths, organizations could make the onboarding process more positive and more effective.

Balancing Tension

Even though research shows that focusing on employee authenticity can create stronger relationships and improve productivity, companies are largely ignoring this factor when it comes to the onboarding process. They note, “Both existing research and anecdotal evidence suggest that it is rare for organizations to take an authenticity perspective to socialization, despite the fact that it increases employees’ commitment to the organization and improves the quality of their work.”

In practice, building authenticity into the socialization practice wouldn’t be very costly or require significant other resources. They suggest building in time for newcomers to answer questions about their identity, like “What three words describe you as an individual?” or “What is unique about you that leads to your happiest times and best performance at work?”

They could also be encouraged to create a “personal highlights reel” or discuss their proudest personal and professional achievements with the group. “Giving newcomers the opportunity to present themselves to new colleagues in their best light allows them to affirm their self-integrity in a new setting and construct a social identity around their unique strengths,” they explain.

Finally, the authors point out, a keener focus on cultivating employee authenticity may help companies attract new employees as well. They say, “Our research indicates that when organizations balance this tension – or even better, use it to stand out among other employers – they appear to have gained a sustained competitive advantage.”