Why women leave STEM jobs

[Syne]

Women Leave STEM Jobs for the Reasons Men Want To

"Do men and women experience corporate culture differently?

"Not really," says Beth A. Michaels, president of Primer Michaels, the consulting firm that helped facilitate and conduct the study. "Frankly, both groups are not happy. They have the same values, on the whole," she says. "They have the same negative feedback. They have some different priorities, but here's the big-ticket item: The women react differently to the same environment."
...
The study showed that both men and women feel that bureaucracy and hierarchy are impeding employees from achieving what they are there to accomplish. But Michaels said that men are likely to endure the dissatisfaction and continue working. However, when women notice what they consider to be unnecessary obstacles to their work, they tend to end up leaving for another career."

[Syne]

So does anyone else think this speaks to the gender pay gap myth?

[C C]

I keep being denied access to that article for some strange reason. Taking a look at this one: http://alltogether.swe.org/2016/04/real-...stem-jobs/

Not staying longer at a business / profession could be one contributing factor (perhaps even the chief one now). But I doubt that the world has suddenly become so perfect that gender discrimination of the past has totally evaporated along with any other traditional impediments.

This article seems to acknowledge that the causes for women leaving are multiple. Women reacting differently to sexual harassment and encountering more of it shouldn't be surprising (but that's not to ignore those males who do meet with it and are displeased with it for similar or specific to them reasons). The other factors and reactions to those are deemed the result of women entertaining higher standards (like for accountability). Relativist-wise or in the context of the interpretative tendencies of some communities, that would probably be slotted as overly idealistic. Selectively expressing a cognitive stance or judgement about high standards which was disparaging.

[...] the data revealed women leaving jobs was the result of multiple factors beyond sexual harassment that the survey “Elephant in the Valley” found rampant among established working women at tech companies in Silicon Valley.

(2) Female leaders said that while their companies focused on short-term items such as cost reduction, hierarchy, and resource constraints, they were missing the boat on some key elements of engagement:

Accountability
Balance
Continuous improvement
Coaching/Mentoring
Empowerment

Women reported accountability as their number one personal and professional value. The fact that they are leaving in greater numbers than men shows that they have less tolerance for unfair practices that inhibit their ability to achieve excellence. We know this sense of dissatisfaction is running rampant among younger female workers, too.

[RainbowUnicorn]

So does anyone else think this speaks to the gender pay gap myth?

what is the premis ?
implied reverse synopsis = the gender pay gap is relative to length of employment in one single industry type with one single employer ?

or

The Gender pay gap is relative to term of employmentin a specified field ?

or ?
there are a few different ways to interpret your inference.
maybe you can be a little bit specific if you dont mind ?

what occured to me as i was reading was
Do women hold the same value of STEM jobs as men do and do women have equal certification for STEM jobs and conjointly
do womens STEM career qualifications lend easier to other fields where they can earn better money and have better work conditions ?

visa vi / = STEM employers are sticking the knife in womens backs to punish them for choosing STEM jobs instead of seeking to make the working conditions and culture more friendly to co-ed occupation ?

pays to keep in mind 1 fundermental and screamingly loud difference in the data by definition of profesional relativity to the role via gender.
STEM jobs working for Government
STEM jobs working for private companys seeking profit rather than science.

2 completely differtent moralities.

you need to split thedata equally so they do not mix and they treat accordingly.

---

C C

Relativist-wise or in the context of the interpretative tendencies of some communities, that would probably be slotted as overly idealistic. Selectively expressing a cognitive stance or judgement about high standards which was disparaging.

---- Gender role stereo types is very much a core morality of most cultures.
the pay inequity associated with those values is also a reflection of moral culture values.
teaching is said to be considered quite important by parents of small children, yet they dont think it should be paid well for th ejob.

there is a moral hypocrisy there that most cultures are still too juvenile intellectually to deal with and address.

thus eluding to my main point in that women are expected to carry an unfair/biased/far greater content and standard of moral care and judgement along with etiquite & politeness.
this is closely related to the gender bias that defines morality as the premis of why early childhood care should be performed in majority by the female yet though this is defined by these types of culturally backwards people give the role, thus requiring "specialisation by gender" a higher grade of pay making it instead a guilt trip manipulation process to morally distance themselves from the quantifiable pay equity of the role by class of "equal value of profesional importance" to societys purported moral values.

however if you place it purely on an american capitalistic value system it is fairly equal because small children are an economic loss not a profit making nvestment tool.
so capitalism views them as a leverage tool to expense consumerism for the parents.

[...] the data revealed women leaving jobs was the result of multiple factors beyond sexual harassment that the survey “Elephant in the Valley” found rampant among established working women at tech companies in Silicon Valley.

oops sorry i think i messed up the quotey bracket thingeys...

anywho.... you need to work in an all male work place and an all female work place anda mixed gender workplace before you really have a good idea of the different types of sexualisation of communication in the work place.
a womens work place has a vastly different nature to sexuality in the work place than an all male work place.
for the sake of protecting women from the massive amount of predators and work place psychopaths and work place sexual predators i will not define the differences for now.

please note i intend to cast no dispersions on members, i am just eluding to this being potential public access.
AND given the massive backwards move in work place safety for women in the USA since the last election.
i am not going to willingly and knowingly give any potential readers any assistance in the manipulation of women in the work place or anywhere else.

---

(2) Female leaders said that while their companies focused on short-term items such as cost reduction, hierarchy, and resource constraints, they were missing the boat on some key elements of engagement:

   Accountability
   Balance
   Continuous improvement
   Coaching/Mentoring
   Empowerment

Women reported accountability as their number one personal and professional value. The fact that they are leaving in greater numbers than men shows that they have less tolerance for unfair practices that inhibit their ability to achieve excellence. We know this sense of dissatisfaction is running rampant among younger female workers, too.

interestingly enough if you look at those values on a cost basis, you will notice that all the features of work place quality are defined by a cost profile.
thus considring there isa global squeeze on currently to increase profit margins by cutting costs as a core company value.
things like work place culture become work place cave culture as costs over rule culture.

accountability                 =  Does not apply if your a man making big sales for the company and sexually harrasing a female who is a lower position of power.
balance                           = Percieved time to discuss descisions when using thattime is just a cost of wages.
continuos improvement  = A company culture requires benefits being paid directly to the staff vie work place culture to maintain the almost free high quaslity continuos company                                                          improvement.
                (turn the work place into a jungle ruled by fear and you will get people throwing improvement ideas for free to try and save themselves from  work place abuse.)
coaching & mentoring     = COSTing/ & MONEYing and more cost and lost productivity ... trainers jobs have been mercilesly slashed globabbly over the last 5 years in all profesions
Empowerment                = staff development and probable personality conflict with male sales managers = power network cultures in the company.... thats not going to have
                                          money thrown at it.

= money money money

[Syne]

I keep being denied access to that article for some strange reason. Taking a look at this one: http://alltogether.swe.org/2016/04/real-...stem-jobs/

Not staying longer at a business / profession could be one contributing factor (perhaps even the chief one now). But I doubt that the world has suddenly become so perfect that gender discrimination of the past has totally evaporated along with any other traditional impediments.

This article seems to acknowledge that the causes for women leaving are multiple. Women reacting differently to sexual harassment and encountering more of it shouldn't be surprising (but that's not to ignore those males who do meet with it and are displeased with it for similar or specific to them reasons). The other factors and reactions to those are deemed the result of women entertaining higher standards (like for accountability). Relativist-wise or in the context of the interpretative tendencies of some communities, that would probably be slotted as overly idealistic. Selectively expressing a cognitive stance or judgement about high standards which was disparaging.

That is not the same story. That survey doesn't even mention how, or if, it defined any terms, so we have no way of knowing what subjective perception correlates to what objective behavior. There may very well be gender bias, by both sexes, as a result of in-group favoritism. This isn't new nor malevolent, only more one-sided in one-sex dominated fields. There's no way to train people to overcome who they intuitively trust. In your article, women seem more focused on things that do not directly influence profit, while both this and the OP article point out that men are just more likely to persevere. That will make men more valuable, not only because they have seniority, but because they accord with the profit motive of their company.

The SWE study shows that women leave STEM jobs for the same reasons men are dissatisfied with them. They are not leaving because they "aren't evaluated and promoted fairly". They just seem to be less tolerant of workplaces that don't reflect their values. This makes sense if we consider traditional gender roles, where men largely had no choice but to work for others, while women could micromanage their homemaking. Ultimately, it's a matter of whether woman can conform to the workplace.

[C C]

interestingly enough if you look at those values on a cost basis, you will notice that all the features of work place quality are defined by a cost profile. Thus considring there isa global squeeze on currently to increase profit margins by cutting costs as a core company value. things like work place culture become work place cave culture as costs over rule culture.

A couple of other links the SWE blog references would arguably render some of the issues sterile, if its conclusions were substantive. Job hopping may actually accommodate these women's objectives rather than being detrimental. But doing the opposite for men.

Vivian Giang: So why are women more prone to job hopping? [...] it probably isn’t because women are trying to balance work-life, as LinkedIn’s data examined recent grads who likely aren’t thinking about balancing a family life yet. Berger did say that more women tend to work in industries that experience the highest job hopping. That in itself is the paradox. Are women switching jobs frequently, leading to specific industries having higher turnover, or are specific industries contributing to women’s increasing need to switch jobs?

Interestingly, looking back on history, women have always seemed comfortable jumping from job to job. According to a 1982 paper from Stanford titled "The Importance of Lifetime Jobs in the U.S. Economy," one-quarter of women over 30 were employed in jobs that will last longer than 20 years, whereas half of men over 30 were in near-lifetime jobs.

A common premise is that many working women will change jobs to something with more flexible hours when they decide to have a family—even if that means changing multiple times in order to find the flexible one that works. One recent study by Bain & Company and Chief Executive Women found that a flexible schedule helped women advance their careers, but in turn, jeopardized men’s careers. "[...] job hopping doesn’t seem like a bad strategy if it gets you to where you want to be professionally."

Aside from the popular balancing family and career theory, job hopping has been said by some to be a good thing for careers. [...] Patty McCord, former chief talent officer for Netflix, told Fast Company that job hoppers achieve more—especially if they switch jobs every three to four years when their learning curve flattens. According to Penelope Trunk, serial entrepreneur and author, frequent job hopping is actually "more stable" today than being a "lifer." She told Fast Company:

[...] In terms of managing your own career, if you don’t change jobs every three years, you don’t develop the skills of getting a job quickly, so then you don’t have any career stability. You’re just completely dependent on the place that you work as if it’s 1950, and you’re going to get a gold watch at the end of a 50-year term at your company.

If what Trunk says is the case, women are creating more stable careers for themselves by jumping around. If job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive, as this Vox article relays, can't it do the same for individuals, especially women who might need to think outside the box to level the gender playing field? https://www.fastcompany.com/3058996/why-...e-than-men

And if this has been case long before now, it may undermine the supposed novelty change in values attributed to younger Millennial females by the following article (though it may indeed be a change with respect to Millennial males):

Lydia Dishman: Millennials will make up 75% of the workforce by 2025, and they have different priorities than their predecessors. Motivated by a different set of values and ideas despite facing challenges such as student debt, the recession, and the resulting jobs crisis, Deloitte’s Millennial Survey revealed that for young adults, making the world a better, more sustainable, and compassionate place trumps a hefty paycheck. [...] 44% of millennials say, if given the choice, they would like to leave their current employers in the next two years.

[...] Other research from Harvard Business School indicates that while there’s no gender gap when it comes to thinking that a promotion is within reach, women are more likely than men to view the path to power as less desirable, as well as paved with potentially negative outcomes.

Cruickshank points out that women in this survey reported being caught between feeling overlooked and the lack of leadership development and training that would allow them to move up, and the larger issues of balancing work and family.

It’s not surprising that the opportunity for flexibility influences women more. Women considered work-life balance when deciding whether to stay with an employer, even though the U.S. Department of Labor found that women of all backgrounds have increasingly become the primary breadwinners for their families.

These women are also placing greater emphasis on the ability to derive a sense of meaning from their work than men do. The Deloitte survey found further differences along gender lines, including that women also focused more on a company’s culture, whereas men indicated that they were more focused on products and performance. [...]
https://www.fastcompany.com/3055783/the-...dership-po

[RainbowUnicorn]

interestingly enough if you look at those values on a cost basis, you will notice that all the features of work place quality are defined by a cost profile. Thus considring there isa global squeeze on currently to increase profit margins by cutting costs as a core company value. things like work place culture become work place cave culture as costs over rule culture.

A couple of other links the SWE blog references would arguably render some of the issues sterile, if its conclusions were substantive. Job hopping may actually accommodate these women's objectives rather than being detrimental. But doing the opposite for men.

Job hopping
what women want/prefer
what women need(to accomadate breeding)

Subjectively women tend to be expected to bare the primary weigt of procuring the species.
obviousely haing a system that pays men more to allow for compensation when their partner becomes pregnant makes macro-economical sense.

however ... need i state companys have no interest in anything other than cutting costs
meanwhile other types of companys (some very large ones) make pprimary profit from a large turnover in the work force.

what we do not know about the question Re men loosing from having a more flexible work environment is if the flexibility is afforded equally to males as well as females or if it is posative discrimination to accomodate gender role bias in child rearing issues.

conversly one must be capable and open handed in deliverying data that defines, quantifys and relates to technalogical evolution and the change in jobs and industrys.
without that data aquired accurately and applied intelligently it renders most of the social data useless.

now given most tend to agree that the job you have now will not be th ejob you have in 10 years is not a matter of choice but more soo a matter of civilisations technalogical development.
thus to maintain a relatable learnign curve with advancement there is a quantifiable algorythmic balance to define 10 years asa function of induction develoment and advancement.
cross matched with technalogical advanacement and product development.

while im not trying to espouse morality of any social media group, the likes of facebook do actually produce jobs by its ability to be the intermediary in the supply and demand process as well as the shop front.

basic formula example Re job hopping concepts.

technology development = x rate expressed as a speed in years of a cycle
unknnown factor of new technology products creating newmarkets.
divisional value of time an employer expects an employee to train and then excell in a postion.

note we have not touched on the preconceptions of employers and the concept of staffsterility when it comes to sales and service.
many employers like to be able to turn their staff over and swap them out for young more attractive peopel who they can pay a little less to.