CfA Gender Equity Committee

Status and plans Employee survey results

CGEC MembershipNancy AdlerPat BrennanPepi Fabbiano (Chair)Josh GrindlayPeg HerlihyMuriel HodgesChristine Jones Andrew SzentgyorgyiDonna Thompson

Consultants: Gerhard Sonnert, Wendy Roth

Status and Plans• Completed confidential employee survey

– Gerhard Sonnert will report the results– Results will be posted on the internal Web

• Next step– Anonymous and confidential interviews

• Interim CGEC report and recommendations• HR data survey and analysis

– Subset available now– The entire data set will be available in the fall

• Final CGEC report and recommendations

CfA Gender Survey

Gerhard Sonnert

The Survey Sample

Grade 14 or higher: 28.3%

Grade 13 or lower: 71.8%

Grade

later: 32.7%1990-1999: 38.7%before 1990: 28.6%Year of hire

joint: 6.2%Harvard: 6.9%Smithsonian: 86.9%Affiliation

non-scientists: 49.7%scientists: 50.3%Job type

non-white: 7.8%white: 92.2%Race

women: 40.2%men: 59.8%Gender

32.4%Response rate

308Number of respondents

• The sample of respondents (people who replied to the survey) is fairly representative of the CfAemployee population

Respondent Sample by Division/Department

CfA Population by Division/Department

HEAOIR

RG

Areas Covered•Hiring Process•Promotion Process•Compensation•Professional Activities•Satisfaction with CfA•CfA Programs and Resources•Perceived Gender Biases•Balancing Personal and Professional Life•Spouse/Partner's Career•Health•Gender Issues at the CfA

Survey Approach

• Questions exploring the survey areas with grading scale or yes/no answer– Statistical analysis

• Open ended questions asking for employees comments– Used to complement and illustrate analysis

results– Provide input on gender-unrelated issues

Analysis Methods• 4-point rating scales "disagree strongly" (1) "disagree somewhat" (2)"agree somewhat" (3) "agree strongly" (4)

Midpoint: 2.5 Typical standard deviation: 1

• Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with 4 groups:

• Differences reported at the 95% (2 σ – standard error) and 99% (2.5 σ) confidence/significance level.

• Factor analysis

Women non-scientistsMen non-scientists

Women scientistsMen scientists

Gender differences and differences between scientists and non-scientists

Percentage of variables showing significant differences (N=275)

36.7

24.7

18.9

12.0

5.11.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2

Significance level

Perc

ent Science

GenderInteraction

5% (2 σ) 1% (2.5 σ)

Interaction example

1

2

3

4

Men scientistsWomen scientistsMen non-scientistsWomen non-scientists

Women NSMen NS

Women SMen S

agree

disagree

Response areas where no significant gender difference was detected (in bold)

•Hiring Process•Promotion Process•Compensation•Professional Activities•Satisfaction with CfA•CfA Programs and Resources•Perceived Gender Biases•Balancing Personal and Professional Life•Spouse/Partner's Career•Health•Gender Issues at the CfA

at 99% (2.5 σ) confidence level

• Women (especially scientists) perceive gender bias

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

No bias in work assignments(Division/Dept.)

No bias in work assignments(CfA)

No bias in performanceevaluation (Division/Dept.)

No bias in performanceevaluation (CfA)

No bias in careeradvancement (Division/Dept.)

No bias in careeradvancement (CfA)

Women NSMen NSWomen SMen S

disagree agree

•Same pattern with HEA/non-HEA distinction

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

No bias inperformance

evaluation (CfA)

men non-HEA men-HEA Women non-HEA Women -HEA

• One significant interaction with gender (at 95% level)

Other issues where perception varied by gender

• Leadership• Promotion• Balance of work and personal life• Hidden rules• Equipment maintenance

Leadership

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Division/Depthas identifiedways to movewomen intoleadershippositions

Women NSMen NSWomen SMen S

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Interest inbecoming projectscientist/programmanager/technical

team leader

Opportunity totake on leadership

position

Leadership

Percent

Women NSMen NSWomen SMen S

Actual and desired work activities

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80Actual percent of work activity

Des

ired

perc

ent o

f wor

k ac

tivity

research

research

Research versus other activities (11)

Promotion

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Overall satisfaction withpromotion process

Felt supported inadvancement to

promotion

Women NSMen NSWomen SMen S

Promotion: from employees’ comments

• more opportunities of advancement• clear and objective criteria for promotion

Work and personal life

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Often forgoespersonal activitiesbecause of work

Women NSMen NSWomen SMen S

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Fatigued

Well-rested

rarely very ofte

•More fatigue reported by womenWomen NSMen NSWomen SMen S

•Women more likely to report hidden rules

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Encountersunwritten rulesconcerning howone is expectedto interact with

colleagues

Women NSMen NSWomen SMen S

Communication/transparency:from employees’ comments

• policies, procedures, decisions• general communication in community

Socialization/mentoring:from employee’s comments

• Assignment of mentors• Reward system for mentoring

Equipment Maintenance

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Receives regularmaintenance/updates

of equipment

Women NSMen NSWomen SMen S

Satisfaction with job

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Male sc.

Male non-s

Female sc

Female non-s

Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied

Women non-scientistsWomen scientists

Men non-scientists

Men scientistsMen scientists

• Overall the CfA population is satisfied withtheir jobs.

Women NS

Women S

Men NS

Men S

Satisfaction with career

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Male sc.

Male non-s

Female sc

Female non-s

Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied

Women non-scientists

Women scientists

Men non-scientists

Men scientists

• Overall the CfA employees are satisfied with their career.• Non-scientists, especially women, have larger % of

dissatisfaction.

Women NS

Women S

Men NS

Men S

The 10 strongest correlations of job satisfaction

item Women non-scientists (N=83) rq31f No gender bias in career advancement (CfA) 0.66q24a Career satisfaction 0.65 allq31c No gender bias in perfomance eval (div) 0.61 msq11a Satisfaction with promotional process 0.57 ms, mnsq31d No gender bias in perfomance eval (CfA) 0.57q31e No gender bias in career advancement (div) 0.51 msq13gd Would like to spend more time in management -0.51q21a Treated with respect in Division 0.50 msq22a Feels like participant in problem-solving and decision-making 0.49 msq12b Fair salary 0.49 ms

Women scientists (N=36)q24a Career satisfaction 0.83 allq50d Good climate for women in Division 0.78q44a Division supportive of balancing family and career 0.72 msq21f Treated with respect by supervisor 0.65 ms, mnsq11e Received opportunities to build research program 0.64q21n Feels isolated in Division -0.63 mnsq30cknow Knows HU Ombuds program -0.62q7d Geographic location positively influenced decision to come to CfA 0.61q21e Treated with respect by Division head 0.60q14h Sufficient support for proposal preparation 0.59

Men non-scientists (N=63)q24a Career satisfaction 0.76 allq11d Felt supported in advancement to promotion 0.74q12c Own salary equitable within CfA 0.71q21n Feels isolated in Division -0.64 wsq21g Feels excluded from informal network in Division -0.59q11c Received feedback on progress toward promotion 0.59q21f Treated with respect by supervisor 0.58 ms, wsq11e Received opportunities to build research program 0.57q11a Satisfaction with promotional process 0.57 ms, wnsq12d Own salary equitable compared to similar institutions 0.56

Men scientists (N=114)q24a Career satisfaction 0.73 allq12a Satisfied with overall compensation 0.54q21f Treated with respect by supervisor 0.53 mns, wsq22a Feels like participant in problem-solving and decision-making 0.52 wnsq31e No gender bias in career advancement (div) 0.48 wnsq11a Satisfaction with promotional process 0.48 mns, wnsq31c No gender bias in perfomance eval (div) 0.47 wnsq21a Treated with respect in Division 0.47 wnsq44a Division supportive of balancing family and career 0.47 wsq12b Fair salary 0.46 wns

•Overallrespect

promotion processfairness

•Stronger for mensalary/compensation

•Stronger for womengender equity

Job Satisfaction Factors

Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

Satisfaction• Science• Job/career related• General atmosphere

Dissatisfaction• Bureaucracy• Compensation• Job/career related• Gender issues• Family issues

Other Issues of Concern and Improvementfrom employees’ comments

1. Structural2. Decision making3. Supervisors

1. Structural issues

• Harvard-Smithsonian interaction• Scientists-non-scientists interaction• Administrative processes and

management• Space

2. Decision making

• More involvement in decisions• Committees to include wider range of

people

3. Supervisors

• Training• Accountability and evaluation by

employees

Gender/diversity/family Comments

• More diverse hiring, especially at highest levels

• Flexible and at-home work schedules, on-site child care

Next Step

• Interview project– Professional interviewer (Wendy Roth)– 60 random selected employees in our 4

categories – Confidential and anonymous

Status and Plans• Completed the employees’ survey

– Gerhard Sonnert will report the results– Results will be posted on the internal Web

• Next step– Anonymous and confidential interviews– Anyone wanting to talk to the CGEC, please let me

know• Interim CGEC report and recommendations• HR data survey and analysis

– Subset available now– The entire data set will be available in the fall

• Final CGEC report and recommendations