Joanna Young What is the Effect of Gender on Career Progression in - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Joanna Young

What is the Effect of Gender on Career Progression in the Police Service? Joanna Young MBA July 2007

National Picture v Police Service National – United Kingdom 49% of employees are women 34% of managerial positions are held by women Police Nationally – England and Wales 22% of police officers in E & W are women 10% at Chief Inspector and above In both progress remains slow

Research Aims and Questions • To develop an understanding of why women are under represented at senior levels in the Police Service. 1.Are the factors that encourage senior officers to apply for promotion different across genders? 2.Are the factors that deter senior officers from applying for promotion different across genders? 3.Is there a gender difference in the factors identified by senior officers as generally a) helping and b) hindering, career progression in the Police Service? 4.Are senior women discriminated against in promotion selection processes?

Scope and Limitations • Does not cover recruitment or retention • Focus on Inspectors to Chief Superintendents • Predominantly in the Positivistic paradigm - quantitative data • Some phenomenological – qualitative data • Insider study by a female senior officer in the force being studied – did not complete questionnaire

Three possible explanations for under representation at senior levels • Capability and Leadership • Organisational Culture • Gender and Values

Capability and Leadership is NOT the issue • Kanter 1977 – pioneering work on gender differences in leadership & management • ‘ There are gender differences ’ – Rosener 1990, Alimo-Metcalf 1995, Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt 2001 and Gillick 2001. • ‘ There are no or very few differences in leadership and management styles between genders ’ - Grant 1988, Bass 1990, and Bass and Stogdill 1990, 1991. • More recently Klerks and Brown (2004) qualitative study of senior police officers found more similarities than differences in styles. • Differences but equally effective – Kabacoff & Peters 1998, Goleman 1996 & 1999. • Women potentially more effective – Beck 2002; Mano-Negrin & Sheaffer 2004 - Israeli execs - crisis situations; and Ryan and Haslam 2005 – women appointed to senior positions in failing companies. • No evidence of women being unsuitable or incapable, or feminine style being ineffective.

Organisational Culture – Traditionally Masculine • Generally - Coe 1992, Maddock 1999, Rutherford 2001, Arkin 2004, and Klerks & Brown 2004, all found that: Organisational Culture excludes women through - ‘ men ’ s club ’ – internal networks undervaluing by men of women ’ s skills in the work place requirement to work long hours • Police Organisational Culture – Martin & Junk 1996, Silvestri 1998, Brown 1998, Scott 1999, Cooper and Ingram 2004 found that: ‘ Men ’ s club ’ , informal networks that exclude women – eg sport ‘ problematic masculine occupational culture ’ Under valuing women ’ s skills ‘ informal practices and policies that work in ways that disadvantage women ’ ‘ Hostile to women ’ So Culture may be the issue or one of the issues

Values and Belief • Do women choose not to compete due to their values and beliefs? Moir 1998, Gillick 2001, Nussbaum & Sen 2003, Cornelius & Skinner 2005 all found that: Men value/rate more highly; status higher pay, job security and are willing to work longer hours to achieve this Women value/rate more highly; Quality of life – thus may not be willing to make the same sacrifices as men re long hours • Police specific - Gaston & Alexander 1997, Holdaway & Parker 1998, Klerks and Brown 2004 all found that: Women seem less confident in their own abilities -will wait until they are sure they meet competencies before applying for promotion. Women get less support than men from Line managers ‘ Commitment ’ – is an issue (but what does this mean?) Men rate more highly; higher pay and job security Women rate more highly; opportunity for advancement and challenging work

Holdaway and Parker (1998) study of a ‘ failing ’ northern constabulary concluded that: “ Indeed, our data indicate that in these respects men and women officers worked in very different environments within the one constabulary, with internal and external factors combining to create a highly differential engendered structure of employment. ” (p53)

This Research Quantitative Secondary Data from: Home Office Statistics 2006/07 Kent Police Human Resources – Data from September 2003 to May 2007 Primary Data from: Survey of all Inspector to Chief Superintendents in Kent Police – conducted January/February 2007 Three focus groups – men only, women only and mixed – April 2007.

Representation of Women Comparison between National figures and Kent Police 2006/07 Rank National Kent Difference All Ranks 22% 24% + 2 Constable 25% 26% + 1 Sergeant 14% 17% + 3 Inspector 12% 15% + 3 C/ Insp 11% 18% + 7 Supt 9% 17% + 8 C/Supt 8% 8% 0 ACPO 12% 0% - 12

Annual Representation of Police Women in Kent 20 18 16 14 Percentage of Rank 12 10 2003 2004 8 2005 2006 6 4 2 0 Sergeant Inspector C/Inspector Superintendent C/Superintendent Supt +C/Supt

Parametric Test applied to test relationship between gender and other factor • Chi Squared was used to test for relationships between gender and factors to 95% confidence level.

Rate of Application by year – no relationship between gender and rate of application by year Female Male Year % - Rate of % - Rate of Application Application 11.67 2003/04 12.24 11.86 2004/05 9.26 14.24 2005/06 7.38 7.31 2006/07 8.87

Rate of application by rank – no relationship between gender and rate of application by rank Female Male Rate of Rate of Rank Applied for App App Inspector 26.85 31.00 75.73 Chief Inspector 59.54 79.91 Superintendent 61.90 81.43 Chief Superintendent 100.00

Success rate by year – There is a strong relationship between gender and yearly success rate Females Males Year Successful Successful % % 2003/04 41.67% 44.29% 2004/05 60% 50% 2005/06 11.11% 41.38% 2006/07 45.45% 56.52% Total as % of 40.48% 46.9% all attendees.

Success rate by rank – no relationship between gender and success rate by rank 70 60 50 40 % Success Rate 30 20 10 0 PS to Inspector Inspector to C/Inspector C/Inspector to Superintendent to Superintending ranks Superintendent C/Superintendent combined Males Females

Length of Service on Promotion 100.00 90.00 80.00 % Frequency by Gender 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 F M F M F M F M F M e a e a e a e a e a m m m m m l l l l l e e e e e a a a a a I C S C S l n l l l l e e e e e s / u / u I C I n S p C S S p n p / s u t / u u t s I S p n p p p p C u t s t t o p p c m t o m b i n b i e n d e d Gender and Rank 0-10yrs 11-15yrs 16-20yrs 21-25yrs 26+

Length of Service on Promotion Summary • 46.71% of male inspectors reached inspector with less than 16 years service as apposed to 39.29% of women • 50% of female chief inspectors had reached the rank with less than 16 years service as apposed to only 16.33% of male chief inspectors • No women were promoted to superintendent with less than 21 years service in contrast to 25% of men. • No relationship between gender and length of service at 95% confidence levels.

Survey of all Inspector to chief Superintendents in Kent Police • 272 questionnaires sent out via email -231 male, 41 female • Return via email or internal post for anonymity • 138 males and 32 females replied – 62.5% • Two unsuitable for analysis due to high error rate – so 168 returns analysed – 61.76% • Representing 59% of all men and 78% of all women in Kent Police of Insp to C/Supt • Overall 81% of returns were from men and 19% from women

Survey Returns Analysed Rank Number of Male Number of Total: Female + returns Female returns Male at each rank Inspector 96 22 118 Chief Inspector 22 7 29 Superintendent 18 3 21 & C/Supt Total 136 32 168

Rank and Gender with Children 100 90 80 70 60 % Frequency 50 40 30 20 10 0 Inspector Chief Inspector Superintending Ranks Total Females With Children Males With Children

Intention to apply for promotion % of Females Who % of Males Who Rank Intend to Apply for Intend to Apply for Promotion Promotion Inspectors 67% 40% Chief Inspectors 29% 86% Superintending 0% 33% Ranks Overall % 52% 47%

Hours worked by rank Strong relationship between rank and hours worked 60 50 40 % Frequency 30 20 10 0 Inspectors Chief Inspectors Superintending Ranks 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 60+

Hours worked by Gender – No relationship between gender and hours worked 45 40 35 30 25 % Frequency 20 15 10 5 0 Female Male 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 60+