Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Hi Mia!
    
    Welcome to womannotes!  I believe there is a book entitled "The
    Glass Ceiling" but I do not remember the author's name (a woman).
     It came out a couple of years ago, so if you check the periodicals
    listings at the local library around the copyright date, you may
    uncover some articles as well.  BTW, it appears that there is a
    glass ceiling here at DEC too, with women making it to middle
    management but not much further.  You might check with affirmative
    action folks to find this out, but it might not be wise to use DEC
    as a case study for your paper.
    
    Sue
    

>                      <<< Note 991.1 by GUCCI::SANTSCHI >>>

>   BTW, it appears that there is a
>    glass ceiling here at DEC too, with women making it to middle
>    management but not much further.

	 That's certainly not true here where I work in Storage, and
	 in other groups that I know of as well.  Plus we do have
	 women on the Board of Directors, do we not?

	 Given that engineering is a relatively new area for women to
	 be in, I think DEC is actually a rather good example.  Women
	 need to grow into the higher level positions, they can't
	 expect to have them handed to them.  The percentage of women
	 in engineering 20 years ago i probably pretty representative
	 of how many women we have above middle management.

	 In my particular area we have a woman manager for of all of
	 Disk Engineering downstairs and various female cost center
	 managers and supervisors.


	 Growth takes time.

	 kath
    

    Mary Couming is giving a Stone Center Seminar called "Exploring the
    Glass Ceiling" next month.
    
    Ray

    The first time I heard/read about "the glass ceiling" was in a Wall
    Street Journal article, which I believe was written with that title
    (sometime in '85 or '86).  I suggest you go to a library and look up
    that and related topics (women in business, glass ceiling, etc.) in the
    Guide to Periodical Literature (I think that's what it's called - they
    list articles in lots of different magazines/newspapers)....
    
    good luck!
    
    -Jody
    

    One possibility might be to contact Sumru Erkut.  She's a 
    psychologist and visiting research scholar at Wellesley College
    Center for Research on Women.  Last September she gave a seminar
    which was part of the LES/LESM "Women at Work" series; the title
    was "Beyond the Mommy Track: Creative Solutions to the Glass
    Ceiling".
    
    Steve

On DEC as an example: you might be able to get some stripped stats from your
personnel folks (maybe they get them from the affirmative action folks?). I
know my personnel folks have mentioned some interesting trends to me, but I
don't know how much is available for quoting.
	Mez

    Hi Mia, nice to see you.  I thought you might have fallen off the face
    of the earth!!!  :-)
    
    Not to much to offer in the way of suggestions, just wanted to take
    grab the chance to say "HI"
    
    
    Sue

    re .3
    
    fyi--Mary Couming also wrote her thesis @ Sloan a couple of years ago
    on this topic using DEC as a case study.  It is very well done.
    
    ...cp
    

    
    Erm......what's a "Glass Ceiling"?
    
    'gail
    

    I don't recall who coined the term, 'gail, but it's the metaphor for
    the barrier that prevents members of certain groups (women in this
    case) from advancing beyond a certain point.  It's "invisible" (there's
    always some plausible reason for each individual failure) but is
    nonetheless real and can be detected by the statistical "bunching" that
    occurs at certain levels.  It's very hard to deal with.
    
    						=maggie

    As I learned at the Corning Glass Factory:  Glass is always in a liquid
    state, it just has less viscosity as heat is applied.
    
    ed

>                          -< is the glass shatter-proof? ;-) >-

    
    A straight answer to this question is Yes, but statistically the
    odds are not good. Picture the organizational pyramid . Upper level
    jobs are at the top of the pyramid, entry level positions are at
    the full lower level of the pyramid. 
    
    If a large chunk of our workers are in high level jobs, they are
    all vying to squeeze into the top of the pyramid, obviously this
    can not happen and workers either stay at their current upper level,
    leave the company or stay and fight to get into the top block.
    
    When woman are in that block below the top they also hit the
    glass ceiling but their problem is more pronounced because they
    have less chance getting into the old boy network that dominates
    the top of the pyramid. They have less female role models and mentors
    to help pull them through the glass ceiling.

    Gail

    If the existence of the glass celing is so blatanly obvious, (Maggie 
    mentioned "bunching" at certain levels, someone wrote a thesis on it 
    using DEC as an example, and DEC Personnel can offer trends), why isn't 
    anything being done about it?  I know it's here at DEC because I hit
    it and had to train the man who took the next level job since, of
    course, even though I knew it inside and out and could train the
    inexperienced guy they hired, I couldn't have it.  Personnel pretty
    much ran and hid.
    
    What does Affirmative Action do if not deal with this?  I don't
    understand how everyone freely admits it's there, blithely states how
    women are thwarted and given "individual" reasons rather than the real
    one, and yet it just continues on.  What's the point of talking about
    it?  What's the use?  *We* can't do anything about it, AA can't seem to, 
    and everyone knows it's there and it's a problem.  What does that say?
    
    Are we waiting for nothing?  Kathy suggests it takes time.  How much
    time?  How much time does it take for a male to get where he wants to
    go after he graduates?  20 years ago women were graduating with high 
    honors, high-level degrees and high ambitions.  Where are they now?  
    How much time will it take for those women to become our role models?  
    Will they ever?  *IS* it just a matter of time?  Some of the high level 
    promotions of men I see in the DTW are not men with 20 years of experience 
    after college.  I read these articles in the DTW and I compare the ex-
    perience of the person with the job level attained.  I've noticed that 
    women seem to have more education and experience than would seem necessary 
    for their relatively low-level promotions.  I've also noticed the wording. 
    Men "take degrees", "earn degrees".  Women often "complete the program" 
    even when "the program" refers to a Masters in EE.  These seemingly small 
    details shape our thinking and help hiring managers to see a woman who
    "completed the program" as less pro-active and therefore less qualified 
    than a man who "took a degree" or "earned a doctorate".
    
    The late Dorothy Rowe, the only woman on the board of directors I knew of 
    wasn't all that young which suggests qualified women have ALWAYS been 
    available.  I have always seriously doubted the idea that women are "only 
    recently" showing up educated, qualified and ambitious.  That's crap fed 
    to us to calm us down.  Any reason is good enough as long as no one 
    mentions the real one - the glass ceiling.
    
    Qualified women are available right now and have been for years.  The 
    glass ceiling is not the result of poor preparation on the part of women - 
    it's the result of poor preparation on the part of men to SEE a qualified 
    woman as a qualified woman and not as a coffee server with a hobby.  And 
    it's still here, and still talked about calmly and academically by 
    qualified women.  But I guess that's good because as long as we're 
    busy commiserating, we're not bugging management and personnel for jobs
    they don't want to give us.    
    
    A woman manager is no proof that the glass ceiling doesn't exist.  What
    women are actually doing is irrelevant.  What is significant, is what
    they are doing compared to what they are capable of doing!  A woman
    manager is a sorry sight if she's got a PhD and high ambitions.  There
    should be a corollary catch phrase to the peter principle since it
    works generally in the reverse for women.  Elevated beyond your
    ability?  I'd like to just get to the level OF my ability.
    
    I'd still like to know why, here at DEC, the glass ceiling exists such 
    that we can have an open, intelligent and informed conversation about it
    without being able to actually DO anything about it.  Why can't
    affirmative action stop it with the very next req that's cut????

    Sandy, it works precisely *because* it's difficult to criticise any
    individual instance.  If a manager is asked, he� can simply focus on the
    importance of qualities where the female candidate(s) were at a
    disadvantage.  It's a legitimate judgement call!  Moreover, the guy may
    not actually even be aware of his own biases, he may really be
    convinced that he's playing fair. 
    
    And the process at higher levels is aided and abetted by the process at
    lower levels, in which women do participate I'm sorry to say.  It's not
    at all hard to take decisions that keep younger women from getting the
    same exposure as younger men get:  e.g., give women the smaller or more
    peripheral projects and men the larger or more strategic; on paper
    they're both project leaders, so the cumulative effects are not easily
    appreciated.  
    
    Affirmative Action is a goal at DEC, not a requirement with quotas and
    teeth.
    
    The casinos in Las Vegas or Monte Carlo make a *very* good living from
    a mere 7% imbalance in the odds.  A miniscule advantage, undetectable
    except through mathematical analysis...but very powerful nonetheless.
    
    						=maggie
    
    
    �The managers who are in positions from which they can pull women
    through the glass ceiling are, of course, almost all men. 

	Women have been fighting the "glass ceiling" for a long time and
	some get through but the cost to make it is really great for a
	woman and for most it just is not worth the price.

	A professor of Polictical Science at the University of Lowell
	wrote a paper called the Patrica Principle over 10 years ago,
	I have a copy of it and will enter a summary later this week.

	Part of solving a problem is acknowledging its existance, naming
	it is a major part of acknowledgement.  The "glass ceiling" is
	caused by not acknowledging that the issue is a group issue and
	not that of an individual.  One woman can not break the glass
	for others, she can only get through it for herself and until	
	women as a group are willing to confront the issue it will 
	remain an individual problem that stops women as a group.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The Goddess within empowers all
			The God out there empowers a few.

    re .18:
    
    Are those facts you're stating, Mike?  If so, kindly provide
    some evidence to back them up, otherwise, I'll just assume
    you're frothing at the mouth.
    

    re .16 -
    
    [Mostly] male managers who can pull women through the glass ceiling?
    No wonder I keep thinking of Snow White here... 

    
    So *that's* what it's called!
    
    I feel very angry about this.
    I've seen it in my own career and that of women around me.
     
    What can WE DO NOW to start to change this?
    Get ourselves mentors??
    (Male of course.....)
    
    'gail
    

    
    
    One suggestion would be to read Breaking Into The Boardroom (formerly
    titled Why Jenny Can't Lead) by Jinx Melia.  Thought provoking and
    quite an eye-opener for me.
    
    Deb
    

    What can we do? NETWORK!!
    
    In unity there is strength! (remember that one?)
    
    Kate
                                       
    

    Another fascinating book is called "Unnecessary Choices" - it's by
    Edith Gilson and Susan Kane - and it discusses "the hidden life of the
    executive woman" - a good deal of what they say seems to be the result
    of dissatisfaction due to their feeling "unwelcome" at best,
    "uncomfortable" at worst - once they reach the top.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Thanks for the reading suggestions - I will most certainly follow
    them up. Do they recommend courses of action?
    
    I feel like changing the world today.
    Should I -
    
    - go and educate Personnel (lend them the books perhaps?)
    - talk to my manager about this Glass Ceiling concept?
    - get a sex change?
    - find a mentor?
    - organise a women's awareness group in the office?
    
    I'll learn more first, but then I'd like to DO something.
    I'm sure many of you will have felt this before....
    What did YOU do?
    
    'gail
    

	Stone Center Seminar - Exploring the Glass Ceiling 

****** REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED - SET HOST WECARE - USERNAME = CRS ******

EXPLORING THE GLASS CEILING  -- Mary Couming
March 15, 1990, 10 a.m. - 12 noon, Cauchy Conference Room, ZK3-1

Course Abstract:

Over the next ten years, women are projected to account for nearly 
two-thirds of the net increase in the U.S. labor force. Will the increase
of women in the workforce bring a related rise in the number of 
women in senior levels of corporations?  This seminar 
examines the "glass ceiling" -- the invisible barrier that prevents women 
from advancing to senior positions. Using data gathered 
from a series of in-depth interviews she conducted with matched pairs of
men and women in corporate middle management, Mary Couming explores 
the differences in career enablers and barriers that exist for women and men
in an organization. She then makes recommendations for women, their male 
colleagues, and senior management, in order to break the glass ceiling.

About the speaker:

Mary Couming has been at Digital for 13 years and worked at Honeywell the 
5 previous years.  Most of these 18 years have been spent in Manufacturing.  
At Digital, Mary has been Plant Manager of the Franklin plant and then MBU 
(Manufacturing Business Unit) Manager for High Performance Systems, 
responsible for the Marlboro and Franklin plants.  Until the recent 
restructuring of the software organization created the Distributed Software
Systems Group, Mary was the Manager of Software Business Planning
in the Open Software/Software Business Group (OS/SB).

Sponsored by Digital to participate in an executive development program at 
M.I.T., Mary graduated in May of 1988 with a Masters of Science in the 
Management of Technology.  Mary is also the proud mother of 2 teen-age 
daughters and she describes herself as a "Dec-Mate" - her husband Tom also 
works at Digital.

Registration:

This seminar is sponsored by the Stone Center Project for ZKO women and
men. SPACE IS LIMITED -- PLEASE REGISTER THROUGH CRS.  Registration 
for any available seats will be open to DEC employees from other sites starting 
one week before the seminar.

    I have been reading the responses and haven't yet seen a definition
    of the "glass ceiling" which I believe is -- from middle managment
    to the executive (VP) level.
    
    991.2 mentions Cost center managers, supervisors, and a manager
    for disk engineering.  I think those are  middle management (with
    the exception of maybe the disk engineering manager but I reserve
    judgment).  I know of one woman VP, Rose Ann Giordano.  Is sho on
    the Executive Committee?  I don't know of any women on the Executive
    Committee.  Thats breaking through the glass ceiling.  I don't believe
    we have any more women on the board of directors with the passing
    of the woman who was mentioned earlier.
    
    The suggestions for networking and mentoring other women is a good
    start for the future.  It's sad that we don't have a more executive
    women visibility to cheer us on.
    
    I sure am enjoying this discussion.
    
    Sue
    

    
    Re.30
    
    That's a fair point Mike.
    
    Can you suggest any ways of monitoring - or setting up monitoring
    - of "the dynamics of their progress"  so that we can see reality
    and real issues against the statistics?
       
    'gail
    
    
    
    

    Seems like monitoring the number of people who get promoted, the
    amounts of raises (in percentages) given to each employee, etc would be
    a good place to start.
    
     The Doctah

    Re. -.30 (Zarlenga)
    
    > Typically, men have been in the workforce longer than women.
    
    As a group, yes.  As individuals, not necessarily.  Certainly all I
    have to do is look around me to see women my age (early to mid 40s) who
    have been in the workforce just as long as many of the men who are in
    upper levels of management in this industry today.  Yet all I have to
    do is look around me to see that the women are not represented in those
    same upper levels of management in anywhere near the proportion of
    their workforce representation.  Must be something other than length of
    service standing in their way!
    
    Karen

-mike z

	I have been in the workforce longer than the father of my two
	children, I am better educated and we both work for the same
	company - he is in hardware I am in software.  There is no way
	that we are at equal levels in this corporation.  Please explain
	this to me.  

	I am not the only example of this either.

	WOMEN HAVE BEEN IN THE WORKFORCE FOR AS LONG IF NOT LONGER THAN
	MEN.  THIS IS NOT A NEW IDEA - WOMEN WORKING.

	_peggy

    In addition, the statistics seem to indicate that women who *do* become
    managers are often promoted into positions where they don't manage
    *people*, they manage finances or other material things - scheduling
    and plans and so forth.  In addition, many women who are promoted into
    mnagement have commented they feel "sidetracked", in that they are
    channeled into positions from which the power structure will not allow
    them to rise vertically further, thus they must move horizontally
    *then* vertically (if the corporation allows this), in order to
    progress up the ladder...
    
    -Jody
    

    re: Peggy
    
    Yes, it's true that women have always worked, and even working for
    wages isn't new, but it is true that it's only been about 20 years
    that significant numbers of women have been in the kinds of jobs
    that regularly lead to high-level management positions. 
    
        Re:  Mike's point
    
    I think in this case the data precedes the term. One of the books
    mentioned -- I think it's the one with the term Glass Ceiling in
    the title -- has the kind of statistics you're interested in.  The
    authors contend that there have been enough women in the
    management track for there to be a significant increase in the
    number of women in high-level positions.  But the women aren't
    there in the numbers expected.  "Glass ceiling" is the term they
    coined to describe the phenomenon. 

    --bonnie

    re: .40
    
    You might want to get hold of the book.  It talks about a lot of
    the issues that you often comment on and seem to be interested in. 
    
    --bonnie

>         <<< Note 991.36 by DELNI::P_LEEDBERG "Memory is the second" >>>

>	I have been in the workforce longer than the father of my two
>	children, I am better educated and we both work for the same
>	company - he is in hardware I am in software.  There is no way
>	that we are at equal levels in this corporation.  Please explain
>	this to me.  


	 Let me give you a possible scenario, Peggy...take it or leave
	 it.

	 Let's say you're up for a promotion.  It's you and 9 people,
	 all men, that are being considered for this promotion
	 position.

	 Ideally, you have a one in ten chance of getting that job.
	 Out of those 10, I would hope that the most qualified would
	 be chosen.  Perhaps it's you, perhaps it's not.

	 Should you have a "better" chance at the position because
	 youy are a female?  No, you should have the better chance IF
	 AND ONLY IF you are better qualified than the other
	 candidates.

	 Maybe you are.....and maybe you aren't.

	 But since your husband and you are NOT in competition for
	 this position, in fact, the fact that you don't even work in
	 the same AREA, your husband's position relative to yours in
	 the company is of no significance at all.

	 When you are being considered for a promotion, your husband's
	 relative position in the corporation is not an issue in the
	 least....make me a valid comparison to someone you're
	 actually in competition for the promotion with, and then
	 maybe we can get somewhere.


	 Comparing apples to oranges doesn't work.


	 kathy

    I just put a couple of things I read recently together, and came
    up with a realization that we working women, mommy track or not,
    are a real threat to the power structure. 
    
    An article in [of all places] the Wall Street Journal a couple of
    weeks ago had some interesting numbers relative to the glass
    ceiling, affirmative action, and men's reactions.  The article was
    about the changing composition of the workforce.  The interesting
    numbers were: 
    
    About 30% of the full time work force is white men.  About 15% is
    men of color (all varieties, apparently).  The rest, about 55%, is
    women.  Interestingly, they didn't divide the women by color. 
    
    About 80% of college professors are white men.
    About 90% of professionals (engineers, architects, etc, they
              said) are white men
    About 97% of executives (manager and above) are white men.
    About 80% of the service professions (teaching, social work,
              nursing were listed) are women.
    
    There were others but I didn't write them down.
    
    The article was talking about managerial assumptions about the
    nature of their workers, but what I especially noticed was that if
    women and minority men were represented in power positions of
    management, education, and the higher-paying career choices, there
    were going to be a heck of a lot of white men losing prestige
    and power that they're used to.  
    
    So it's not just a matter of men being fair to us in promotions.
    Our presence in the work force is a direct threat to the power
    structure in a way that I hadn't considered before. 

    --bonnie
    
    p.s. I'm not sure how many workers those numbers included -- I
    know they excluded part-timers and I don't think it included
    self-employed people. 

    I'm just getting back into this file after a long absence, and haven't
    read all of the replies in this topic.  Forgive me if I'm repeating
    anything that's already been said.
    
    I think there are a couple of other terms in this equation we're
    talking about (discrimination against women = glass ceiling.)  They are
    age discrimination, especially against women, and attractiveness. 
    (Since they are closely linked in our culture, I'm not sure if we're
    talking about one factor or two.)
    
    A woman who is bright, competent, and just aggressive enough (without
    being noticed as aggressive) stands a much better chance of getting
    beyond the glass ceiling if she's younger.  The older a woman gets, the
    harder it is for her to be taken seriously.  What's more demeaning than
    to be called an "old lady/woman"?!  Can you imagine hearing that an "old
    lady/woman" was promoted to VP?  However, given the same competencies and
    strengths (and yet even *less* experience), a woman in her early to
    mid-thirties stands a much better chance of that happening (albeit
    still statistically very small.)
    
    So we have this classic catch-22.  The more experience we get to make
    us qualified for promotion into upper management, the older we are and
    therefore the more likely to be overlooked.  Men, on the other hand,
    are seen as just hitting their prime professionally in their 40's-50's.
    
    There are a few professions I can think of where a woman's professional
    status and credibility may increase with age - as a therapist, for
    example.  But it's definitely not true in business.
    
    Susan

    First, I am new to this file and have enjoyed reading some of the
    various subjects.  This particular subject, "The Glass Ceiling" strikes
    a memory cord, as I had to do a paper just like this for my Personnel
    Management Course last year. 
    
    When I did my paper, I defined the glass ceiling per some research done
    in the library.  I then interviewed four to five women in management
    or in businesses of their own.  I constructed a set of questions,
    interviewed them and wrote up my findings.  I then did a summary
    statement to end the paper.
    
    Good luck...
    
    Gail

    
    The following article in today's Boston Globe gives added information
    on the possible causes of the 'glass ceiling'. I've quoted part
    of the article and paraphrased the remainder. Anyone else who has
    read it please feel free to comment on the entire article.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
Boston Globe
Monday March 12 
pp 39 and 41

Studies find workplace still a man's world.

by Alison Bass

This article is a report on work by psychology professor Florence
Geis on how men and women react when women and minorities speak
up in the work place.

'some of the men ...invariably scowl, frown or generally look unhappy'

Her thesis for research became '...perhaps she was violating some
steriotypical expectation her male colleagues had of her. And perhaps
their automatic and seemingly unconscious expressions (all the men
insisted they believed in equality) had something to do with why
women are consistently undervalued in the workplace.'

She tested her hypothesis in a series of studies and found that

'Not only are men and women in a group situation more likely to
respond to female leaders with scowls and frowns, while smiling
and nodding at male leaders who say the same thing, but the female
leaders also invariably receive poorer evaluations that their male
counterparts do.'

'This study, say other researchers in the field, is one of the
first to directly demonstarte the unconscious biases and stereotypes
that work against both women and minorities in the workplace. Although
most people may sincerely believe they are neithere sexist or racist,
the studies show that beneath the egalitarian veneer of many like deeply
entrenched biases that hobble the careers of women and blacks.'

Geis feels that her findings illustrate why the 'glass ceiling'
exists for women and minorities.

It is apparently so ingrained for people to accept white males as
'competent, intelligent and rational and in charge' while
females and blacks are steriotypically 'less intelligent, less
competent, and they are not expected to take the initiative.' 


What apparently happens is that men are greeted with smiles and
nods of approval when they speak out and take charge while women
and blacks acting in the same fashion are met with frowns and
other negative facial expressions. These responses from members
of the group in turn color how people react to and accept
the input from women and minorities.

Her thesis was that until people can look within themselves and
consciously reject unconscious assumptions (which some people
are able to do) they will continue to react in these ways which
women and minorities take indications of sexism and racism, and
which limit the acceptance of both groups in meetings and other
business situations.

    re .46 -
    
    Her findings sound very much like Dale Spender's in her research on,
    eg, mixed-sex conversations.

    Thanks, Sandy, for that information!  Very interesting.

    Some points I'd like to address/add questions to:
        
    
>>	- Only 200 women in the US workforce were a level 14 or higher

>>	- Of those 200, less than 30% were in level 15 or up positions
	  translate that 30% and that makes 20 women out of 100,000 employees
  
    for the Job level naive of us, what is Level 14?  Is there a general
    "title" to put that in perspective for me?  Upper level management?
    Area Vp's?  District Managers?  
    
>>	- There were no, and there still are none, women on the senior
>>	  executive committee, and the Corporate Comittee a committee that
>>	  primes high achievers for potentially high level succession-type
>>	  jobs like VP positions, had and has no plans for any women in it.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    How terrible to think that you have to PLAN for women to be or not
    to be in a job function!!!!  It boggles the mind that the person
    with the criteria cannot get the job, but needs be planned for!
    >:/
    
    
    
      
>>    	- Age of senior women (in both technical line positions and
>>	  staff positions) is 39-47, men were slightly higher. 
    
    I guess, in a off handed way, this is good.  Women "got there quicker"
    when they finally arrived.  :)
    
    
>>	- Number of yrs at DEC was 4-17 yrs.

>>	- Income was between 51,000 - 128,000.
  
     Were there numbers for men in the same positions?  I'd be interested
    to see what the income was, especially.
    

>>	- avg worked 59.6 hours per week.
    
>>    	- avg # of children 1.7
 
    Numbers for men?  The long hours are not surprising, but it would
    be interesting to see if there's any major disparity between men
    and women executives?  
    
    Curious regarding the children (.7????  Musta been a short kid ;)
    Would men perhaps have more children if the wife was home to take
    car of them/he could provide day car while they both worked?  One
    number that is missing that might be important is for those execs
    who are married, do their spouses work (men/women)?  
    

    
    Thanks again, for these interesting stats.
    
    ---kim

    
    (Posted with Mary's tacit permission; we had a long phonecall on
    this subject the other day)
    
From:	LEGATO::LEGATO::MRGATE::"RELIEF::A08::COUMING.MARY" 27-MAR-1990 12:49:22.87
To:	UCOUNT::WOODBURN
CC:	
Subj:	Inaccurate Information

From:	NAME: Mary Couming @VRO             
	FUNC: OS/SB                           
	TEL: 273-5746                         <COUMING.MARY AT a08 AT RELIEF AT VRO>
To:	WOODBURN@UCOUNT@VAXMAIL


Laura, I am very concerned about the circulation of a recent network mail 
message which attempted to summarize a talk I gave two weeks ago on the Glass
Ceiling - a talk that was part of the ZKO "Women at Work" Seminar Series.  The
mail message contains many inaccuracies and misquotes.

I acknowledge and understand the need for us to communicate freely about the 
existence of the Glass Ceiling.  That is why I gave the talk.  But as I noted in 
the presentation, this is a difficult and complicated issue.  It is essential 
that it be discussed with care and accuracy.  With that in mind, I must ask you 
to inform people that the mail message was not accurate, and it should not be 
forwarded further.

Thanks...

					Mary

    <--(.50)
    
    Grade 14 (now 41) is the low end of true middle management, eg,
    Senior Engineering Manager, Manager of Product Management, etc.  
    Grades 15 & 16 (now 42) are the middle of middle management...the
    Group Engineering Manager level.
    
    						=maggie

    
    re:planning
    i could see how a manager, looking over his/her staff, would
    be able to point out persons who were likely or unlikely to go
    on to specific higher positions. noting that, a good manager
    might even make sure that those people had relevent training or
    whatever that would help them in acheiving those promotions.
    that would be my understanding of 'planning' for people to
    move into positions.
    

    Well now I feel just awful for entering those stats.  I received that
    via a mailing list, (and I edited out a lot of personal commentary).  
    I do wish Mary would provide us with a correct summary of her talk and 
    stats.  It would add so much to this string.  How about someone who
    went?  Did you get any literature?  Take any notes?

    Sandy (.54) -
    
       Given the request of the speaker regarding that "summary," should
    you not delete .49?  It was pretty sloppy, anyway, asserting that 
    30% of 200 was 20, for example, and giving several-decimal-place
    statistics derived from an apparent sample of size 12.
    
    			- Bruce

    I'm willing to *replace* it with other data but I'm not willing to
    delete it.  As yet, I haven't gotten sny "correct" data.  Let's wait a
    bit more. 

    Why would you want to *leave* a note which contains data *known* to be
    false, after the speaker of the talk from which the data was
    misattributed has specifically asked that the false data *not* be
    disseminated?

    Have I missed something? (This is my recollection of the past few
    notes; I haven't reviewed them just now.)

    Clearly it's an important issue, but important issues are not well
    served with bad data.

    How come the mods didn't set .49 hidden, too?

    I don't know... =maggie was handling that one, and she may have
    missed it.
    
    Bonnie J

    I'd already set two copies of it hidden; those notes have been sent to
    everybody and her cousin's cat!  My presumption was that every time I
    would hide a copy, someone else would come in and repost, thinking that
    the copy they had is not the copy objected to.  This way, everyone can
    see that yup, it's the same one they received.
    
    Like [nearly] everyone else around here, tho, I'm open to correction.
    
    						=maggie