McKinsey presentation

88,873 views

Published on

Women Matter 2012: Making the breakthrough, examines the gender-diversity programs of 235 large European companies. The report investigates what initiatives companies are taking, what is working well or less well, and why.

The research found that most companies are now taking gender diversity issues extremely seriously, devoting real resources to redressing the gender imbalance. But many companies also expressed frustration that their efforts do not always create the expected impact.

Published in: Business

McKinsey presentation

  1. 1. Women Matter:Making the BreakthroughPresentation for Highways Agency/ WTS18th of September 2012CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARYAny use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited
  2. 2. Getting more women to the top of organizations is a hot topicSOURCE: Press search McKinsey & Company | 1
  3. 3. McKinsey has been researching the topic of gender diversity for manyyears and has by now global coverageSOURCE: McKinsey McKinsey & Company | 2
  4. 4. Our Women Matter reports give fact based answers to the Why? and How?questions for more women at the top of organizations2007 2008 2009 2010 2012Positive link Positive impact Importance of Defining the key Helpingbetween a of female female elements of an companies tocompany’s leadership leadership effective realize the finalperformance styles on behaviors in the diversity breakthroughand proportion of organizational post-crisis strategywomen in its health worldgoverning bodySOURCE: McKinsey & Company – Women Matter research McKinsey & Company | 3
  5. 5. McKinsey & Company | 4
  6. 6. In our 1st Women Matter report we found that companies with more than 30%women at the top of their organisation have better financial performancePercent, EU companies 2007-09 Average return on equity Average EBIT margin 13.7 +41% 13.9 +53% 9.7 9.1 No women at Top quartile No women at Top quartile executive level for female executive level for female representation representation at executive at executive level level Correlation does not imply causalitySOURCE: McKinsey & Company – Women Matter research McKinsey & Company | 5
  7. 7. In our 2nd report we looked at the impact of female leadership onorganizational health DIRECTION COORDINATION ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTROL EXTERNAL LEADERSHIP ORIENTATION INNOVATION TEAM CAPABILITIES MOTIVATION WORK ENVIRONMENT AND VALUESSOURCE: McKinsey & Company – Women Matter research McKinsey & Company | 6
  8. 8. We found that leadership behaviours more frequently applied bywomen improve organizational health Leadership behaviors… … improve organizational performance DIRECTION People development Inspiration Efficient Expectations and rewards communication Women ACCOUNTABILITY COORDINATION apply more AND CONTROL Role model Expectations and slightly and rewards Control and corrective action more Inspiration EXTERNAL LEADERSHIP TEAM ORIENTATION Role model INNOVATION Individualistic Intellectual People Participative decision making decision making development stimulation CAPABILITIES MOTIVATION Women and Intellectual stimulation People Inspiration men apply development equally Efficient communication WORK ENVIRONMENT AND VALUES People Individualistic decision making development Men apply Participative more decision making Control and corrective actionSOURCE: McKinsey & Company – Women Matter research McKinsey & Company | 7
  9. 9. Great news… since we know from extensive research that healthycompanies are more profitable companiesLikelihood that OHI quartile has above-median financial performance, % 68 48 EBITDA margin 31 2.2x 62 Growth in 52 enterprise value/ 31 2.0x book value 53 58 Growth in net 38 1.5x income/sales Bottom Mid¹ Top1 Comprised of 2nd and 3rd quartilesSOURCE: McKinsey Organisational Health Index data mining effort McKinsey & Company | 8
  10. 10. In 2010 we wanted to find out how companies can really make this happen:Having a balanced diversity eco-system is key Gender diversity on top of the strategic agenda CEO commitment CEO and executive teams explicit support for gender diversity programs Developing women as leaders … Networks and Mentoring role models Training and coaching … supported by collective enablers Gender diversity HR processes Infrastructure indicators and policiesSOURCE: McKinsey & Company – Women Matter research McKinsey & Company | 9
  11. 11. McKinsey & Company | 10
  12. 12. Despite all attention for diversity, progress made Evolution since 2007 (Percentage points)in European countries is slow Executive committees Corporate boardsCountry Percentage of total, 2011 Percentage of total, 2011 Sweden 21 8 25 1 Norway 15 3 35 3 United Kingdom 11 8 16 4 Belgium 11 4 11 5 Netherlands 8 3 19 12 France 8 4 20 12 Czech Rep 8 0 10 -2 Italy 6 1 5 2 Germany 3 2 16 5 European average 10 6 17 5 EU announced draft proposal for companies to have 40% of women in their Boards by the end of 2019SOURCE: McKinsey proprietary database, 2011 McKinsey & Company | 11
  13. 13. Getting more women to the top is driven at societal,governmental, company and individual level 1 2 ▪ Tax ▪ Cultural Historical ▪ Legislation (e.g. quota) factors (e.g. war ▪ Infrastructure (e.g. day history, political Government care facilities) situation) ▪ Socio – Economic factors (e.g. labor intensity, salary levels) Norms, Values and Beliefs 3 4 ▪ ‘Eco-system’ ▪ Mindsets and Company Women behaviors ▪ Management commitment ▪ Perception ▪ Development programs ▪ Collective enablersSOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 McKinsey & Company | 12
  14. 14. For our Women Matter 2012 report we benchmarked European companieson the types and effectiveness of their diversity policies ▪ Woman Matter 5 study has benchmarked companies’ diversity policies on a country level and within their European sector ▪ 235 organizations in 7 European countries participated: France, the UK, Germany, Belgium, Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands ▪ We collected data in 4 different ways A B C D Interviews Quantitative On line Online women data company survey Qualitative assessment survey 2. Commitment to gender diversity Quantitative assessment Qualitative assessment Your rating Women metrics 1 2 3 4 3. Women development programs N/A 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 Place on the st rategic Not on strategic agenda On strategic Qualitative assessment A top- 10 priority A top-3 priority on Your rating agenda but not on s tr ategic strategic agenda Quantitative assessment 1 Women representation agenda in top 10 1 3. Women development agenda 2 3 programs 4 5 N/A Women metrics Not in plac e Limited Your S ufficient rating Sufficient scope Com prehensive • Share of women in total headcount (%) geographical or sc ope; limited and scope; intense Women rep resen tation 2007 2008 2009 2010 2 Management functional 1 committed 2 Not committed to V isibly committed Visibly committed Visibly comm unication; com munication; and effective 3 4 5 N/A – Overall … … … … commitment gender diversity but no specific with ac tions to limited actionswomen scope; with inlow to average wom en communication; ient scope Comprehensiv e 5 Co nversio n rate (percentage of a population promoted W/ M W/ M W/ M W/M Not place Limited Sufficient S uffic – N-3 to CEO in leadership positions year to the next significant level … … … … to gender action to foster foster gender communication; gender foster participation participation high women during the up) diversity gender diversity div er sity, low wom en but no diversity and geographic al or scope; lim ited and sc ope; intense participation – N-2 to CEO in leadership positionsof women promoted / share of men promoted … … … … functional communication of communication of scope; lim ited participation communication c om munication; and effec tive • Share and low women average wom en c om munication; 4 Tailored results res ults – N-1 to CEO in leadership positions level in leadership positions – T o N-3 … … … … …/… …/… …/… …/… mentoring communication; participation participation high wom en programs w ith low wom en par ticipation – T o N-2 level in leadership positions …/… …/… …/… …/… partic ipation – CEO … … … … • Group CE O internal mentors • Mentoring pr ogram 1 Networking For men and S pecific to Spec ific to Does not ex ist – T o N-1 level in leadership positions …/… …/… …/… …/… (further defined – B oard of Directors … … … … as N level) wom en events/programs wom en present and future wom en 6 Gender differences: job satisfactio n (answering ‘satisfied’ dedicated t o • Group CE O women leaders 2 Recruiting to ‘very satisf ied in internal surveys) N-1 lev el • Personaliz ed • Internal wom en networ kDoes notists Exists Ex exist Does not exis t management identification of needs • Share of women applicants (% of total applicants) … … … … • Internal wom en networ k Ex ists Does not exis t – Women vs. men overall …/… …/… …/… …/… team for potential future • Share of of fers to women (% of–total offers) men in a “high-potential program” … … … … women leaders specifically for present Women vs. …/… …/… …/… …/… • Group CE O • Matc h between m entors and future leaders Inform al Forum s to Formal N-2 lev el and m entorees • Multi-com pany net- facilitate ists Ex m entor- assigning of a t Does not exis • Share of women new hires (% of Women vs. men in senior – total new hires) management (defined as N-3… … … … …/… …/… …/… …/… management working initiativ e for m entoree m entor to each to the CEO or above positions) – Overall … … … … team pr esent and future womeneeting m m entoree • Mentor for potential 2 Women leadership No Yes – N-3 to the CEO and aboveGender differences: participation in flexible programs 7 in leadership positions … … … … 3 Clear No genderfutur e women leaders is Quantitative Quantitative skill building Quantitative quantitative diversity targetslev el N-2 or above CE O targets for targets for programs targets for • Share of women who turned down a recruiting and men using flex-time programs: part … • Share of women offer … … … targets for • Cr oss-c om pany wom en for leadership leadership leaders hip Exists leaderDoes not exist ship vs. share of men (% of of fers made)reduced work week, maternity leaves, etc. women positions mentoring positions but no • positions, action positions, action Personalized Ex ists Does not exis t time, representation 5 Program to plan action plan, but no of needs and identification plan, – Overall …/… …/… …/… …/… in leadership increase share of for potential futurecompanywide company wide 3 Gender di fference: salary (average FTE salary for women positions women in the high- women leaders communication of communication of divided by t he average for men) – Women vs. men in a “high-potential program” …/… …/… …/… …/… potential pool • results res ults Com prehensive tr aining Ex ists Does not exis t – Women vs. men in senior management (defined as N-3 …/… …/… …/… …/… pr ogram dedicated to • Overall … to the CEO or above positions) … … … • Age and tenur e criteria pr Exists and future esent Does not exist to enter the high- women leaders • N-2 and N-3 to the CEO in leadership positions … … … … potential pool 8 Gender differences: geograp hic mobility 4 Consist ency Company MeasureCompany culture • Company culturof Company culture • c ulture to neutralize Financing part e Exists Does Ex ists not exist Not applicable t Does not exis of company creates strong • N-1 t o the CE O in leadership positions … … … … the impact of maternityely comprises training ac tively fosters does not activ ex ecutive an and culture with bias for male e on foster gender leav the criteria implicit education for further gender div ersity • Share of women and men in mobility programs (%) gender leadershipTarget share of women • div ersity preferencand future pr Exists e for esent Does not exist 4 Share of women in high-potential programs (%) diversity in the high-potential gender diversity – Women vs. men overall …/… …/… …/… …/… women leaders objective pool • Share of women in high-potential Women vs. men in “high-potential program” – pool … … … … …/… …/… …/… …/… • Quota of women in the 3 Women coaching Exists Does not exist high-potential pool sessions with • Share of women in mentoring programs vs. men in senior – Women management (defined as N-3… … … … …/… …/… …/… …/… • Managers responsible external coaches Exists Does not exist to the CEO or above positions) for detecting of wom en • Share of women in succession-planning pools for senior … … … … and m en pool entrants management (for N-3 or above positions) (%) 9 Attrition rates • 6 Personalized Ex ists Does not exis t • Inclusion of an HR identification of needs Does not exist Exists – F or women vs. men in “high-potential program” …/… …/… …/… …/… contact in final decision for potential future 3 – Women vs. men in senior management (defined as N-3 …/… …/… …/… …/… on pool entrants women leaders • Financing for coaching 9 Ex ists Does not exis t to the CEO or above positions) sessions with an ex ternal coach 8 4 ▪ Our participants received an individual feedback report with its key challenges as well as a recommendation on the most impactful measures to address theseSOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 13
  15. 15. Women are underrepresented at all Odds of advancement for … men over those for womenhierarchical levels, not only at top managementNumber of companies = 1301 CEO 2 5.0x Seats on executive 9 committee 1.7x Senior management 14 and vice president 1.8x Middle management 22 2.1x Total company 371 Companies with more than 10,000 employees and/or revenues greater than €1 billion, and that provided dataSOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 14
  16. 16. Each sector has its own challengesNumber of companies = 1301 Media, telecom- Transport, munications, logistics, Energy and basic technology Financial services Consumer goods tourism materials CEO 0 0 7 9 0 Seats on executive 9 9 11 10 11 committee Senior management 17 13 18 15 15 and vice president Middle management 20 22 30 19 16 Total company 34 49 50 27 251 Companies with more than 10,000 employees and/or revenues greater than €1 billion, and that provided dataSOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 15
  17. 17. On the positive side…The number of companies that sees gender diversityas a top strategic priority has doubled since 2010Percentage of respondents, number of companies = 235 Among top 3 items 8 12 on strategic agenda Among top 10 items 20 on strategic agenda 1.9X 41 On the strategic 36 agenda, but not in top 10 33 Not on the 33 strategic agenda Don’t know 14 3 0 20101 20111 The 2010 figures are from the Women Matter 2010 survey. There were 1,560 respondents to this surveySOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 16
  18. 18. But…. Although some companies are making progress with diversity,most companies still have a long way to goNumber of companies = 1231 Percentage of women at executive committee and senior management/vice president level 45 Operating Making with a progress 40 diversity with advantage diversity 35 N=6 N = 20 5% 16% 30 25 25% 20 20% (top quartile) 15 13% (average) Limited 10 N = 16 N = 81 Investing in diversity 13% 66% diversity, practices 5 but no impact yet 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of measures1 Companies with more than 10,000 employees and/or revenues greater than €1 billion, and that provided data for women at these 2 levelsSOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 17
  19. 19. Why are so few companies successful? Many measures are not implemented in the most What’s on paper is effective way in terms of visible actions, frequent not the same as what communication, participation levels happens in practice Commitment at the Focus over the last few years has been on getting top does not top management involved, but middle necessarily cascade management has been largely overlooked to middle management Not knowing the exact challenges (the facts) and not involving ‘the target audience’ themselves has Lack of focus resulted in ineffective programs. Measures too scattered, not the right ones…SOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 18
  20. 20. Well implementedThere is a gap between the measures in place and those Fairly well implementedthat are ‘well implemented’ In placePercent, number of companies = 235 CEO commitment 41 92 Management Targets for womens representation 24 51 commitment in top positions Consistency of company culture 22 88 with diversity objectives 15 58 Networking programs/events Women’s development Leadership skill building programs 13 47 programs Mentoring programs/events 16 69 Indicators 18 56 Collective HR processes and policies 25 60 enablers Infrastructure, e.g., child care 14 43 facilities1 Measures were rated on a scale of 1 - 5, with the exception of management commitment measures, which were rated on a scale of 1 - 4.SOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 19
  21. 21. While CEO commitment remains high and visible, it does not cascade tolower management levelsPercent, number of companies = 235 100 100 100 Not in place 8 11 20 In place 22 32 Fairly well 39 29 implemented 32 28 Well implemented 41 25 13 CEOs Senior managers Middle managers and vice presidentsSOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 20
  22. 22. Men’s and women have differing views on gender diversity issuesPercentage of respondents who “strongly agreed”; number of respondents = 1,7681 Women Men 64 Do you believe that gender diversity is an 40 important driver of company performance? Do you believe top management is committed to 27 gender diversity? 13 65 Does the evaluation system in your company 30 treat men and women equally?1 Web survey participants. Some 35% of the respondents were femaleSOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 21
  23. 23. McKinsey & Company | 22
  24. 24. What do we recommend companies to REALLY make this happen? 1 More visible senior management commitment 2 Target initiatives at your particular challenges 3 Address mindsetsSOURCE: McKinsey Women Matter 2012 report McKinsey & Company | 23
  25. 25. We believe that implementing a successful diversitystrategy is similar to a transformational change journey ▪ Track progress Advance How do you keep moving forward? Build capacity for continuous improvement How do you A ct manage the journey? ▪ Implementation plan ▪ Engage the organization ▪ Committed senior leaders ▪ Balanced diversity ‘eco- system’ with clear A What do you need to do to rchitect address these challenges? prioritization and focus What are the ▪ Interventions to create ▪ Analyze the numbers A specific challenges lasting change ▪ Evaluate the effectiveness for your of existing policies ssess organization? ▪ Deep understanding of mindsets A What are your ambitions spire in terms of diversity? ▪ Convincing business case ▪ Clear aspiration ▪ Targets at a granular levelSOURCE: Scott Keller and Colin Price, Beyond Performance, 2011 McKinsey & Company | 24
  26. 26. McKinsey & Company | 25

×