Females in Executive Flight
VIEWPOINT
by Judy B. Rosener
Orange County has recently witnessed “corporate flight” of its five top female executives. Cynthia Harriss left Disneyland Resorts, Sue Parks left Kinkos, Kathy Bronstein was fired from Wet Seal, Camille Jayne left Universal Electronics and Tara Balfour left Bank of America.
Since it is difficult for women to climb most corporate ladders, fleeing when they are at the top seems surprising. Because it is assumed women would not want to give up the status, income and power that accompany titles such as CEO, president or executive vice president, it is expected that questions emerge about the motivation of these women to leave.
Did they feel they were about to be fired? Were they fed up having to work long hours and travel extensively? Were they just burned out? Did they want to create their own company? Did they say to themselves, “Been there, done that, now it’s time to do something else”?
In other words, did they want to follow a passion they felt would be more fulfilling than being a corporate executive but had to wait until they had enough financial security to make a move?
And why do we see this “corporate flight” from women in their 40s and 50s, whereas men making similar moves are usually in their 60s?
I talked to the women mentioned above, as well as others across the country, and discovered that the female “corporate flight” is not an Orange County phenomenon. In fact, the topic has begun to attract widespread attention, including recent articles in Economist and the New York Times Magazine. Answers to the posed questions are all over the map.
They include what I refer to as “push” factors, meaning the large corporate environment was one women found less satisfying over time, often due to a male-dominated culture that disadvantaged them. Some desired a life outside of work. Some were bored or tired of doing the same thing and saw no place to go, except to another company which would mean moving, often a problem when a spouse’s job or children were involved.
Some felt for a variety of reasons their future was in doubt and decided to leave before they were fired.
Some were fired, with a number of them making substantial settlements that suggest “fit” rather than performance triggered their departures
The women also expressed what I call “pull” factors for leaving. They liked what they were doing but had a passion they had wanted to pursue and decided with 20 years to go, this was the time to make a move. Some said they felt it was time to give back, and wanted to do something in the nonprofit world.
Some said they wanted to start a firm so they could install their own values, shape the culture and have control over their time and travel.
It is not a surprise that many successful entrepreneurs started out in large corporations where they acquired skills, accumulated money, enhanced their self esteem and became a part of professional networks. And it is no secret that women don’t define themselves primarily in terms of their job,company size, title, money and how many people they control.
Men, more socialized to define themselves in term of their work, don’t have the luxury of opting out while at the top because it would be considered a sign of weakness.
So there are many reasons that explain why women in their 40s and 50s who have achieved positions of authority in large firms decide to change careers (as contrasted with moving to another firm).
And unlike men who tend to change careers in their 60s after they retire (many find that playing golf does not take up all their spare time), females tend to plan their career transitions more deliberately.
It seems to me that if we want to know what is happening with highly educated, trained, successful women executives, we are looking in the wrong place. This is because Fortune 500 firms have been our model. Because it is possible to get data from these firms, they are the ones that are studied and their demographics reported, and there are few women in their top positions or on their boards.
We have been led to believe that the most talented business leaders are in large firms, since we also believe they are the country’s economic engine. In fact, in the U.S. today, more jobs are created by women owned businesses than by all the Fortune 500 firms combined.
If we were to look at small and medium sized firms, we would find the number of talented female CEOs, presidents and executive vice presidents increasing, not decreasing.
We know the bankruptcy rate of women-owned and women-run small and medium-sized businesses is far less than those owned and run by men. We know they offer their employees more benefits. And we know they have corporate boards that are more diverse.
Also, recent revelations about the behavior of some prominent corporate CEOs and other key executives suggest a need to reexamine why the large corporation is considered the revered business model.
Another factor to consider, and to me the most important one, is that for the first time a noticeable number of women have achieved self confidence, financial security and membership in professional networks considered prerequisites for major career transitions.
In other words, the reason many female executives leave high-level corporate positions that other women (and men) covet, is because they can!
Rosener is a professor in the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Irvine. Her research, teaching and writing focus on professional men and women at work.
