Career Success of Women in the Chemical ... - ACS Publications

Chapter 5

Downloaded by UNIV OF FLORIDA on November 8, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 26, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1255.ch005

Career Success of Women in the Chemical Industry, Part 1: Finding a Way through the Labyrinth Penelope A. Asay,1 Jill D. Paquin,2 Julie R. Arseneau,3 Vanessa Downing,4 Melissa S. Roffman,5 Kelly D. Kettlewell,6 Tracey Berman,7 Heather M. Walton,8 and Ruth E. Fassinger9,* 1Illinois

School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, Illinois 60601, United States 2Chatham University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15232, United States 3Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans, Louisiana 70161, United States 4Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware 19718, United States 5Baptist Health, AgeWell Center for Senior Health, Jacksonville, Florida 32207, United States 6Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 17837, United States 7Woodcliff Lake School District, Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey 07677, United States 8Veterans Affairs Boston Health Care System, Brockton, Massachusetts 02301, United States 9University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, United States *E-mail: [email protected]

This is the first of three articles where we report findings from Project ENHANCE, an investigation of the career experiences of women trained in science and engineering and working in the chemical industry. The project utilized both quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches, with the broad goals of identifying factors that impede or facilitate diverse women’s career success from the point of view of both women and management, and identifying corporate practices that contribute to positive workplace experiences for women in industrial chemistry. This, the first article in the series, presents all of the project methodology and broad, overall findings related

© 2017 American Chemical Society Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

to success, satisfaction, advancement, company support, and the home-work interface. The second and third articles in the series present findings related to specific workplace challenges for diverse women, as well as management perspectives on women working in industrial chemistry and leadership issues for women in this sector.


Introduction In April, 2015, the journal Plos One found itself in a firestorm of controversy after an editor suggested to two female researchers that they enlist one or two male biologists as co-authors to give their paper credibility and prevent it from veering into bias (1). That the research under review was a study of gender differences in the PhD-to-postdoc transition in scientific careers provided an ironic exclamation point to the public outrage. By the end of the week, the sexist review iself (which likened high publication rates of male students to their ability to run a mile faster than their female counterparts) and both the peer reviewer and the editor had been removed, and the researchers were promised a fair review. However, the scientific community was left scratching its collective head that such a blatant manifestation of bias could occur fully ten years after economist and then-president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, opined that gender disparities in academic and professional achievement—attributed by most researchers to factors such as gender socialization and stereotyping (2, 3) and discriminatory practices (4, 5)—might, instead, be explained by women’s inherently lower aptitude in science and mathematics (6). Summers’ remarks provoked controversy and outrage in 2005, and an additional decade of research and intervention regarding women in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) does not appear to have mitigated the public expression of deeply entrenched sexist attitudes. This is a disheartening reminder of both the glacial pace of change in this arena and the continuing importance of research exploring the barriers to and facilitators of career success for women in STEM fields. Much work has been done to document the challenges and issues for women in STEM fields. However, most of the attention in the research literature has focused on women in the academic sector (as both students and faculty), while the experiences of women working in industry (the largest employer of STEM-trained women) have remained largely undocumented. Our work in Project ENHANCE, carried out at the University of Maryland and supported by the National Science Foundation, was aimed at filling this gap by investigating the experiences of STEM-trained women working in the chemical industry. This article (Part 1), the first of three, presents an overview of the questions that drove our investigation, outlines the methodology we used to conduct our multi-year study, and presents overall results related to success, satisfaction, advancement, company support, and the home-work interface. Additional results from the study are found in the two articles (Parts 2 and 3) that follow (7, 8). 116 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


The Need for Women in the Scientific Workforce The strength and growth of the scientific workforce have been identified by industrial, governmental, and academic leaders as a primary concern for the U.S. economy. In 2010, Congress reauthorized the America COMPETES Act to increase funding for research and education in STEM fields, and President Obama’s Office of Science and Technology Policy asserted that “[t]he development of world-class talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is critical to America’s global leadership. Supporting women STEM students and researchers is not only an essential part of America’s strategy to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world; it is also important to women themselves” (9). In 2015, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine sponsored a national summit attended by prominent STEM labor experts and leaders to discuss the state of the U.S. STEM labor force and address current problems in STEM labor force participation (9). One expert in attendance noted that “China, India, Russia, and Japan are all producing more engineers than the United States is, and if this country does not figure out how to get more women and people of color to pursue STEM training and STEM-enabled jobs, the United States will not be competitive in the global economy because it will not meet future demand for STEM-capable employees” (10). Increasing the participation of women, including minority women, has received much attention, although the numbers still lag, particularly at the highest levels of education and position. The size of the U.S. STEM workforce is formidable (7.2 million and 6% of the total U.S. workforce in 2011) (11), but, as of 2012, women made up only 27% of the total science and engineering workforce, and only 1 out of 10 of these were women of color (12). The U.S. Census Bureau also reports that almost 1 in 5 STEM women graduates are out of the labor force, compared with 1 in 10 men (11). Moreover, even when women enter the STEM workforce, they are not advancing at rates on par with their male counterparts. In chemical and materials science, women make up 44% of all workers, but are much less likely than men to be employed in the industrial sector (12). Because the chemical industry is a key sector of the U.S. labor economy and the largest employer of U.S. scientists, the leaks in the pipeline between STEM degrees and STEM employment and advancement of women in industrial settings are particularly important. In 2012, graduates from underrepresented minority backgrounds earned 19% of bachelor’s, 17% of master’s and 11% of doctoral degrees (13), and approximately 16% of people with a bachelor’s degree were from an underrepresented minority group. This suggests that minorities as well as women are able to achieve success in terms of academic accomplishment, making all the more distressing the persistent lack of progress toward female and minority representation in STEM employment. The most recent NSF indicators note: “Underrepresented minorities’ share of S&E bachelor’s and master’s degrees has been rising since 1993, but their share of doctorates in these fields has flattened at about 7% for the past 10 years” (14). Rosser and Taylor decried “the attrition of women at every phase of the educational and career STEM pipeline. 117 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Despite grades and other academic attainments equal to or surpassing those of the men who remain in STEM fields, more women than men leave science and engineering” (15). Unfortunately, the gender wage gap permeates the entire overall workforce, and persists for all categories of occupation, education, age, and race/ethnicity, with women of color earning less than White women and all women earning less than men (13). Within science specifically, National Science Foundation data on employed scientists and engineers indicates that, at all levels of education and occupational fields, men out-earn women (13). This gap does not close as women advance in their careers: in fact, younger women (age 20-25) are closer to pay equity (earning 92.3% of men’s earnings) than older women (76.4% of what men earn) (13). Across STEM occupations, compensation differences between men and women remain even when controlling for age, education, experience, performance, and other relevant variables; for example, women in physical sciences earn 78.9% of what men earn (the lowest percentage of all the science disciplines), with median salaries of $60,000 and $83,000, respectively (12). At current rates of change, it is estimated that the gender wage gap will not close until 2058 (16). In addition to the impact of gender biases, the literature suggests that racial stereotypes held by co-workers and managers may act as a substantial barrier to advancement for minority women (17). Studies of women in academic science roles suggest that the barriers to success and advancement associated with other nontraditional occupations may provide an important portal into understanding the experiences of women scientists. A study conducted at the University of Michigan examined tenured women faculty members’ experiences as STEM academics, a realm which men traditionally—and currently—have dominated. Stewart, Stubbs, and Malley (18) found that, although female faculty members in STEM fields reported high levels of satisfaction with their teaching experiences, research activities, and colleagues, they also reported high rates of gender discrimination (41% of female faculty compared to 4% of male faculty) and unwanted sexual attention (20% of female faculty compared to 5% of male faculty). Women faculty noted a lack of guidance and fewer mentoring opportunities than male faculty members. Additionally, women faculty reported a more hostile, unwelcoming workplace climate; this negative perception of climate was related significantly to lower overall job satisfaction, which has been linked clearly to retention, productivity, engagement, and loyalty in previous studies (19).

How Women in Chemistry Are Faring The participation of women in chemistry is increasing in terms of degree attainment, with 48% of bachelor’s degrees, 46% of master’s degrees, and 39% of doctoral degrees in chemistry obtained by women in 2014 (14). However, despite what appears to be an increasingly robust pipeline of women earning doctoral degrees in STEM fields, women scientists are largely absent from the highest ranks of career success in their fields. They are significantly less likely than men to hold management, senior management, or corporate officer roles within industrial settings (12); among S&P 500 companies in 2013, women held only 19% of 118 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


board seats, 80% of which were held by White women, 12% by African American women, 4% by Latinas, and 4% by Asian women (12). The 2016 Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) annual survey indicated that women in the chemical industry are continuing to make small gains for the fourth year in a row but remain seriously underrepresented at leadership levels (20). Women currently occupy 16.2% of board seats at 45 U.S. companies and 13.2% of the executive office positions. Of the executive positions women hold, 33% are in Human Resources, 28% have Business Responsibility, 18% are Legal, 14% are Financial, and 7% are in Administration. Data from Catalyst indicate that the chemical industry is “behind the rest of the corporate world,” with 19.9% of board positions at S&P 500 firms held by women (20). By comparison, the C&EN survey indicates that, of thirteen top European chemical firms, 28.6% of their board seats are filled by women.

Challenges for Women in STEM Fields Why do these persistent gender patterns seem relatively impervious to change efforts? Explicit public assertions about women’s lack of scientific abilities (such as Summers’ comments) or inferior work (undergirding the Plos One comments) reflect implicit beliefs that many people still hold about women and science. Recent research suggests that many people believe that women are not associated with traits scientists are presumed to possess (21), and 61% of a sample of high school, undergraduate, and graduate women students report experiencing gender bias in the past year (22). Other research reveals that setbacks for men in STEM fields are attributed by others to external factors, while setbacks or failures for women are viewed as the fault of the women themselves (23). Even if people do not consciously espouse such beliefs, research on implicit bias posits that unconscious beliefs toward majority and minority groups are held that belie conscious attitudes, beliefs that may affect behavior (24). It is likely that such bias comes into play for STEM women during their careers, as insidious beliefs that women are less capable at science may affect hiring, advancement, and myriad other career opportunities (25). Data from more than 628,000 participants in a “Gender-Science Implicit Association Test,” for example, indicate that 52% had a strong or moderate automatic association of “male” with science and “female” with liberal arts; only 10% had such associations for “female” with science and “male” with liberal arts (23). It is important to note that women themselves (as well as members of other underrepresented groups) often internalize such biases and beliefs about their own capabilities. In addition to individual beliefs and biases, vocational psychologists who study career development processes have posited that systemic societal and organizational factors act as barriers to women’s success and advancement across disciplines, especially in nontraditional occupations. Specifically, Betz and Fitzgerald, in a now-classic book (26), outlined the multiple factors that disadvantage women and compromise their career development. These include such factors as negative workplace climates, occupational stereotyping and field segregation, lack of female role models and appropriate mentors, restrictive 119 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


gender role socialization, professional isolation, and discriminatory organizational practices in hiring, compensation, and evaluation, which act as barriers to women’s career advancement. These factors combine to create a “cumulative disadvantage” for women—that is, seemingly minor disparities that compound over time to result in gross inequities for women relative to their male peers—a disadvantage that has been shown to be more prominent in fields that are dominated by men (26–28). The vocational psychology literature also suggests that in fields where women are significantly underrepresented, societal and organizational factors intersect with women’s “self-concept” (an amalgam of various internal factors) to become multi-layered forces influencing success outcomes for talented women. Just as external variables (e.g., workplace climate, discriminatory practices) have been shown to be powerful predictors of women’s workplace experiences, internal factors (e.g., sense of self-efficacy, estimation of one’s own competence and knowledge, outcome expectations, levels of commitment, confidence and willingness to perform the tasks most frequently associated with advancement) also have been found to be related significantly to vocational outcomes. The literature further suggests that high career self-efficacy is a self-concept factor that is predictive of women’s persistence in scientific fields (26), and that persistence in the face of external barriers may be a key factor related to success for women scientists (4, 5). Recent research indicates that women who had experienced gender bias in the last year had lower STEM self-concepts than those who did not (22). Thus, exploring the intersection of external and internal factors is essential to understanding the constellation of barriers to and facilitators of women’s success. Women and the Home-Work Interface One of the most important determinants of women’s career entry, retention, and advancement involves the interface between the workplace and the home. The ability to achieve, maintain success, and advance in one’s career often is a difficult task that involves hard work, sacrifice, and managing competing desires and demands in and out of the office and lab. For many women, however, the demands of home disproportionately fall to them, thus potentially affecting the amount of time and energy they can or are willing to devote to the demands of advancement and increased responsibilities in the workplace. Despite radical shifts in family life over the past several decades, women are still responsible for the majority of family care and housework (29, 30). As members of the “sandwich generation,” women’s care demands may involve children, elderly parents/relatives, or both (29). Women may question their involvement in scientific careers early (e.g., during college), anticipating an inability to combine being a scientist with the future demands of home or family (31). Such questioning seems quite reasonable given the realities for working women with families. Recent research ranks the U.S. as one of the 10 worst countries for paid maternity leave (32), and childcare costs often are a barrier to employment for women (30). The “motherhood penalty” and “fatherhood bonus” persist, whereby men’s careers are boosted by having children, while women are penalized for their family responsibilities; on 120 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


average, men’s earnings increase 6% for each child, whereas women lose 4% of their earnings for each child they have (33). Female scientists and engineers who are unemployed or not in the labor force are far more likely to cite family responsibilities than are men (who are more likely to cite retirement) as a reason for unemployment (11). For millennials, literature suggests that the work-life balance is particularly important to them, such that they may be less willing to make the sacrifices currently required to advance into leadership roles. A recent study of millennial workers (34) indicates a significant drop-off over time in their expectation of advancing to the most senior levels in their fields (from 49% at the start of their careers, to 45% 4-8 years in, to 39% 9 or more years in). Of those respondents who aspired to an executive (or “C-suite”) position, only 38% were women, and only 31% of millennial respondents overall (versus 68% of older employees) held those aspirations. If issues of home-work conflict are not addressed by companies, it may be that the numbers of women in leadership positions will level off as millennials age (34). It thus is imperative that any exploration of women’s career success and advancement investigate how home roles may complement or compete with women’s career trajectories. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the intransigence of traditional gender role ideologies, much research attention has been paid to negative effects when conflicts between family and work roles occur. Home-work conflict can manifest in different ways, that is, fulfilling obligations may be physically impossible (e.g., being in two places at once) or psychologically/emotionally taxing (e.g., simultaneously worrying about a sick child and an important presentation). The strain of managing multiple, sometimes competing, demands with limited time, energy, support, and resources can take its toll in multiple ways: home-work conflict has been associated with strain, depression, somatic problems, and decreased overall feelings of well-being (29). Research also suggests a “negative spiral” of home-work conflict, whereby the strain leads to increasing interpersonal friction with co-workers, that then gets brought home and affects the employee’s family, thus leading to additional strain (35). However, research also indicates that, overall, multiple roles are healthy for women (36). Simultaneously managing both professional and personal roles and responsibilities can create healthy opportunities and satisfactions. Active participation in work and family roles can provide greater possibilities for social support, meaningful interpersonal interactions, and increased income. Women who manage multiple roles also find increased opportunities to experience success and broaden their framework of life experiences (36). Recent work by Cheung and Halpern (37) proposes that the traditional concept of the home-work interface now can be understood as an integrated model (picture an overlapping Venn diagram of home and work spheres), rather than as two distinct and separate (and, presumably, competing) domains. In their review of successful women leaders, they found that women “redefined their own norms for being a good mother and being a leader, making these roles more compatible than they were under the norms prescribed by the larger society” (37). Despite the substantial body of literature on the intersection of work and family, insufficient attention has been paid to the positive effects of combining and integrating work and family roles. 121 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


In summary, although the loss of women from every point along the STEM career pipeline is well-documented, and although a great deal is known in the vocational psychology literature about challenges and barriers to women’s career development (including women in non-traditional careers), there has been insufficient research that brings these areas of study together. Moreover, little is known about the experiences of women in industrial settings more specifically, and even less about women who advance into leadership roles in industry. Little is known about how societal, occupational, organizational, family, and self-concept factors may influence the achievement and success of women chemists in industrial chemistry. Moreover, previous research provides only a partial view of the pathways to advancement for women, which Eagly and Carli (leading scholars in women’s leadership) have likened to a labyrinth, rather than a glass ceiling. This metaphor is thought to capture better the reality that career advancement for women does not consist of a straightforward trajectory of upward movement toward a clear goal suddenly and transparently blocked, but rather resembles a complicated maze of numerous opaque barriers to forward movement, with no clear goal in sight (38). Finally, existing research on women in STEM fields mostly elicits only the perceptions of women workers and fails to capture the points of view of managers—those who hold the bulk of the power in making the decisions that lead to women’s success and advancement, particularly in corporate settings. If the Plos One and Larry Summers examples we cited earlier are any indication, this represents a serious oversight in the research literature. This article and the subsequent two articles in our three-part series describe how Project ENHANCE attempted to address these gaps.

Project ENHANCE: Studying Women in the Chemical Industry This article and the two additional articles in the series report findings from Project ENHANCE, a multi-year investigation of the career experiences of women formally trained in science and engineering currently working in the chemical industry. The project utilized both quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches, with the broad goals of identifying factors that impede or facilitate women’s career success from the point of view of both women and management, and identifying corporate practices that contribute to positive workplace experiences and climates for women chemists. Project ENHANCE built upon the literature on women in nontraditional occupations by focusing specifically on industrial chemistry and paying particular attention to the experiences of diverse women in the industry (e.g. women of color, sexual minority women, and women with documented disabilities). One of the main goals of Project ENHANCE was to produce a resource for industry leaders: It’s Elemental: Enhancing Career Success for Women in the Chemical Industry (39), was distributed to industry leaders, and it provides a readable, accessible summary of our work. The three articles here provide greater detail regarding our methods and findings, and although our data are now several years old, the very recent example of blatant sexism with which we began this article speaks to the 122 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


disturbing likelihood that little change has occurred in industrial workplaces and to the continued relevance of our research. This article (Part 1), outlines the overall methodology of Project ENHANCE and presents specific results regarding women’s success, advancement, and job satisfaction, as well as company support and the home-work interface for women. The second article (Part 2) (7) in this series focuses on specific challenges for diverse women in the workplace, including organizational support and climate, mentoring, stressors and coping responses, and perceptions and use of company benefits. The third article (Part 3) (8) in the series focuses on management and compares the responses of women and managers, including their judgments regarding company initiatives aimed at supporting women, and it also offers a brief discussion of the challenges for women in leadership roles in the industrial sector. Methods of the Study Research for Project ENHANCE was conducted by a diverse, multidisciplinary research team. The research team consisted of one doctoral-level psychologist with expertise in women’s career development and 10 (then) advanced doctoral students in psychology. Two doctoral-level chemists (one employed in industry, one in academia) were co-investigators and consultants to the project, and our industrial consultant was particularly important in connecting us to industry leaders. Ten senior managers from the chemical industry served in an advisory capacity and guided our research team throughout the development and implementation of the study, including the recruitment of participating companies. Additional assistance was provided by professional societies, especially the Women Chemists Committee of the American Chemical Society (ACS). The multi-year investigation consisted of four main components and a follow-up study: Quantitative, anonymous, web-based surveys from 1,725 women and 264 male and female managers; voluntary qualitative interviews with 26 women and 6 male and female managers; and a follow-up qualitative interview study of mentoring with nine male managers (40). All participants in the investigation came from 25 Fortune 1000 chemical companies that were diverse in size and revenue. Solicitation of participants was made through company cooperation, with the assistance of the senior industrial leaders advising our study as well as professional societies such as the ACS Women Chemists Committee. Surveys were extensive (about 45-60 minutes to complete) and accessed electronically, and they focused on (for women) their professional experiences as women scientists and engineers and (for managers) their perceptions regarding their female employees in the areas of: a) Success, satisfaction, and advancement; b) organizational support, climate, and diversity; c) mentoring; d) stress and coping; e) the home-work interface; and f) company initiatives to facilitate career success. Companies notified employees of the study and encouraged participation, but responses were completely voluntary and anonymous. Women and managers who were willing to be interviewed indicated this separately from their surveys, and, from many dozens of volunteers, we selected interviewees 123 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


who were representative of the overall samples from which they were drawn; interviews averaged about 45-60 minutes in length. In terms of data analysis, we obtained descriptive statistics for all data in the Project ENHANCE study, and where relevant, we conducted formal quantitative analyses common in psychology and appropriate to the variables, sample sizes, and research questions of interest to us. Due to space constraints here, we cannot include detailed descriptions of the hundreds of analyses we carried out and the many statistical symbols and analytic conventions used to denote those analyses. Rather, we summarize here the broad categories of analyses we did, and we refer readers to reference 41 for a relatively brief, accessible explanation of quantitative and qualitative approaches to data analyses typical in psychology. Our quantitative analyses included: a) Assessing the psychometric properties of our instruments (e.g., internal consistency reliability, factor structure); b) obtaining correlations among variables to explore significant relationships: c) conducting analyses of variance (ANOVA), t-tests, and chi-square tests to compare similarities and differences among groups and sub-groups across variables; d) running regression analyses to establish the significant prediction of variables by other variables; e) completing all follow-up statistical tests demanded for interpretability in the various approaches; and f) making statistical adjustments due to unequal sample sizes, missing data, and the like. Due to the large sample sizes and considerable numbers of analyses we conducted, we used a very stringent standard for determining significance in our quantitative findings (p < .001), and we used a conservative cut-off (r = .25) for interpreting relationships among variables, according importance only to correlations that reached the .25 level or higher. In addition to analyzing quantitative data, we transcribed, coded, and interpreted hundreds of pages of narrative data from our interviews using a common analytic procedure for qualitative data, Grounded Theory (41). Again, due to space constraints here, we present the qualitative findings selectively and briefly, to illustrate or clarify more fully our quantitative findings. Participants in the Women’s Portion of the Study Participants whose experiences are detailed in the first two articles of this series were the 1,725 women who responded to our surveys and the 26 women from that sample who were tapped for interviews. Of the 1,725 respondents, 1,388 (82.5%) women identified as Caucasian/White, 104 (6.2%) identified as Asian American/Pacific Islander, 88 (5.2%) identified as African American/Black, 59 (3.5%) identified as Hispanic/Latina, and 1% or less identified as Arab/Middle Eastern American, American Indian/Native American, Multiracial, or other. The age range of the sample was 21-65. Twenty-five of the participants (1.5%) reported a documented disability. Fifty-one participants (3.1%) identified as sexual minorities (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning). All participants had completed a degree in higher education: 54.7% held bachelor’s degrees and 44.4% held higher than a bachelor’s degree. The number of dependent children at home ranged from 0 to greater than five; 370 participants (32.0%) had no dependent children, 306 (26.4%) had one dependent child, 370 (32.0%) had two 124 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


dependent children, and 112 (9.7%) had three or more dependent children living at home. Participants represented diverse functional areas within the chemical industry, with most working in technology (47.1%) and manufacturing (19.2%). Participants reported having varying numbers of supervisees; while the majority of women (63%) reported having no supervisees, 26.8% reported supervising 1-10 people, 7% reported supervising 11-50 people, and 3.3% reported supervising 51 to more than 500 people. Participants’ total compensation per year ranged from less than $25,000 to more than $500,000, with the majority (67%) earning $50,000-$100,000. Participants’ tenure in their positions ranged from less than a year to more than 10 years, with the largest group (49%) reporting 1-3 years in their current positions. In industrial settings, having supervisees is not necessarily indicative of a formal management position, which is determined instead by such factors as the number of direct (and indirect) reports, job title, and functional area. Detailed analyses of these chracteristics of our sample of women suggested that approximately one-fifth of them held positions in management (16.6%) or executive leadership (3.8%) that were equivalent to the sample of senior managers who were recruited for the management portion of our study. Further analyses revealed some significant differences between the “managerial” and “non-managerial” participants in the women’s portion of the study; thus, this “managerial” subgroup of the women participants was analyzed separately where appropriate. Because we conducted a parallel study of managers tapped specifically to provide a management perspective on our research questions, we distinguish between the two management groups of women throughout these articles: we use the descriptor “managerial women” to refer to participants in the women’s portion of the study who held degrees in chemistry and engineering and whose positions were essentially managerial in nature but who responded to our surveys based on their own experiences as women; and (primarily in the third article in this series) we use the descriptor “female managers” to refer to female participants in the management portion of the study who were recruited specifically from senior management ranks to provide a “management” perspective on conditions for women in their employ (although many of these held degrees in chemistry, a number of them held other degrees such as MBAs). [More detailed description of participants in the management portion of our study and the follow-up study of managers and mentoring can be found in the third article in this series (8)]. Measures Our extensive surveys were designed to assess the areas of success and advancement, workplace climate and support (including mentoring), the home-work interface, issues of diversity in our samples, perceptions of management regarding women employees, and existing initiatives aimed at supporting women. As one of our goals was to determine whether or not women and managers agreed on issues related to women’s success in industrial chemistry, we administered parallel forms of our surveys to each of the two main samples 125 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

in our study (women and managers). As far as possible, items were identical in both surveys, except that women responded based on their own experiences, whereas managers (both male and female) responded to most items based on their perceptions of their women employees who had been trained in science and engineering. The following descriptions apply to both of these parallel surveys.


Demographics Participants were asked to report on a wide range of personal, job, and company variables (e.g. race/ethnicity/sexual orientation, title, number of supervisees, total annual compensation, company type/size, etc.). Additionally, participants were asked about their (or, for managers, their women employees’) leadership aspirations using a 4-point scale that assessed their desire to advance. Participants were also asked to report whether a variety of benefits (e.g., “childcare subsidy on site”) were provided by their companies, and, for women, whether they had used each of those benefits.

Success Standard indicators of success (SIS) are external, objective, easily quantified variables that capture aspects of how individuals are assessed by others. However, some researchers have suggested that measures of success should include both other-referent and self-referent measures (42), and that job satisfaction may be one of the most salient aspects of self-referent, subjective career success (43). Thus, both SIS (position title, total compensation, and number of current supervisees) and job satisfaction (“Overall, how satisfied are you with your current job/position?”) were assessed. Our study used both a standard global single item measure of job satisfaction (44) and a researcher-constructed 3-item “Career Satisfaction” scale (reliability =.70). We report only the one-item measure in these articles, as it was statistically shown to be the most relevant to the rest of the variables we studied (reliability =.77).

Beliefs about Career Advancement Women’s and managers’ own beliefs about career advancement were assessed by a 20-item researcher-constructed measure. The beliefs involve what is thought to be necessary to achieve career advancement (e.g., “Getting ahead in one’s job requires continuous upgrading of skills.”). Each item was scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items were not summed into full scale scores because they do not inherently each have a positive or negative valence; rather, they were examined for patterns of endorsement across samples.

126 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


Willingness and Confidence to Advance Women’s own willingness (and managers’ perceptions about women’s willingness) to engage in tasks needed to obtain or maintain a leadership or managerial position and their confidence (or perceived confidence) in their ability to do those tasks were assessed using a 14-item researcher-constructed measure. Sample items included, “Engage in substantial travel to operational and customer locations,” and “Defend your vision or what you think is appropriate in the face of upper management opposition.” The Willingness scale was scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 5 (very willing), and the Confidence scale was scored from 1 (no confidence) to 5 (complete confidence). Higher scores on each scale indicated more willingness and confidence. Both scales exhibited high reliability (.85 and .88, respectively).

Home-Work Conflict Pressures in the home-work interface, more commonly known as home-work conflict, were measured by selected items of the Work-Family Conflict Scale (45) as well as additional items generated by the researchers to more fully cover concerns that might apply to women in the chemical industry. Sample items included, “My work keeps me from personal/family activities more than I would like” and “Due to all of the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do the things I enjoy.” The scale contained 14 items, scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The possible range for full scale scores for the instrument was 14-70, with higher scores indicating a higher level of conflict felt by women (or, for managers, perceived to be experienced by their female employees). In the current sample, the reliability estimate for the full modified scale was .81.

Confidence Regarding the Home-Work Interface Women’s confidence in their ability to manage the demands of home and work (or manager’s perceptions of women’s confidence) was measured by a slightly modified version of the Self-Efficacy Expectations for Role Management Scale (46). Modifications were made to provide a more inclusive definition of “family” and items were eliminated to shorten the scale. In the current study, the scale consisted of 15 items, scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (no confidence) to 5 (complete confidence). The possible range for full scale scores for the modified instrument was 15-75, with higher scores indicating greater confidence. In the current sample, the reliability estimate for the scale was .78.



Workplace Climate Workplace climate was measured by selected, modified items of the Organizational Diversity Inventory (ODI (47)) and the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ (48)), as well as items generated by the researchers to include an assessment of company policies surrounding diversity, e.g., “I am proud of my company’s track record regarding diversity (gender, race, disability, etc.).” The ODI is composed of five subscales measuring existence of discrimination, discrimination against specific groups, managing diversity, actions regarding minorities, and attitudes toward religion. The SEQ measures three categories of sexual harassment that women experience: gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. The measure used in the current study consisted of 14 items scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); some items were reverse scored. Mean item scores were calculated, with high scores indicating a perception of one’s own (or one’s female employees’) workplace climate as positive/tolerant (reliability = .84).

Support of Supervisors and Coworkers Support was measured by a modified version of an instrument by House and Wells (49). The measure was composed of three subscales measuring different types of social support for work-related experiences from three potential sources of social support (i.e., friends/family, coworkers, supervisors). Each subscale contained five items scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (rarely) to 5 (always). The possible range for each subscale was 5-25, with high scores indicating higher levels of perceived social support for work-related experiences from friends/family, coworkers, and supervisors (or, for managers, perceptions of women’s support from those sources). In the current sample, we used only the supervisor and coworker subscales, with reliability estimates for the coworkers support subscale and supervisor support subscale of .90 and .95, respectively.

Company Support (CS) Beliefs about current company support were measured using a modified version of the short form of the Perceived Organizational Support survey (POS (50)), and the Worker Empowerment Scale (WES (51)). Twenty-one items composed the scale, with possible responses on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). High scores indicated greater beliefs that one’s company is supportive. In this sample, the reliability estimate was .92. For the current study, a principal components analysis was conducted and resulted in a three-factor solution, accounting for 52.7% of the variance. The variance accounted for by the first factor was 23.9%; 14.9% for the second factor; and 13.9% for the third factor. The three factors were described as Perceived Organizational Support, Perceived Discrimination, and Connections 128 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

and Opportunities. Because these factors (or subscales) were used in the present study as individual measures, they are described further below.


CS/Perceived Organizational Support The first factor of the Company Support measure formed the subscale “Perceived Organizational Support.” This factor consisted of twelve items, eight of which were items from the POS (49) and four of which were generated by the researchers. Sample items include, “My company values my job-related opinions” and “Help is available from my company when I have a problem.” This measure contained twelve items which were scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (rarely) to 5 (always). Scores were obtained by averaging the item scores, with a possible score range of 1-5, higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived organizational support. In the current sample, the reliability estimate was .89.

CS/Perceived Discrimination The second factor of the Company Support measure formed the subscale “Perceived Discrimination.” This factor consisted of five researcher-generated items designed to assess participants’ experiences with company support as related to gender. Sample items included, “Men and women get treated very differently in this company, with men at an advantage.” The Perceived Discrimination measure contained four items scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (rarely) to 5 (always). Scores were obtained by averaging the item scores, with a possible score range of 1-5, higher scores indicating lower levels of perceived sexist discrimination. In the current sample, the reliability estimate was .85.

CS/Connections and Opportunities The third factor of the Company Support measure formed the subscale “Connections and Opportunities.” This factor consisted of five items, two of which were items from the WES (50) and three of which were generated by the researchers. Sample items include, “In my company, I have opportunities to contribute to visible projects where my accomplishments will be noticed” and “I am well-networked and respected in my company.” The Connections and Opportunities measure contained five items scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (rarely) to 5 (always). Scores were obtained by averaging the item scores, with a possible score range of 1-5, higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived access to networking and other opportunities. In the current sample, the reliability estimate was .74. 129 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Presence of Mentor(s) Participants were asked whether they have (or are perceived by managers to have) one or more mentors in their current companies/workplaces; the number of mentors they have in the current companies/workplaces; whether participants wish they had a mentor if they currently do not have one; and, for those identifying at least one mentor, their most influential mentor’s age, race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, if known.


Mentoring Extent and Adequacy Extent and adequacy of mentoring as judged by women (or manager’s perceptions of women’s experiences) were assessed using the University of Michigan’s Survey of Academic Climate and Activities (51). Each item asks the extent to which a mentor performs a given task, and the perceived adequacy of the mentor’s efforts regarding that task. An example of a task is “promotes my career through networking.” Fourteen items composed the measure, with respondents answering on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 “rarely” to 5 “always.” Scale scores were obtained by summing the item scores, with higher scores indicating more mentor involvement and satisfaction with mentor’s assistance in professional development. The reliability estimates for the measures of mentoring extent and adequacy in this study were .93 and .94, respectively.

Perks and Benefits Participants completed a researcher-created measure titled “Perks and Benefits,” where they were asked to indicate whether various benefits (e.g., “health care benefits,” “child care subsidy or site”) were provided by their companies, and whether they had used these benefits. Participants also were asked whether they had negotiated for any “perks” (e.g., “lab space allocation,” “moving and relocation expenses”), and if so, whether they were satisfied with what emerged from negotiations. Participants chose between yes or no for all items, and were provided a third option of “Don’t know” where they were asked which benefits were provided (this measure was not administered to managers).

Recognition Participants were asked to report the recognition they had received in their companies. With yes/no questions, they were asked whether they had ever been nominated for a professional award or honor, whether they had ever received a professional award or honor, whether they had ever failed to receive a nomination for a professional award or honor for which they felt qualified, and whether they had ever failed to receive an advancement opportunity for which they had applied 130 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

or expressed interest and for which they felt qualified (this measure was not administered to managers).


Stress and Coping Women were asked to list up to three of the most critical work-related stressors they faced and, for each of the stressors listed, to indicate at least one coping strategy they use to manage that stressor (managers were asked to list what they believed to be the most important work-related stressors for their female employees). To code the data, researchers analyzed the responses, performing independent and dyadic coding, then determining best assignment of data by consensus. All data were categorized. A final list of three broad stressor categories was created: Workplace Difficulties, Professional/Personal Life Intersection, and Company Support. Fourteen specific sub-categories also were created. Five sub-categories of Workplace Difficulties included: a) time, b) tasks and responsibilities, c) interpersonal issues with coworker, d) interpersonal issues with management, and e) sexual harassment/treatment based on gender. The five subcategories of Professional/Personal Life Intersection included: a) parenting issues, b) partner issues, c) personal, graduate school, hobbies, and medical issues, d) travel and commute, and e) financial struggles. The four sub-categories of Company Support included: a) benefits/perks, b) job security, c) salary/wage, and d) resources. There were 4,026 total stressor responses provided for Stressors 1, 2, and 3 combined. Data on coping strategies were coded in the same manner as stressor data. Six broad categories were created: Seeking Workplace Help, Personal Help, Seeking Company Help, Avoidance, Proactive Steps, and Don’t Know How to Cope. Subcategories also were created. Two sub-categories for Seeking Workplace Help were: a) supervisors and b) coworkers. Six sub-categories for Personal Help were: a) focusing on the positive/keeping a positive disposition, b) keeping to self/selfreliance, c) tension reduction (e.g., exercise, meditation), d) seeking family and outside support, e) religion/spirituality/faith and f) crying. Four sub-categories of Proactive Steps were: a) time management (personal and work), b) making lists/ organizing/prioritizing, c) planning for career/work transitions (e.g., retirement, continuing education), and d) personal/career/work sacrifice (e.g., choosing not to pursue career advancement or cutting work hours). There were 3,943 total coping responses provided for Coping responses 1, 2, and 3 combined (coping items were not administered to managers).

Results and Discussion In this first article of our three-article series, we provide a broad overview of our findings from the women’s portion of the study. We investigated: a) How satisfied and successful are women and what predicts success and job satisfaction?; b) Do success and satisfaction differ across important status variables (e.g., race/ 131 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability)?; c) How willing are women to take on tasks to advance, and how confident are they in their ability to do so?; d) How does company support relate to success?; and e) How does the home-work interface relate to women’s career success? We present our quantitative findings below, with brief discussion of those findings and illustrative quotations from our interviews to further clarify and elaborate on our findings.


How Satisfied and Successful Are Women Working in Industrial Chemistry? The majority (approximately 2/3) of women in our study reported salaries between $51,000 and $100,000, with one-quarter earning between $100,000 and $200,000. More than two-thirds (69%) were individual contributors to their organizations, and those in supervisory roles reported between one and ten supervisees. Racial/ethnic minority women were less represented than White women in positions at higher levels, with higher salaries, and with greater numbers of supervises, findings consistent with previous research regarding women of color in the workplace. Table 1 (below) shows the descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for the satisfaction, success, and support variables examined in this sample of women working in industrial chemistry. As the table shows, women chemists reported moderately high levels of job satisfaction (M = 3.71, SD = .80) overall. Although both the “managerial” and “non-managerial” subgroups of women tended to have moderately high job satisfaction, comparison analyses indicated that non-managerial women reported significantly lower job satisfaction than did managerial women (p < .001). Due to limited numbers of women chemists in racial minority subgroups, we were unable to perform statistical analyses comparing women of racial subgroups to one another on most of the variables in this study. Instead, we combined the women of color into one subgroup and compared them to the subgroup of White women on job satisfaction and standard indicators of success, as well as willingness and confidence to advance. Combining all racial/ethnic minority subgroups into one yielded 337 women of color. Although this is an unusually large number of women of color in vocational psychology research (particularly women of color in STEM fields), it is still relatively small in comparison to the number of White women (1,388) in our sample, although we adjusted for unequal sample sizes in our analyses (and our reporting accounts for this). Our analyses of racial/ethnic differences in job satisfaction indicated that women of color, sexual minority women, and women with disabilities were significantly less satisfied than White, heterosexual, and non-disabled women (p < .001).


Table 1. Satisfaction, Success, and Support Variablesa Variable

M

SD

Entire women’s sample

3.71

.80

Women’s sample, non-managerial

3.65

.81

Women’s sample, managerial

3.96

.74


3.81

.62


3.73

.62


4.13

.54


3.76

.61


3.68

.60


4.07

.51


3.31

.59


3.30

.58


3.40

.62


3.15

.95


3.14

.96


3.19

.91


2.94

1.2


2.90

1.2


3.07

1.2


3.26

.58


3.26

.58


3.23

.58

Job Satisfaction


Willingness to advance

Confidence to advance

Company Support

Coworker support

Supervisor support

Workplace Climate

a M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, score ranges can be found in the Measures section. As noted in the text, several differences were found that were statistically significant using very conservative criteria, despite apparently similar Means in the table.



In analyses predicting success variables among non-managerial women, job satisfaction was predicted significantly by company support (β = .58) and supervisor support (β = .12). Among standard indicators of success (total compensation, position title, number of supervisees), total compensation was predicted significantly by company support (β = .21), by confidence to advance (β = .26), and negatively by workplace climate (β = -.17). Position title was predicted significantly by confidence to advance (β = .16). None of the variables significantly predicted number of supervisees. Similarly, among women in managerial roles, company support predicted job satisfaction (β = .46) and total compensation (β = .22), but also predicted number of supervisees (β = .24); none of the variables significantly predicted position title. Thus, for both the managerial and non-managerial participants in the women’s sample, the strongest predictor of both job satisfaction and the standard indicators of success was company support. Interestingly, while company support and confidence in their ability to perform tasks associated with advancement predicted compensation level for non-managerial women chemists, workplace climate was shown to have a negative predictive relationship. One possible explanation for this negative predictive relationship may lie in a closer examination of the conceptual underpinnings of company support and workplace climate. While company support refers to the extent to which companies convey their valuing of employees and their willingness to invest in them—in short, their “best intentions”—workplace climate, a variable which aims to capture responses to diversity and experiences of discrimination and harassment, might provide a snapshot of what actually occurs in work environments. Higher salaries may reflect women who have been in the company for longer periods of time, and consequently perhaps have encountered barriers and other negative events not (yet) experienced by newer employees. In terms of significant relationships among variables, our analyses revealed that, for non-managerial women chemists, job satisfaction was correlated positively and significantly with all three types of perceived support (company, r = .62; supervisor, r = .42; and coworker, r = .28), as well as with workplace climate (r = .32). Among managerial women chemists, however, job satisfaction was correlated positively and significantly with perceived company support (r = .55), supervisor support (r = .34), and workplace climate (r =.38), but not with coworker support. Overall, then, company support and (particularly as manifested in) supervisor support appeared to be the most important variables explaining the job satisfaction and success of both managerial and non-managerial women. For both non-managerial and managerial women, although statistically significant relationships emerged between the standard indicators of success (compensation, position, supervisees) and job satisfaction, none occurred at the magnitude of our r =.25 cutoff, suggesting that job satisfaction was distinct from traditional indicators of success for these women overall.

Do Women Have the Willingness and Confidence to Advance? As Table 1 (above) indicates, women overall reported being willing to advance (M = 3.81, SD = .62), and confident in their ability to do so (M = 3.76, SD = 134 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


.61). In the words of one woman, “I think you can pretty much interview for any job you want and be considered for it. I think in the past, that wasn’t the case. They didn’t really want women in certain areas.” Women of color reported greater willingness to do tasks associated with advancement than did White women. The majority of women in the sample (two-thirds) indicated that they wanted to obtain or maintain leadership positions. As one participant said, “I am where I want to be professionally. I’m not finished yet but I have a path forward, I have a plan for it and I have the opportunity...if not in this company then somewhere else. I don’t feel if it doesn’t work here it won’t work elsewhere.” For managerial women, two of the three standard indicators of success were related significantly to advancement variables; specifically, total compensation and position title were correlated positively with willingness (r =.35 and r =.32, respectively) and confidence (r =.36 and r =.28, respectively) to perform tasks necessary for advancement. This is in contrast to the non-managerial women chemists, for whom confidence was associated significantly only with compensation (r =.22), suggesting some interesting differences in the way in which confidence and willingness variables may operate in different subgroups of women. Although the women in our sample expressed both willingness and confidence in advancing, a full 44% of them reported that they had failed to receive an advancement opportunity for which they had applied or expressed interest and for which they felt qualified. The fact that almost half of the women in this very large sample reported experiences of having been passed over for advancement opportunities may speak to the barriers still firmly in place in industrial chemistry. In the words of one participant, “We can fight in combat, but we can’t be CEOs.” As might be expected, racial and sexual minority women appear to be faring more poorly than White, heterosexual women on some of the success and advancement variables. Heterosexual women reported significantly higher job satisfaction than sexual minority women, reported a better workplace climate, and perceived more company support. Although women of color reported significantly higher levels of willingness to do the tasks associated with advancement than White women, they appear to be receiving, on average, lower levels of compensation, lower supervisory status, and lower position titles. [The second article (7) in this series explores in greater detail the experiences of diverse women in our sample.] Table 2 (below) shows the top five beliefs about career advancement expressed by the non-managerial and managerial women participants. Although not analyzed statistically, it can be seen in the table that both non-managerial and managerial women endorsed similar beliefs about what it takes to advance. The notable exception is that managerial women believed in the importance of willingness to take risks, which was not a top belief for non-managerial women, who instead expressed the belief that advancement is one’s own responsibility. It is possible that women who already have attained managerial roles (in comparison to women who have not) recognize the impact of others on their career trajectories, and also are conscious of the personal risks and sacrifices they have made to attain those positions. 135 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Table 2. Comparison of Top Five Endorsed Beliefs about Career Advancement Women’s sample

1. To get ahead, it is important to be on highly visible projects where contributions can be recognized and rewarded.

(non-managerial)

2. Having executive presence and the ability to talk to senior leadership is a critical element to career advancement.


3. Getting ahead in your job requires continuous upgrading of skills. 4. How you look and fit into company culture is key for career advancement. 5. Advancement in your career is primarily your own responsibility. Women’s sample

1. Having executive presence and the ability to talk to senior leadership is a critical element to career advancement.

(managerial)

2. To get ahead, it is important to be on highly visible projects where contributions can be recognized and rewarded. 3. To get ahead, you have to be willing to take risks (e.g., accepting a promotion even if you feel not fully prepared to do the job). 4. Getting ahead in your job requires continuous upgrading of skills. 5. How you look and fit into company culture is key for career advancement.

We also tested for relationships between specific beliefs about career advancement and success variables. The item “Getting ahead in your job requires continuous upgrading of skills” was the only item that correlated with any of the success variables (specifically, positively with job satisfaction, r =.31) at a level that exceeded our .25 cut-off, although the item “Women generally have to work harder than men to prove themselves in the workforce” approached our cut-off (r = -.23), and also correlated (negatively) with job satisfaction. How Are Women Faring in the Home-Work Interface? Women in this study reported relatively mild levels of home-work conflict on our quantitative measures overall (M = 2.32 on a five-point scale). This may be due to the fact that less than half (46%) of the sample indicated at least one dependent child at home. Analyses indicated that the more children women reported having, the higher overall level of home-work conflict they reported (r = .49), and more than half of the women in the sample (62%) reported managing 136 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


home and work responsibilities as among their top two work-related stressors, with specific difficulties in: a) having enough time with family; b) excessive time spent commuting between home and work; c) caring for aging parents; and d) concerns about health. Notably, every one of the women interviewed discussed some aspect of home-work conflict. Managerial women and women earning between $101,000-$200,000 reported significantly higher levels of home-work conflict than those earning $51,000-$100,000, perhaps because geater supervisory responsibilities may lead to longer work hours and thus increased conflict. Women reported feeling moderately confident in their ability to manage home-work conflict overall (M = 3.32), and women with children reported significantly more confidence in their ability than those without (M = 3.51 and 3.16, respectively). Women who indicated that their company provided childcare facilities (44%) reported significantly less overall home-work conflict than those who indicated no childcare facilities provided by their company (M = 2.25 and 2.50, respectively). In interviews, some women suggested the importance of company policies and climate in their decision-making about integrating work and family; one woman said, “You know, it will probably come to a place where, for my family, I need to progress in my career a little bit more, and if I’m not able to do that or if the company is not, you know, friendly enough, then I’ll make a decision…” Although mentoring is discussed in detail in the second article in this series (7), it is worth noting in the context of the home-work interface that women with female mentors (less than 30% of the sample) reported significantly greater advisement from mentors about managing work and personal life than did women with male mentors (M = 2.73 and 2.39, respectively). This finding is consistent with literature suggesting that male mentors tend to focus on task support, while female mentors focus on both personal/emotional and task support (7). The correlation between home-work conflict and job satisfaction found in our sample was small and non-significant (r = -.03), and is somewhat puzzling. The relationship between home-work conflict and negative job-related outcomes documented in the literature (which includes women across many occupational and compensational levels) (29) would predict higher scores, suggesting that there may be something unique about this population of women. It may be that the relative financial stability accorded to women with STEM salaries aids in managing home and work by providing greater resources for daily home maintenance and childcare, as well as for crisis management when necessary. The finding that having more dependent children was associated with higher levels of home-work conflict in our sample is entirely consistent with the literature documenting increased responsibility associated with caring for children. As one participant explained, “Because even though there are some stay-at-home dads here, there are very few. So we [women] end up having to do it and the only way we can is with flexible time.” Along with increased conflict, however, women with children in our sample reported higher levels of confidence in their ability to manage the home-work interface than those with no children. Perhaps women with children have had greater exposure to work-home conflict and have developed strategies to negotiate these competing roles successfully; alternatively, women with lower levels of confidence may simply choose not to have children, or may 137 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


represent more of the younger women in our sample who have not yet incorporated children into their lives. In our sample, being a manager or supervisor was related significantly to higher levels of home-work conflict than being an individual contributor. This result is consistent with extant literature. Those who hold extensive supervisory or managerial responsbilities may be under greater demand at work, and therefore experience increased strain in this role. Increased strain in one’s work role may take time, energy, and resources away from non-work roles, thus creating conflict. This speculation is supported by our finding that higher annual earnings were associated with significantly higher levels of home-work conflict. It is likely that increased earnings represent increased work responsibilities (e.g., longer hours in the workplace, traveling, and/or shouldering additional tasks), which, in turn, may lead to less time and energy for other roles, resulting in higher levels of home-work conflict.

Implications and Future Directions Project ENHANCE obtained data from a large number of women working in industrial chemistry, increasing the body of knowledge about a population that rarely has been studied. A primary strength of our study is the large and representative sample of women scientists and engineers, producing reasonably generalizable results. In addition, the large sample size allowed us to assess many constructs without compromising statistical power in our analyses. The study also surveyed a relatively large number of racial/ethnic and sexual minority women, compared to that typically found in research in this area. Moreover, the mixed-methods approach of combining quantitative and qualitative data is a strength of the study, as is the extensive use of advisory input from consultants and leaders in the chemical industry throughout every phase of the project. However, the study is not without limitations. Self-report measures are subject to a variety of external influences and interpretations, and we can report only on the snapshot of experiences that our participants provided. Additionally, most participants came from companies that formally participated in, and therefore endorsed, our study. It is possible leaders of companies who felt confident in their ability to provide a fair and positive workplace climate were more likely to participate in this study, and that could have affected some of our obtained results. Moreover, while this study explicitly sought the voices of marginalized women (e.g., women of color, sexual minority women, women with disabilities), we struggled with obtaining large enough samples of these groups to make meaningful comparisons. This was particularly unfortunate for women with disabilities in our sample, as the small numbers prevented us from conducting detailed analyses of their experiences. Given that scientists without disabilities out-earn those with disabilities (45), we might assume that women with disabilities are disadvantaged in the industrial workplace, but we could not ascertain this with certainty. Unfortunately, the overall underrepresentation of racial/ethnic and sexual orientation minorities and people with disabilities in our sample is reflective of the current state of industrial workplaces and in STEM fields more 138 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


broadly. It seems clear that additional studies of the experiences of women in STEM workplaces who are further marginalized by other status characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability, age, and immigration status) are very much needed. There are several other important future directions for research suggested by our study. For both managerial and non-managerial women chemists, company support seemed to tap into both tangible markers of success and satisfaction with their jobs. Future research might explore how company support is experienced by women with differing self-concepts and facing varying types of barriers. In addition to elucidating the gaps that may exist between managerial women chemists and non-managerial women chemists, future research might explore the source of these gaps and the means of addressing them effectively in the workplace. Our explorations of the home-work interface revealed some puzzling results; for example, women in this study did not report high levels of overall home-work conflict, but did report it as a primary stressor. It may be that women have developed coping strategies, have supportive partners or communities, or have come to understand home and work in ways that prevent or mitigate conflicts that are reported repeatedly in existing research on the home-work interface. Recent literature suggests the importance of supportive romantic partners for women undergraduate STEM majors who are anticipating balancing home with career (52) and the importance of peer support to female science students to buffer the negative impact of gender bias (22). Such relationships may continue to have an impact as women move into professional careers and consider their career aspirations and goals. Data from our study bear this out, as one woman in a managerial role observed: “The [women] that are most successful are the ones that have a strong agreement with their husband...how hard they can push and how [much] the husband will pick up the slack.” Research on successful female leaders also highlights the importance of a supportive partner or spouse even at the highest levels (36). Future research might attend to partner support for lesbian women in STEM fields, as social scripts and gender roles may provide greater flexibility and allow for different kinds of support; examining the career trajectories of lesbian women as they intersect with personal lives may offer unique insights about managing the home-work interface. In sum, our findings suggest that additional research that explores relationships between home and work roles for women scientists (both in management and individual contributor roles) is very much needed. Implications for the Industrial Workplace Our findings have important practical implications for industrial workplaces. In terms of success and advancement, the fact that company support, particularly as manifested by supervisors, was a critical factor in women’s success (both in tangible indicators such as compensation as well as personal satisfaction with one’s job) suggests that company leaders should attend carefully to ensuring that their workplaces are perceived as supportive. Supervisors constitute the front line in communicating support, as they are the face of the 139 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


company with which women interact most regularly, and their attitudes can have a deep impact (perhaps not always conscious) on the career trajectories of women employees. Our findings that women exhibited both willingness and confidence to advance, that managerial women exhibited higher job satisfaction than non-managerial women, and that a large percentage of women perceived themselves as having been passed over for advancement opportunites is a clarion call for company leaders to implement encouraging, fair, and transparent mechanisms for tapping into women’s advancement talents and desires. Moreover, although offered tentatively, our finding that women further marginalized by status variables such as race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability appear to be faring less successfully than their majority counterparts suggests the need for company leaders to examine their company data thoroughly to determine whether there are differential patterns of retention and achievement based on status variables. In regard to the critical home-work interface, our results indicating that managing home and work emerged as a top work-related stressor, that women with more dependent children and more managerial responsibility indicated greater home-work conflict, that company-provided childcare was associated with less home-work conflict, and that female mentors were more likely than males to provide support for the managing the home-work interface all lend credibility to the importance of this arena for women in the workplace, and also suggest areas where company leaders may intervene successfully. Data can be gathered by individual companies to assess how best to enable women (and men) to integrate home and work effectively. Company policies, practices, and initiatives can be examined for patterns of use and outcomes (e.g., who is actually using parental leave and is it producing specific outcomes?), and company culture can communicate a supportive attitude about integrating work and personal lives (providing childcare and eldercare facilities or subsidies is the most obvious example of supportive structures that could be put into place). Finally, given that most mentors in current industrial workplaces are men, company leaders can mentor their mentors in how to talk about and support their female mentees regarding this arena that is so crucial to success for women in the workplace In conclusion, it is the hope of the Project ENHANCE team that this work will stimulate new thinking and creative strategies for maximizing the success of women scientists and engineers. Companies have extraordinary power to ameliorate or eliminate barriers to women’s success in industrial workplaces, and many experts agree that the very survival of science in the U.S. depends on corporate attention to the professional experiences of women scientists and engineers.

Note The contents of this article do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.



Acknowledgments Project ENHANCE was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. We especially thank Judith C. Giordan, our industrial chemistry consultant and co-investigator, for her many important contributions to our study. We also thank our academic chemistry consultant and co-investigator, Sandra C. Greer, and the following: Company leaders who assisted us (Lissa Dulaney, Sharon Feng, David Greenley; Elaine Harris, Ned Polan, Pamela Roach, Susan Stanton, Jennifer Weinberg, Bob Wikman, and Frankie Wood-Black); professional society leaders who supported us, particularly the ACS Women Chemists Committee (Amber Hinkle, Jody Kocsis, and Carolyn Ribes); and the many, many women and men who provided us with important data about their experiences in industrial chemistry.

Author Note This article is based on preliminary drafts written by V. Downing, M. Roffman, K. Kettlewell, and T. Berman, and on the resource created by our team for industry leaders (39), written by R. Fassinger, J. Arseneau, J. Paquin, H. Walton, and our industry consultant and co-investigator, Judith C. Giordan. Additional team members who contributed to this research are Sheetal Patel and Susanna Gallor.

References 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

Plos One ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm. Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/plos-one-ousts-reviewer-editorafter-sexist-peer-review-storm. (accessed November 5, 2016). Helwig, A. Sex Roles 1998, 38 (5−6), 403–423. Levy, S. R.; Stroessner, S. J.; Dweck, C. S. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74 (6), 1421–1436. National Academy of Sciences. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering; 2006 Hill, C.; Corbett, C.; St Rose, A. Why so few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; American Association of University Women: 2010. Summers, L. Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce, Cambridge, MA, January 14, 2005. http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php (accessed August 21, 2015). Arseneau, J. R.; Asay, P. A.; Paquin, J. D.; Walton, H. M.; Downing, V. Roffman, M. S.; Fassinger, R. E. Career Success of Women in the Chemical Industry, Part 2: Navigating Workplace Challenges. Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017; Vol. 1255 (this volume), Chapter 6. 141

Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

8.

9. 10.


11. 12.

13.

14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

21. 22. 23. 24.

Paquin, J. D.; Arseneau, J. R.; Asay, P. A.; Downing, V. Roffman, M. S.; Walton, H. M.; Fassinger, R. E. Career Success of Women in the Chemical Industry, Part 3: Getting on the Same Page. Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017; Vol. 1255 (this volume), Chapter 7. Alper, J. Developing a National STEM Workforce Strategy: A Workshop Summary; National Academies Press: 2016. The White House. Office of Science and Technology Policy; 2016. https:// www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/women (accessed August 26, 2016). Landivar, L. C. Am. Community Survey Reports ACS-24; U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 2013. Catalyst. Catalyst Quick Take: Women in the Sciences. http:// www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-sciences; 2016 (accessed August 26, 2016). National Science Foundation. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering; 2013. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics (accessed August 26, 2016). National Science Foundation. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering; 2016. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics (accessed November 3, 2016). Rosser, S. V.; Taylor, M. Z. Academe 2009, 95 (3), 7–10. Catalyst. Catalyst Quick Take: Women’s Earnings and Income; 2016. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/womens-earnings-and-income (accessed August 26, 2016). Kilian, C. M.; Hukai, D.; McCarty, C. E. J. Manage. Development 2005, 24 (2), 155–168. Stewart, A. J., Stubbs, J. R.; Malley, J. E. Advance: Assessing the academic work environment for women scientists and engineers; Unpublished report; University of Michigan: 2002. Harter, J.; Schmidt, F.; Keyes, C. In Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived; Keyes, C., Haidt, J., Eds.; APA Books: Washington, DC, 2003; pp 205−244. Tullo, A. H. Women in industry 2016. Chem. Eng. News 2016, 94, 22–25 http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i34/Women-industry-2016.html (accessed Sept. 10, 2016). Carli, L. L.; Alawa, L.; Lee, Y.; Zhao, B.; Kim, E. Psychol. Women Q. 2016, 40, 240–260. Robnett, R. D. Psychol. Women Q. 2016, 40, 65–79. LaCrosse, J.; Sekaquaptewa, D.; Bennett, J. Psychol. Women Q. 2016, 40, 378–397. Project Implicit; 2016. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ (accessed August 24, 2016). 142

Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


25. Simmons, E. H. Promoting gender equity in STEM: Theory and applications. AWIS 2016, 48, 14–17. 26. Betz, N.; Fitzgerald, L. The Career Psychology of Women; Academic Press: New York, 1987. 27. Valian, V. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2000. 28. Rosser, S. V. Breaking into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in Science; New York University Press: New York, 2012. 29. Bianchi, S. M.; Milkie, S. M. J. Marriage Family 2010, 72, 705–725. 30. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. The Need for Support for Working Families; Briefing Paper #B357; 2016. 31. Moors, A. C.; Malley, J. E.; Stewart, A. J. Psychol. Women Q. 2014, 38, 460–474. 32. AWIS. Family leave from around the world. AWIS 2015, 46, 12–13. 33. Miller, C. C. The motherhood penalty vs. the fatherhood bonus. The New York Times, Sept. 6, 2014; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/ a-child-helps-your-career-if-youre-a-man.html?_r=0 (accessed Sept. 11, 2016). 34. Holland, T. M. Why there might be soon even fewer female leaders. AWIS 2016, 48, 12–15. 35. Sanz-Vergel, A. I.; Rodriguez-Munoz, A.; Nielsen, K. J. Occ. Org. Psychol. 2015, 88, 1–18. 36. Barnett, C. R.; Hyde, J. S. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 781–796. 37. Cheung, F.; Halpern, D. Am. Psychol. 2010, 65, 182–193. 38. Eagly, A. H.; Carli, L. L. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, 2007. 39. Fassinger, R. E.; Arseneau, J. R.; Paquin, J.; Walton, H.; Giordan, J. It’s Elemental: Enhancing Career Success for Women in the Chemical Industry; University of Maryland: 2006. 40. Paquin, J. D.; Fassinger, R. E. J. Women Minorities Sci. Eng. 2011, 17 (1), 51–68. 41. Betz, N. E.; Fassinger, R. E. Methodologies in Counseling Psychology. In Oxford Handbook of Counseling Psychology; Altmaier, E. M., Hansen, J. C., Eds; Oxford University Press: 2012; pp 237−269. 42. Heslin, P. J. Org. Behav. 2005, 26, 113–136. 43. Judge, T.; Higgens, C.; Thoresen, C.; Barrick, M. Pers. Psychol. 1999, 52, 621–652. 44. Scarpello, V.; Campbell, J. P. J. Occup. Psychol. 1983, 56, 315–328. 45. Carlson, D. S.; Kacmar, K. M.; Williams, L. J. J. Vocat. Behav. 2000, 56, 249–276. 46. Lefcourt, L. A. The self-efficacy expectations for role management. Measure. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Diss. Abstr. Int. 1996, 56, 5175. 47. Hegarty, H. W; Dalton, D. R. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1995, 55, 1047–1052. 48. Fitzgerald, L. F.; Shullman, S. L.; Bailey, N. J. Vocat. Behav. 1988, 32, 152–175. 143 Nelson and Cheng; Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


49. House, J. S.; Wells, J. A. Occupational stress, social support, and health. In Reducing Occupational Stress: Proceedings of a Conference; McLean, A., Black, G., Colligan, M., Eds.; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Washington, DC, 1978; pp 8−29. 50. Eisenberger, R.; Cummings, J.; Armeli, S.; Lynch, P. J. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 82, 812–820. 51. Leslie, D. R.; Holzhalb, C. M.; Holland, T. P. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 1998, 8, 212–222. 52. Barth, J. M.; Dunlap, S.; Kelsey, C. Sex Roles 2016, 75, 110–125.


Career Success of Women in the Chemical ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents