Why women quit technology careers

More than half of the women in science, engineering and IT leave the field at mid­career. Here are some reasons, from the Center for Work-Life Policy in New York.

read more | digg story

As a woman in her 30s who has just left a tech career, I can say from my perspective, half of this is true.

The "antigens" listed on the first page -- primarily, machismo and a perception by the IT good ol' boys club that women are genetically inferior -- are factors that I, luckily, have not experienced. With the exception of one position, I have been treated with respect at all of my jobs, and I have always felt like I was an equal member of the team. (I will add the asterisk that a good portion of my career has been spent in journalism, a field in which there is [1] a fair ratio of men to women -- sometimes to a politically-correct fault, and [2] a workforce that reflexively strives for objectivity.)

That's not to say that I have not see machismo firsthand. It mostly came from older men who wielded some power in the workplace, encouraging their behavior, and this is the exception to which I referred. They're the ones who have a wife and girlfriend on the side. It's not a stretch to think their sons stand a good chance of carrying on that mentality.

I tend to connect better with men than women, so it's easy for me to laugh along with the off-color or sexual jokes I hear. I know the folks who have told those jokes are respectable, hardworking men who don't seriously mean what they are saying and only tell them for a laugh. I know there's no reason to take those jokes seriously. And when you're a woman in a workplace dominated by men, it's a given you're going to hear locker-room talk that men tell other men. If you're a woman who can't laugh at some locker-room jokes, a male-dominated career might not be the place for you to work (within any reasonable person's definition of jokes, of course). I think it would be the same the other way around: If a man worked in a female-dominated workplace, he'd likely hear more conversations about Aunt Flo and glass-vs.-plastic baby bottles than he's used to. It's just the environment.

As for the factors listed on the second page of the article, these are the antigens I have experienced in my career: isolation, lack of mentorship and rewarding riskier behavior patterns.

The final antigen concluded by the study -- that the tech industry is unfriendly to families -- may or may not be true. It does say that many women in other fields will leave to start a family and try to get back into their industry later. In my experience, I have found that not to be case. Once they left the workforce to have children, the women I worked with tended not to come back; and if they did, it was either to come back part-time or perhaps take an occasional contract job only to keep up a licensure or certification. I understand the decision, and if I had chosen to start a family, it, of course, would be my top priority. However, I do think that women who choose to have children and also want to work have an insurmountable hurdle in maintaining both, particulary in tech, where 50- to 70-hour workweeks are expected. It's not an industry that forgives those who expect to have a life outside of work, which is a shame. That was a factor in my leaving my last job, and I don't even have kids. Neither did the two other coworkers who did what I did, and they both were also my age, which speaks to the industry being one for singles and DINKs -- two demographics in which women who choose to be tend to be looked down upon in our society.

One of the Diggers who commented on the article brought up the fact that part of the reason for the dearth of women in tech jobs is that women and men just have different interests and strengths. Women tend to be more right-brained, and men tend to be more left-brained (blanket statements, of course), and by definition, left-brained folks will find it easier to succeed in science and technology careers. Although I think attitudes and interests are changing to be more homogenous, I do think it's a valid consideration.

As the article said, if a man fails at a task, he likely will be forgiven by his peers; if a woman fails, the rest of her tenure in that job might be defined that mistake. The willingness to take risk goes back to our culture. In our society, girls are expected to behave demurely, quietly and obediently, whereas gregariousness, curiosity, vocality are expected of boys. I am not attributing blame, only stating how things have evolved. Then, as adults, it becomes easier for men to take chances; for women, taking chances can lead to insecurity and self-doubt, mostly because it's territory into which women aren't as accustomed. That's not to say that these hurdles cannot be overcome, but men have an inherent head-start in risk-taking.

Here's a first-person account of risk-taking behavior among men and women, as told by my super-genius sister, who recently changed jobs:

I have come across an interesting phenomenon in the course of [a] job change. Most literature on women's -vs- men's pay, human resources, etc. claims that women earn, on average, $0.77 for every dollar a man earns. The scientific literature on the subject attributes this to mostly two reasons: first, women predominate in professions with lower pay scales (think teachers, librarians, and cafeteria lunch ladies), and second, women don't negotiate their pay increases as aggressively as men. ...

... My [old] pay scale overlaps with the pay scale of my new job. The new job tops out higher than my old job, but my [old] rate of pay is higher than the bottom of the new pay scale. ... The normal M.O. [in public-sector work] is for everyone to start at the bottom and work their way up in stages; starting above minimum isn't unheard of, but it is unusual, and it requires additional layers of approval to happen. When I interviewed for the new job, I made it clear I would not consider the job unless I started out above the minimum of the pay range; actually, I put down my current salary as my minimum requirement. My [old] salary falls somewhere between the bottom and the middle of the salary range of the new job, so I didn't feel that my request was unreasonable, especially with [my] experience. ...

Fast forward to getting the job offer, and the hiring supervisor asked me point blank what I'd like to get paid. I named a figure that is 5% above what I [was] making, and she said okay she'd see about it. I arrived at the 5% above figure by talking to [by BF's] mom. ...

Here is where the interesting part comes in, at least to me. Every single male I spoke with afterward told me I should have asked for 10%, if not higher. And most, if not all, of the females I talked to afterward thought 5% was reasonable with all the other variables factored in (the pay tops out higher, I get a review and a raise in 6 months, etc). So it seems we ladies do indeed aim low when it comes to negotiating pay.

Although the headline of this blog post is not representative of the story, a Wired blogger sums it best.

Current mood: Hopeful