Some kind of prize to the Resolution Foundation for the cover of their recent report on how to boost low wages; I say that even though the boosted person looks very male to me, so maybe doesn’t fit best with the Paula Principle. In fact as Susan Harkness’ piece on women’s wages makes clear, women’s wages have dropped by less than men’s, thus closing the gender gap but in a way that doesn’t exactly call for hurrahs.
Harkness argues that this convergence is partly due to the fact that it’s more the male-dominated employment sectors that have borne the brunt of the recession and subsequent wage squeeze. She also points our, crucially, that wages for the under-30s have now more or less converged, but the diverge rapidly with age.
The chart below, from her chapter, shows how the importance of women’s wages within a household varies across the earnings spectrum. It’s not surprising, but none the less important, that women’s earnings are so much more important for poorer households.
When it comes to recommendations, Harkness rightly wants opportunities for flexible working. She argues for promoting more full-time jobs for women, on the basis of experience from Sweden and Denmark on the impact of prolonged part-time work. At the same time she commends Timewise for their efforts to improve the quality of part-time jobs. As PP readers will know, I think this is crucial, but will only happen when significantly more men work part-time; and when the binary divide between full- and part-time work is discarded.
Incidentally, I spoke last week to a group of American Democrats Abroad; in looking at the US experience in preparation for this I noted (which I already knew, but only vaguely) that their cut-off point for part-time is 35 hours. Since the meeting was happening in France, I remarked that this meant that the majority of French workers must be part-time by American standards.
Finally, I want also to commend Alison Wolf’s piece in the Resolution Foundation report. She very crisply points out how skewed our current education system is in favour of full-time higher education,and how phoney a lot of apprenticeships have been:
“Promising ‘3 million apprenticeships’ in the next five years (Conservatives) or ‘an apprenticeship for every 18 year old’ (Labour) is a feel-good activity for them. It should be a heart-sink for anyone listening.”
The UK Commission on Employment and Skills has just published an excellent report, Growth Through People. It sketches out, in considerable detail but in clear language, the puzzle of how the UK has a high level of employment; relatively high levels of high level skills, measured by graduate level qualifications; but low productivity levels. Productivity, as yesterday’s budget yet again showed, is crucial to our general prosperity.
The most important implication of the UKCES analysis is to shift the focus from simplistic assumptions that boosting the sheer numbers of highly qualified people is a solution to our economic problems, to a much more nuanced and complex consideration of how skills are actually used in the workplace. Qualifications are not the same as skills – obvious enough; but add to that the evidence that skills/qualifications are not themselves enough to raise productivity and it’s clear that we need a much closer understanding of how jobs are defined and people managed if we are to find a positive way forward.
Investment in training has been in decline over the past few years, so that we should not be lulled into thinking that because we have greater numbers of highly qualified people coming out of the education system that is enough to sustain the overall competence of the workforce. “There are various different indicators of learning across the UK. Worryingly, these point to one important and common trend; a significant decline in engagement, whether captured through participation rates, average training volume or funding….the NIACE Adult Participation in Learning survey, which covers the whole of the UK, has also seen a decline since 2001, with participation in learning in the last 3 years falling from 46 to 38 per cent of adults in 2013. Perhaps more significantly, over a similar period, the duration of training fell sharply, with the result that the average training volume per worker declined by about half.”
But back to the key point about utilisation. Two quotes sum this up:
“A large number of workers remain overskilled or overqualified. In both cases, underutilisation represents a waste of talent and has significant consequences. “
“The stable level of 30 per cent of graduates mismatched to jobs requiring lower skill level means a much larger number of overqualified graduates than we had before .”
The report points out that UK managers tend themselves to be rather less well qualified, relative to their staff, than in other countries. One consequence may be that they are less good at making use of the talent at their disposal: not just in recruiting the right people, but in enabling them to work to their capacity, to be properly motivated and rewarded, and to progress in their careers. If this is the case, my guess is that it is not so much a matter of individual failings as of the general culture of management, including the incentives which managers themselves operate under.
And so we come to the PP-relevant issue: how far is this underutilisation a matter of gender? In other words, since we know that women embody an increasing proportion of the nation’s skills, is it these skills which are not being properly recognised and rewarded? The report has little to say about this; I’m hoping that the UKCES can be persuaded to extend its analysis further. It might do something to unlock the productivity puzzle.
Below is a rather depressing table. I’ve taken it from a piece by Michael Handel in the recent ippr publication Technology, globalisation and the future of work in Europe, which draws on data from the European Working Conditions Survey.
First, it suggests that the quality of work in the UK dropped significantly over the decade to 2005, absolutely and relative to other EU countries. We started well above the EU average on both complex tasks and problem-solving at work, but 10 years later we had dropped significantly on both these scores, so that we were below average on the former and only just above on the latter. This is not a healthy direction of travel: towards more simplified (i.e. routine) work.
Secondly, we share with most other countries a drop in the proportion of working people who say they are learning new things at work. Our decline is sharper than almost all the others, from a proud 82% in 1995 (bettered only by the inevitable Scandinavians) to 71% in 2005. In a sense this fits with the first point: less complex work requires less learning. But it’s not encouraging.
Obviously the figures are quite dated. Information for 2015 will be available in due course, and they will make interesting reading. Handel seems to think that they are not likely to show a change of direction. We know from other studies that the UK’s performance on learning at work is not improving.
I’m asking for the gender breakdown so we can see how this bears on the Paula Principle. I know that there is other analysis, notably from Francis Green, which gives a more optimistic view on the quality of UK working life generally, and which suggests that women report having a higher quality than men, in spite of the pay gap. In any event, this kind of information is important as the focus of employment debate may be shifting from the absolute volume of jobs to the quality of the work that is offered.
It seems very likely that all this is closely linked to our productivity puzzle. Matching people’s skills better to the work they do is surely an essential part of this, especially in human services, where women predominate and which are less dependent on technology for their productivity. Take the care sector: it is, to a large extent, a matter of choice whether jobs are designed/defined as complex and problem-solving (and rewarded as such); or are routinised and low-paid. Who decides which path to take?
It’s the day after International Women’s Day, and I just thought I’d share two responses I’ve had to the PP book manuscript. The first is from a publisher:
“There are two problems. First they feel that some of the material is not wholly unfamiliar – my colleagues who read many more business books than me tell me that they have read books which cover the subject and they are not sure this breaks enough new ground. And second – and I am not sure how one resolves this problem– they feel it would be a sales obstacle for us to publish a book on this subject by a man. It probably has to be written by a woman. ”
and the second from a literary agent:
“The author’s research and structure were impressive and clear. I also thought he had a robust website which is a plus. But I’m afraid I was put-off by the fact that it is a man writing on the topic. I don’t think Lean-in could’ve been written by a man, and I’m not positive this could be either. Maybe it simply needs s different spin, or a slightly different framing (more sociological, less motivational in a way so it doesn’t feel like a man telling women what’s wrong with this picture.) This is no feminist rant—I’m thinking really only from a sales perspective, of how this could be pitched so that it never sounds like a man pointing to what needs to be fixed, for women.”
I’d be interested in people’s reactions, a) from the commercial/sales point of view, and b) more generally. (Nice about the website, at least.) Comments to me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
More importantly, I was struck by some figures in Christine Lagarde’s recent London speech, as well as by her emphasis on the negative economic impact of inequality. The IMF head concluded:
“There is one more dimension of inequality that I wish to discuss here—one that is close to my heart. If we talk about inclusion in economic life, we must surely talk about gender. As we know too well, girls and women are still not allowed to fulfill their potential—not just in the developing world, but in rich countries too. The International Labor Organization estimates that 865 million women around the world are being held back. They face discrimination at birth, on the school bench, in the board room. They face reticence of the marketplace—and of the mind.
And yet, the economic facts of life are crystal clear. By not letting women contribute, we end up with lower living standards for everyone. If women participated in the labor force to the same extent as men, the boost to per capita incomes could be huge—27 percent in the Middle East and North Africa, 23 percent in South Asia, 17 percent in Latin America, 15 percent in East Asia, 14 percent in Europe and Central Asia. We simply cannot afford to throw away these gains.” Christine Lagarde, Richard Dimbleby Memorial Lecture, London Feb 2015.
The figures would be even greater if we looked not just at economic participation per se, but at jobs which matched skills.
I’ve just spent most of the day at the Women of the World festival at the Southbank Centre. It started with Jude Kelly interviewing Annie Lennox (yes!!), with scrolling stats on the global position of women; the most startling of these is that gender-based violence notches up more deaths and disablement than wars, malaria, cancer and crashes. It’s worth also remembering that 41 million girls don’t even get primary education. Kirsty Wark then chaired a discussion on whether things had gone backwards as far as (violent) misogyny is concerned; it led me to her film on Blurred Lines, which deals with the fissile and contentious boundaries between humour and aggression.
The first directly Paula-relevant session was a high-powered panel on women in business. Humorous and practical. The panel split on quotas. Tessa Jowell MP in favour, Ann Cairns, a senior executive at Mastercard, opposing, and Gail Rebuck, CEO of Random Books, originally anti but moving towards pro. The fourth panel member, whose name I didn’t get, had moved from banking to set up her own cosmetics business; she said, and the others agreed, that the most important thing was to make choices on what you want to do – and that needn’t mean putting a conventional career first.
Finally an enjoyable session on Jobs for the Boys, featuring a football journalist, an airline pilot, a plumber and a structural engineer. Felicity Bush had to pioneer her pathway to piloting in the 1970s; her first job application was apparently rejected on the grounds that if God had wanted women to fly he would have made the sky pink. Since then, things have, she said, got a lot easier. Hattie Hasan stopped teaching to train as a plumber, and has now set up Stopcock plumbers for women plumbers – great branding. She also wrote The Joy of Plumbing, which is only partly about plumbing.
WOW carries on over the weekend.
There are about 2 million people employed in the care sector in the UK. 1.4 million are in the ‘frontline’ , which means they do the physical caring, but also often are one of the few social contacts that the client has, especially in the case of elderly clients. Most of these are women. It’s a demanding job that many of us would be completely unable to sustain. It’s also one where low pay is very widespread. This is criminal – often literally so, as many are paid below the National Minimum Wage.
A recent report from the ever-relevant Resolution Foundation, aptly titled ‘As If we Cared’, tackles the challenge of how to raise wages for this vast army. I won’t summarise the report’s recommendations, which you can read for yourselves. Although the main focus, quite rightly, is on lifting the basic wages paid it also addresses the lack of training and progression in the sector:
” the care sector stands out as offering very limited opportunities to progress to higher pay levels. This reflects an increasingly ‘flat’ workforce hierarchy in which financial pressures and standardisation of services have led to little differentiation of frontline care roles or opportunity for specialisation. ”
There’s a neat graphic (Fig 1 in the report, which I can’t reproduce) that shows how concentrated the care workforce is in the lowpay-lowskill corner of the occupational field.
This might mean that all the women and men doing this care work are without skills and formal qualifications, and secondly that that is the nature of the occupation. In which case it wouldn’t have much to do with the Paula Principle. But most people would acknowledge two things.
First at least to some extent there is a significant undervaluing of the skills that are already being used. Some of them may be natural (I’m avoiding ‘innate’) – the kinds of human quality which should after all be present in any caring role. But others are learnt and applied; they are skills in the usual sense, but are just not recognised. The report quotes the Low Pay Commission:
“In social care in particular there is an issue not so much of productivity as of the value society attaches to providing care, and of a failure to reward the skills that are required. A policy objective of funding higher wages for the lowest-paid care roles might need to be accompanied by other measures, formally recognising the skills involved, and requiring carers to demonstrate possession of them, for such a policy objective to be attained.”
Secondly, there could surely be more of a career structure, just as there is in most other personal services. This is essential if the quality of care is to be improved. Retention of staff is a key factor in this. The sector currently has an annual staff turnover rate of 22%. This is not surprising, given the low pay and the stress of exploitative contracts which offer no continuity, and/or no pay for travel time to the clients. But it is accentuated by the lack of prospects.
In short, social care is a sector where the Paula Principle applies, but in a rather disguised way; and it needs to change both so that the staff’s current skills are recognised, and so that the skills they acquire over time are able to be rewarded. These are rather fundamental questions of value.
Paula Factor 5, you may remember, is positive choice: where women make the decision not to go for a job which is above their current level because they actively prefer to stay doing what they are doing, or to move in a horizontal direction. They don’t need the money or the status that a promotion would bring; they feel they are exercising their competences already and/or learning new ones; and they do not want to rise to a level where they might perhaps become examples of the Peter Principle.
I’ve been discussing this with a male friend. He sent me the following:
“I know clearly in my own career I have been very doubtful about seeking advancement because of concerns about not being sufficientlycompetent. But these get muddled up with rationales about not wishing to take on the strain of more responsibility. And then in retrospect it often looks as though this perception of strain proved to be right - it matters how you anticipate that you will respond to anxiety, pressure etc. Some seem to enjoy it , many suffer with it though.
Then I worked in a very progressive college with a large proportion of highly capable women middle leaders. A strong pattern developed of them not seeking promotion (and some males too), so other candidates were promoted instead.
There are two open questions for me here:
1. What happens if a significant fraction of people with a particular profile opt out of promotion – does it leave an opposite ‘type’ as more likely to be in leadership roles, by default?
2. Are higher level jobs ‘the wrong shape’?”
To which I replied:
I’m increasingly clear that jobs are often defined quite dysfunctionally, and this is now a definite feature of the gendering of work – i.e. jobs, especially senior ones, are defined in ways which – quite understandably – reflect those who currently hold them or have held them in the past; and therefore ‘discriminate’ against women. The really interesting question is how much plasticity there is in different jobs, i.e. what the elbow room is for rewriting the jd.
It would be great to hear from anyone who wants to follow through on any of his comments/questions, with examples or questions of their own.
I’ve been reading a collection which focusses on how and why men do or don’t learn as adults. It’s a basic component of the Paula Principle picture that men appear more reluctant to engage in learning, formal and informal, across most OECD countries. The PP looks at the consequences of this (or lack of them) for women ; Men Learning Through Life asks what this reluctance means for men. It is not an exhibition of ‘moral panic’ about male disadvantage, but a good research-based look at a distinctive issue and what might be done about it.
The book draws its inspiration from pioneering studies done some time ago by Veronica McGivney. She was the first (at least in published form) to point out how adult men disappeared from the learning lists. Men Earn, Women Learn was the neat title of one of her early studies. This is interesting for me not only, obviously, because of its content, but also because Veronica was a woman writing about the experiences of the other sex. I’ve just had the PP book turned down by a publisher on the grounds that I’m a man, and one question for me is whether this is judgement is based on an accurate sense of the market – and whether it raises any ethico-political issues.
Anyway, back to MLTL . The book covers a number of countries – Ireland, Greece, China and New Zealand, but the mainspring is Australia, and particularly the “men’s sheds” movement there.
The sheds are places where men, especially those who have worked mainly in manual jobs can get together, just for a chat but also to practice their skills, work-related or not, and to learn new ones. Typical skills are wood-turning and painting. They can also pass on their skills – one or two sheds were set up to help intergenerational learning, where the older men offer guidance to adolescent boys who are not doing well at school. The important thing is that it’s a place where they feel comfortable; the sheds cater especially for men with few qualifications who are often on the margins of the labour market, and who have never felt at ease in a formal educational environment.
Australia is a country with a fairly pronounced masculine culture. I can’t be the only person who recalls the Bazza Mackenzie strip cartoon and the dubious practices which took place in the shed there.
(More recently we had the real-life spectacle of a female prime ministerJulia Gillard, being on the end of some truly awful treatment.) So the sheds raise some interesting questions for contemporary thinking on gender. The authors address the issue of whether setting aside spaces for men reinforces gender differences generally. There are some obvious respects in which it does, but the overall message is that if men can use them to engage in learning, including communicating about what they are doing, this has a broader social benefit. Sheds can alleviate the difficulties of some marginalised groups. And in doing so they may help their families also.
A quick post following a good meeting yesterday organised by UCU, on widening access to higher education, in the august surrounding’s of the Dean’s Yard Westminster. (My last post came from the even more distinguished crypt of St Paul’s – where will I find myself next?).
Two key issues struck me. One was ‘trends in gaps’. Helen Thornley of UCAS gave details of the latest figures on applications and entries to universities. The gap between those from the most and least advantaged backgrounds is diminishing – though not very fast, and not o the ‘high tariff’ (i.e. elite) universities. At the same time, the gap between female and male entries is growing. If these two trends continue, the gender gap in favour of females will overtake the socio-economic gap in favour of better-off young people. That’s quite a crossover to contemplate.
When I talked afterwards with Helen she said how difficult it was to get a proper debate going on the gender gap issue. We both wondered why.
The second issue was about careers advice, or guidance. Angela Nartley of UCU reported on some research they have been carrying out on young people’s perceptions of HE – whether it is for them, why they will or won’t choose to go, where they might go and so on. The sheer lack of any advice was very striking. Most of them never visited a university, and got information only from family or friends. Most striking of all was that only 38% even accessed information on HE via the internet.
The report notes: “Young women tend to have a more coherent picture of what they want to do after school. The tend to source multiple suggestions on potential careers, rather than focussing on university courses.”
The two issues are linked. Young men are much more likely to use only family or friends as their source of information. So peer group plays a stronger part for them. As Ann Hodgson pointed out, it may become progressively less cool for young men to continue their education, especially if they come from a poor background. What are the alternatives for them?
“Between 1990 and 2011, the value of intangible assets in the UK grew from £50.2 billion to £137.5 billion, while at the same time the value of tangible, physical assets has increased much more slowly from £72.1 billion to £89.8 billion. In 2015, intangible investment will be 50% higher than investment in tangibles.” CIPD Human Capital Reporting: Investing for Sustainable Growth 2014, quoting a NESTA report by Goodrich et al Technology and the Arts.
I’m always a bit suspicious of these kinds of calculation, but the overall message is pretty clear: we should be looking at how the money we spend (publicly and privately) on things like education and training (prime examples of intangibles) is effectively put to use, and not only think of ‘investment’ as something made in physical assets.
This point was made several times at a lively meeting I went to yesterday in the crypt of St Paul’s Cathedral – not somewhere I’ve visited before. It was hosted by the St Paul’s Institute, which works to stimulate debate on contemporary issues. The topic was What’s Gender Got to Do With It? Women in the Economy, and the panel included Stefan Stern, whose tweets have provided me with many useful leads, and Vicky Pryce. They are writing a book on quotas as a means of promoting women’s participation in senior positions.
The case they make is primarily a business one rather than an equity one, i.e. that organisations that do better on diversity are more likely to succeed commercially. Vicky took a very forthright economist’s approach to women’s labour market activity generally – pointing to the huge waste involved if women’s skills are not used to the full. (She also illustrated her approach by reference to the costs of putting women, especially mothers, in prison – including the long-term effects on children – but that’s another story.)
Coming from someone else (e.g. a man, maybe) this hard-nosed economist approach might have put some people’s backs up, but it didn’t appear to. One member of the audience added the point that we need some different labels or categorisation , especially in thinking about ‘infrastructure’: we shouldn’t count only hard physical things like airports and roads, but include ‘social infrastructure’ items – the capacity for care being the main one.
There was a lot of discussion of part-time work and the penalties it brings. (I dropped in a question about whether we need to change the way we define ‘part-time’ , but I think this went into the ‘too hard’ basket.) Later that day I picked up the latest ONS stats on part-time work, and the reasons why people work part-time. Here we may be reaching a milestone of a kind.
Male part-timers have gone up by about 14000 over the last year, to just over 1.5 million. This increase is not big. What is much more significant is the numbers who say they do not want to work full-time. This has shot up, from 909,000 a year ago to 992,000. The numbers of women who are working part-time and not looking for a full-time job have increased by even more. Of course the fact that they are ‘not looking’ for a full-time job partly reflects the absence of such jobs – the discouragement effect. But it may be that we are reaching a point when choosing to work part-time becomes normalised, for men as it is for women. So when the 992K turns into a million we might look on that as a turning point. But of course the question is whether employers will recognise part-time careers – and make that intangible investment pay off.