Here's where I left off in my last post: New women partners are doing their damndest to develop business, but they already seem dispirited by their efforts. You almost get the sense that they're madly flapping their wings but not getting very far.
Any wonder then that most women don’t see themselves as the movers and shakers at their firms in the long run? (According to The American Lawyer's survey of new partners, only 33 percent of the women set being a major rainmaker as a goal, while 50 percent of the men did so.)
What's behind that gender gap? Are women just less confident about themselves and the future? Or are they hard-nosed realists? And are men just cockier?
The short answer is all the above. For a variety of reasons, men are simply more in the loop--both inside and outside of the firm.
For starters, men tend to identify more closely with the power structure. More men say they received leadership or management training from their firms (45 percent of men versus 33 percent of women). There was also at least a ten-point split in how the genders rated their satisfaction levels on client contact (56 percent of men versus 45 percent of women said they were “very satisfied”) and management openness about money matters (32.5 percent of men versus 22.5 percent of women answered “very satisfied”).
Then this shocker: Almost 15 percent of the women (but only 4 percent of the men) in the survey say they're "not sure" how to describe their firms’ partner compensation system—whether it's lockstep, base plus bonus, an amalgam of subjective and objective factors, or a closed system. (How could any partner be in the dark on this basic issue? More on that in my next post.)
Worse than the boys' club within the firm, though, is the one outside: the clients. “If your clients tend to be men--like financial services, banking, or bankruptcy—they are old boy's networks,” says Ellen Ostrow, a career coach who specializes in women lawyers. “Women in those industries show the greatest amount of pessimism.” (See "Don't Let Your Wall Street Sisters Quit.")
One brand-new M&A partner at an Am Law 100 firm says she already knows she can't compete with the boys: “It’s easier for men to develop business, because there are more men in position to hire outside lawyers.” It's a stereotype, she adds, but her male colleagues really seem to bond with male clients over golf.
Indeed, even at the starting gate, men are already ahead in the race. In the Am Law survey, male partners attribute almost 23 percent of their work to business they've generated, compared to 16 percent by women.
So the upshot is this: Female partners are still guests at the boys' club. What's a gal to do? Climb out of the treehouse?
Not to despair (totally)--my next post will look at some solutions.
Get The Careerist in your morning e-mail. Sign up today—see box on upper right corner.
Do you have topics you'd like to discuss or tips to share? E-mail The Careerist's chief blogger, Vivia Chen, at VChen@alm.com.
@ Kate, I rarely go to a strip club unless a woman asks me to go, which is often.
A big reason women aren't welcome in strip clubs when it comes to business is because of the perception that the woman will then turn around and use the trip to the strip club as an excuse for filing a lawsuit. This dynamic is the fault of women, not guys.
Posted by: DirkJohanson | January 10, 2012 at 05:51 AM
Most partners don't develop a lot of business, male or female. To succeed takes sacrifice, and most people don't want to do it. Most women want/can suceed less than men. Blame husbands and children and life. It's probably rational. This is also a hot topic on startup blogs. Success means sacrificing spousal relationships and child relationships. I suspect a lot of successful partners don't have great relationships with their kids. But if you're a man, at least you have them. If a women partner has a bad relationship with her kids, it's likely because she waited too long to have them, and now cannot. On an individual level, it's solve able. On a macro level, it's hopeless. Women won't sacrifice children for career, men will. Maybe the better way to look at the problem is why do so many male partners fail at life?
Posted by: Ken | January 8, 2012 at 12:31 AM
I agree with much of what is said here, but I also want to offer a little different perspective as someone who is a woman rainmaker in a big firm and who built her book in the financial services industry.
Clearly, there is sexism in law firms and in industry. Let's not kid ourselves. But a lot of the talk about the poor statistics for women rainmakers assumes that anyone can be a rainmaker if given the chance and therefore, the lack of women rainmakers means they are being discriminated against because of their gender.
If we are talking about rainmakers who bring in new clients to the firm - not who expand existing clients - I believe gender does not play a significant role. Some people have the characteristics necessary to develop new business and some do not. This is not gender based, except that stereotypically women tend to be more reluctant to tout their skills and ask for business than their male counterparts. That, however, is behavior that - for some people - can be changed.
The characteristics that make a successful "new client" rainmaker include things like exuding confidence, problem solving, judgment, decisiveness, creativity, strategic thinking, and a willingness to take risk. Do all women have those characteristics? Of course not; nor do all men. But, women are more likely to not exhibit those characteristics because we have learned to (or been forced to) play them down. So that is where I think we need to focus attention and training.
Women's Initiatives (and big firms), however, have traditionally spent money on training everyone on the tactics of rainmaking ("do speeches", "write articles", "develop a plan") all of which are important. But focusing on those tactical skills ignores the importance of the development of the characteristics that make those tactics work. And that, in my opinion, is an opportunity missed.
I still don't think that all people - male or female - can be "new business" rainmakers, but I think if acknowledge that and then focus on those persons who can develop the characteristics of successful rainmakers, we could begin to level the playing field.
This doesn't solve the issues surrounding referrals of work from institutionial clients of big law firms, of course, which continues to be drenched with sexism and racism in many firms. But if we got more women into new client rainmaking roles by giving them both the characteristic development and the tactical skills they need to be successful, they would eventually control some of the institutional clients and perhaps that would change the dynamic. Because, as we know, in law firms, money talks and those who control the money have power to make change and influence firm dynamics.
Posted by: pat gillette
Posted by: pat gillette | January 6, 2012 at 02:31 PM
After spending 17 years at Biglaw (10 as a partner), I'd say women partners are less satisfied and have less rainmaking success because of widespread SEXISM at these firms. Sexism in terms of both discrimination and harassment.
One female partner mentions client bonding at golf. That certainly happens, but women can take up that frustrating sport. More likely is client bonding at strip clubs where female lawyers are definitely not welcome.
Check out my piece at Role/Reboot on disproportionate female advancement and promotion at Biglaw.http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2011-11-women-battle-law-firm-bias
It also addresses the barrier posed by widespread sexual harassment. Talented women get fed-up and leave.
Kate McGuinness
Posted by: Kate McGuinness | January 6, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Bravo for taking this on - it's so complicated that it's not for the faint of heart.
One reason is that the same behaviors accepted when men engage in them are not necessarily okay for women.
If a woman pushes back on unrealistic client expectations, for example, she may find herself out of sync with at least one operative stereotype - that she should be willing to do whatever it takes to make the client happy. After all, both men and women believe that women should be "caring", not "challenging".
It follows then that women would be less satisfied with client contact - can't get no satisfaction without reciprocity.
Posted by: Carol Frohlinger | January 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM
One of my favorite columns discusses another aspect of this - http://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/10/garden/hers.html?pagewanted=all. I went to school with Ms. Ascher who later wrote the HERS column. She is generally spot-on. Plus ca change ....
Posted by: K.C. Victor | January 6, 2012 at 05:22 AM
Rainmakers are salespeople who just happen to be lawyers, more often than not. What's the female-male breakdown of salespeople in the US? Does it differ from the percentage we saw in the lawyer survey?
Posted by: Stuart TenHoor | January 6, 2012 at 04:27 AM