Smash and stay? Women and firms' 'glass ceiling'

Gender equality remains a largely elusive dream for the legal industry, with few women making it into senior roles across many of the world’s leading firms. So, what are the obstacles preventing more women from progressing to the most senior ranks in the legal sector? And what do firms need to do to address the gender imbalance that seems to get worse the further up the ranks one goes?

Data on discrepancies

Thomson Reuters’ Transforming Women’s Leadership in the Law: Global Report 2020 found, despite more initiatives to increase gender diversity at senior levels in firms, women remain underrepresented at the top level. The widest gaps exist within mainland European firms, where women account for 59 per cent of junior associates, but only 21 per cent of equity partners. In comparison, in Asia-Pacific countries, women account for 54 per cent of junior associates, but 27 per cent of equity partner roles. The research also found, globally, male equity partners are paid 28 per cent, on average, more than female equity partners.

Obstacle course?

There are several obstacles currently preventing women from climbing to more senior positions in firms. One of these is an unconscious bias that exists in many firms. An example is when a hiring committee made up of mainly men may tend to appoint another man to a role.

Another obstacle preventing women from progressing is the working culture that exists at many firms. The long hours often required make it more difficult for people with caring responsibilities from combining a full-time role with family life, and caring responsibilities tend to fall disproportionately on women. This is major factor why many women choose to leave their roles before they even reach middle management level.

Solutions so far?

To tackle the gender imbalances, some firms have introduced measures to try and encourage more women into senior roles. One measure that some have taken is to pair junior female employees with more senior colleagues to mentor them on areas of work such as culture, inclusion and diversity.

However, our research suggested that these mentorship schemes have been seen to create a culture of ‘othering’, where women are set apart from men and perceived as needing ‘special treatment’.

Another measure some firms have taken to address gender imbalances has been to introduce ‘gender blind’ work allocation policy, meant to ensure decisions made about workflow and its distribution are free from gender bias. However, research shows this is less effective than other measures, such as simply ensuring a balance of men and women on each working team.

There are some practice areas in firms where very few women have experience carrying out projects. Blindly and randomly allocating workflow means many women would then be unable to build up their skills and experience in areas in which they have not previously worked.