This is definitely an issue we’ve seen.
The first and second problem are the same problem. Fewer women interested in those fields. The third problem isn’t a fintech problem it’s a genera finance problem overall.
The problem with the first two is even if you get more women interested you need to do it very young so your waiting 20 years to see the results.
The recruitment issue is always going to be a problem if people are wanting a 50:50 representation. We’ve been trying for a good while to improve options for women in tech but applicants always seem to be roughly 5:1 depending on the area of tech people want to go into. Theres room for improvement but I’m not sure how much?. I think we do a decent job, a lot of it is personal choice and letting people explore their options at a younger age so they can see the opportunities they could have.
I wonder though why it’s always focused on stem and not the other massively under represented fields that have almost no women at all. Or men ok the opposite spectrum.
Can you explain this a bit further please?
You can’t force people to apply for a job if they have no interest. Branch banking was traditionally female and call centres traditionally male. You see the new fintechs on recruitment drives, but they really are only recruiting for a customer service call centre based roll and that is something younger men tend to like applying for and females don’t. I’ve seen lots of explanations why and lots of excuses why but it’s not really possible to explain why. Sky solved the problem by having a work at home option, which made hours more flexible and that increased the number of females that applied for the roles, however its still more males than females.
As for the management side of Fintech unless people want to go into that field, then not that much you can do, you can encourage it, by being sexist and excluding men but surely that defeats everything about equality and there is still going to be a limited number that can apply for the roles.
Trying to embarass companies into publishing figures, still doesn’t change the fact its just not possible to get a 50:50 split in some industries.
Pay gap is bought in a lot, but there is no pay gap for most jobs in banking, for example Monzo, Revolut and Curve all on a recruitment drive for customer support staff, offer exactly the same wage and benefits for male or females.
Where the gender pay gap comes in is not just across comparable jobs (which is obviously hugely important), but also across the organisation as a whole. If you have a higher proportion of men in the higher-paid jobs and vice-versa in your lower-paid jobs, that is also relevant to the gender and pay make-up of the organisation.
My comment is 100% accurate though. And as the FinTech companies are generally recruiting for comparable jobs the pay gap has no relevance. Also if you compare them on senior roles the new FinTech have a higher number of women than traditional companies, so the article is not really that relevant.
That’s true. But if they aren’t given the opportunity to show interest or feel excluded then that needs to be changed.
It’s been 20 years or more already. When is this time over?
There are factors not always taken into account about job advertising and the way job descriptions are written which can put some women off even before applying.
I gather that men are more likely to think I can do some/most of that’ on a person specification and apply, where women are less likely to apply if they don’t feel they can show they can do all of it.
Also, the point you were answering hints (to me) that most women would start in entry level positions and rise up. We should be at/past the point where that should be the case. Recruitment of women into higher levels in many industries is still lower than recruitment of men.
That’s not a pay gap, my friend
That’s a wage gap. It’s also completely expected if one is a engineer and one is customer support.
It’s irrelevant because the job worked is important and it’s why I wish the stupid legislation here on reporting wage gaps would be axed
As @daedal mentioned; you can’t force people into jobs
Why is there no mass hysteria about the lack of male primary school teachers?
Also Neil, I refuse to believe that if you took person A and B who had exactly the same qualifications and a disagreeable personality that they’d get a different wage.
The only possibility is one negotiated and one didn’t
Not too surprising considering women are the usual homemakers - when you take time off from the industry then a man who didn’t is going to be the more experienced one
There’s going to be many factors but none of them are related to this innate desire to kick women out of the club
Are women given more paid leave then men after the birth of a child in FinTech?
I mean they’re more likely to be the one at home full-time, unaware of the parental leave at fintech companies
I do know though I wouldn’t see myself at home, I’d be working still
Be good to hear from one of our female colleagues.
I don’t think it would be, anecdotal means nothing other than “one account”. You need statistics, and I reckon the statistics are going to show on average women take more maternity leave in comparison to men taking paternity
If you’re taking X months out to not work or if you take 2-5 years off to raise your kid before going back to work, you’ve missed key events in the business or lost a lot of time to build more experience. Especially in industries that change by the second
Why do they do that?
Perhaps it’s because of the wage gap (top earner puts bread on the table while the lower paid one looks after the child + maternal instinct to want to raise a child could definitely play a part) - can’t be helped when men are the one taking STEM jobs
For what it’s worth I don’t believe their is a bias towards throwing men into STEM nowadays, in my town which is extremely conservative by nature, girls were allowed to go to STEM days like “girls who code” while we lads got diddly squat
FinTech forums also have a gender problem…
I work in engineering where, outside of a few support functions, it is extremely male dominated
This is not for want of trying, but we recruit from universities and university courses with much the same split in numbers
There were attempts through apprentice route as well, but sometimes that would have required relaxing qualifications in some cases
Some of the very competent female engineers we do have are understandably very leery of the idea of doing so as they feel it would devalue their efforts
Lowering standards to increase diversity is a spit in the face to anyone who actually knows their craft
How about you report your workplace for attempting to discriminate hires based on sex if I said “I don’t like that my office has more women so I tried hiring only men” you’d be shouting me down
I said the exact opposite of that! They did refuse to lower qualifications even at the cost of less diversity
In an ideal world we would have a 50:50 split, although not sure that works with new genders being created, so what will the next group of targets be? Targets are pointless, have targets made much difference anywhere? Because jobs that are traditionally female still are, like nurses and secretaries, yes there are some men, jobs like bin men and electritions are mainly male. Men don’t want to be secretaries and women don’t want to be bin men.
The same is true in banks, women want front line bank jobs, men other jobs.
So does equality not apply there, or is it one sided. That’s why targets don’t work.
Let people do what they want, not what someone in an office decides we need more of.