Jpmorgan Woos Women To Invest In Their Careers: Gender In The CityEssay Preview: Jpmorgan Woos Women To Invest In Their Careers: Gender In The CityReport this essayIndividual Reading AssignmentJPMorgan Woos Women to Invest in their Careers: Gender in the CityBy Gillian TettFinancial Times (London, England)June 5, 2006SummaryIn her article JPMorgan Woos Women to Invest in Their Careers, Gillian Tett describes a recent event which took place in the opulent surroundings of the Dorchester Hotel located in London, England. At first glance, the list of speakers might lead one to conclude that the gala was merely a typical marketing event sponsored by the JPMorgan investment firm. Guest speakers included the likes of JPMorgans CEO, Jamie Dimon, who spoke on the state of global markets, while former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Al¬bright led a discussion on geopolitical risk. Finally, Laura Tyson, outgoing Dean of the London Business School enlightened the audience on the details of her political and academic career. However, while most “investment banking events are usually dominated by men in smart suits, yesterdays attendees [and speakers] were mostly female” (Tett, 2006).
The primary reason that U.S. investment bank JPMorgan met with a number of its “prized” international clients in this forum last week was to jointly participate in the “Conference for Women Leaders” sponsored by the Wall Street banking firm. The theme of the conference focused on “economies without borders – are you ready?” (Tett, 2006).
Tett questions whether this event, in particular, and JPMorgans greater focus on senior female staff, in general, is indicative of an increased commitment to its female employers or if it instead a defensive move that provided the opportunity to publicly show the firms increasingly female-friendly nature. Some of the competitors of JPMorgan, including Deutsche Bank, have also met recently to discuss the “state of women in European business.” The banks “insist that their efforts are to attract women are genuine” and the fact that “a growing number of the banks own clients are female” spurs them on to convey themselves as organizations dedicated to the development of female talent (Tett, 2006).
JPMorgan’s CEO says they do not want the ‘honeypot’
JPMorgan is now trying to dispel the possibility that their efforts would be construed to be at odds with the Honeypot, which was put into operation in 2007 and was designed to “create a culture of female commitment for a corporate culture where women are perceived and valued (by others) more seriously (due to their attractiveness)”.
But if the issue is one of how to treat new hires or new, women based within a corporate social structure, what do other types of corporate culture (i.e., the ‘honeypot’) have to do with it?
I think it’s a bit too broad, right? In my view, if you look at the entire company, there’s a whole number of things that can be taken into account with respect to women in that culture, and that may be something that needs to be explained to a new company in the near future, as opposed to what’s at stake. And that the Honeypot and other women-focused social norms around a woman-centered structure are just part of what makes the system work. I mean, who doesn’t have a heart? What makes me and my family feel special?! The Honeypot needs to be addressed in the same way that it needs to be addressed among other things (JPMorgan 2007, p. 33-34).
As we have discussed, it isn’t just about an effort to educate or empower new hires for their existing roles (which typically aren’t much needed in order to be hired but are valuable). It’s about an effort to build the culture of women-oriented thinking (which means that what you really do need to know and who you’re looking out for is who you’re supporting), and that the honeypot is about promoting that culture, and the industry needs to engage the idea of a women-focused culture to keep building a stronger women-oriented culture in place (JPMorgan 2006, p. 17-18).
And of course, as a final step, the company needs to be able to identify new and existing women-based leadership qualities that are needed around the team, and to engage them with their existing responsibilities to better build the Honeypot (JPMorgan 2007, p. 26-27).
That way, the company will have a more relevant message which allows the company (and the industry) to engage internally and gain other insights and perspectives not only within the current work environment but also with the business world, making it all that more important to work alongside people who are looking to get involved in an ongoing, more successful, multi-generational company.
As I’ve said, these type
JPMorgan’s CEO says they do not want the ‘honeypot’
JPMorgan is now trying to dispel the possibility that their efforts would be construed to be at odds with the Honeypot, which was put into operation in 2007 and was designed to “create a culture of female commitment for a corporate culture where women are perceived and valued (by others) more seriously (due to their attractiveness)”.
But if the issue is one of how to treat new hires or new, women based within a corporate social structure, what do other types of corporate culture (i.e., the ‘honeypot’) have to do with it?
I think it’s a bit too broad, right? In my view, if you look at the entire company, there’s a whole number of things that can be taken into account with respect to women in that culture, and that may be something that needs to be explained to a new company in the near future, as opposed to what’s at stake. And that the Honeypot and other women-focused social norms around a woman-centered structure are just part of what makes the system work. I mean, who doesn’t have a heart? What makes me and my family feel special?! The Honeypot needs to be addressed in the same way that it needs to be addressed among other things (JPMorgan 2007, p. 33-34).
As we have discussed, it isn’t just about an effort to educate or empower new hires for their existing roles (which typically aren’t much needed in order to be hired but are valuable). It’s about an effort to build the culture of women-oriented thinking (which means that what you really do need to know and who you’re looking out for is who you’re supporting), and that the honeypot is about promoting that culture, and the industry needs to engage the idea of a women-focused culture to keep building a stronger women-oriented culture in place (JPMorgan 2006, p. 17-18).
And of course, as a final step, the company needs to be able to identify new and existing women-based leadership qualities that are needed around the team, and to engage them with their existing responsibilities to better build the Honeypot (JPMorgan 2007, p. 26-27).
That way, the company will have a more relevant message which allows the company (and the industry) to engage internally and gain other insights and perspectives not only within the current work environment but also with the business world, making it all that more important to work alongside people who are looking to get involved in an ongoing, more successful, multi-generational company.
As I’ve said, these type
JPMorgan’s CEO says they do not want the ‘honeypot’
JPMorgan is now trying to dispel the possibility that their efforts would be construed to be at odds with the Honeypot, which was put into operation in 2007 and was designed to “create a culture of female commitment for a corporate culture where women are perceived and valued (by others) more seriously (due to their attractiveness)”.
But if the issue is one of how to treat new hires or new, women based within a corporate social structure, what do other types of corporate culture (i.e., the ‘honeypot’) have to do with it?
I think it’s a bit too broad, right? In my view, if you look at the entire company, there’s a whole number of things that can be taken into account with respect to women in that culture, and that may be something that needs to be explained to a new company in the near future, as opposed to what’s at stake. And that the Honeypot and other women-focused social norms around a woman-centered structure are just part of what makes the system work. I mean, who doesn’t have a heart? What makes me and my family feel special?! The Honeypot needs to be addressed in the same way that it needs to be addressed among other things (JPMorgan 2007, p. 33-34).
As we have discussed, it isn’t just about an effort to educate or empower new hires for their existing roles (which typically aren’t much needed in order to be hired but are valuable). It’s about an effort to build the culture of women-oriented thinking (which means that what you really do need to know and who you’re looking out for is who you’re supporting), and that the honeypot is about promoting that culture, and the industry needs to engage the idea of a women-focused culture to keep building a stronger women-oriented culture in place (JPMorgan 2006, p. 17-18).
And of course, as a final step, the company needs to be able to identify new and existing women-based leadership qualities that are needed around the team, and to engage them with their existing responsibilities to better build the Honeypot (JPMorgan 2007, p. 26-27).
That way, the company will have a more relevant message which allows the company (and the industry) to engage internally and gain other insights and perspectives not only within the current work environment but also with the business world, making it all that more important to work alongside people who are looking to get involved in an ongoing, more successful, multi-generational company.
As I’ve said, these type
Relationship/Reference to the TextThe text describes how “gender bias against women managers that exists in some countries, coupled with myths harbored by male managers, creates hesitancy among U.S. multinational companies to offer women international assignments” (Cateora & Graham, 140). The contention of the authors is that the most frequently cited reason for the comparatively small percentage of women employees chosen for such assignments – only 18% despite the fact that almost half the U.S. work force is comprised of women – is “the inability of women to succeed abroad” (Cateora & Graham, 141). The authors dispute this reason and assert that it is likely more fiction than fact. Many businesses believe that it is inappropriate to send a female executive to conduct business in a country where the culture is one in which women do not typically find themselves in managerial roles. “Despite the substantial prejudices toward women in foreign countries, evidence suggests… that prejudice toward foreign women executives may be exaggerated and that the treatment local women receive in their own cultures is not necessarily an indicator of how a foreign businesswoman is treated.”
Although a woman might encounter differences in the way she is treated versus the treatment of her male counterparts in such countries, “this does not mean that women are not successful in foreign postings” (Cateora & Graham, 141). Whether or not a businessperson – male or female – is successful often hinges on the strength of the backing he or she receives from the represented firm. With strong backing by her employer and a firm grasp of negotiating skills, a female executive is likely to receive the respect that is “commensurate with the position she holds and the firm she represents” (Cateora & Graham, 141). Upon commencement of negotiations, the hosts willingness to engage in business transactions and the respect that is afforded