Unequal opportunities

Despite the large number of women now entering the accountancy profession, it is a fact that less than a quarter of partners in practising firms and a tiny proportion of the finance directors of UK public companies – only two in the FT-SE 100 – are female.

In 1995, research by Harrison Willis among female accountants found many were pessimistic about their career prospects and remuneration when compared with their male colleagues.

Only 18% of the 1995 sample expected that they would be able to progress to partnership or finance director level, while nearly one in four suspected they were not paid as well as a man in a similar role.

Each year the Accountancy Age/Harrison Willis Qualified Accountants Survey looks at trends in salary and benefits packages on offer to the UK’s finance professionals and at social issues influencing their working lives.

This year, following on from the 1995 research, we asked over 1,200 accountants throughout the UK whether they thought sexism was a real issue in the accountancy profession and, if so, whether there was a need for special measures to combat it.

A significant number of accountants who took part in the poll denied that sexism existed in the profession. A frequently heard comment from male finance directors was: ‘Women have to accept that motherhood and homeworking is an important role. However, if they do decide on a career, there is nothing to stop them.’

Another was: ‘Women must be prepared to give the same commitment as men to succeed.’

However, just under half of those who took part (49%) said they did not believe women and men enjoyed equal opportunities in accountancy, while only just over a third (34%) believed women had the same chances as their male counterparts of reaching senior positions such as partner or finance director.

One female accountant who failed to become a partner commented: ‘Children have made no difference to my chances of becoming a partner. Women with no children will never be a partner here either.’

A significant minority (29%) were also of the opinion that female accountants were paid worse than their male peers, something that the actual salary figures produced by the survey, while not allowing for a direct comparison, seemed to bear out.

While the mean salary for male accountants taking part in the poll was # 39,929, the figure for women was only # 34,232.

Over half of respondents (56%) felt there was a need for the introduction of special benefits to allow women to develop their careers. Forty-five per cent called for flexible hours, 36% for childcare facilities, such as in-house or sponsored creches/nurseries, and 34% for formal career breaks to allow for pregnancy and raising a family.

A small but vociferous group pointed out that fathers were also likely to be involved in childcare in the ‘caring, sharing’ 1990s and argued that such benefits should consequently be available to both men and women.

One male respondent put it in the following terms: ‘All employees need to be allowed space in their lives for their families’, while a female accountant wrote: ‘It shouldn’t be assumed that women do all the caring.’

Despite the pessimism of some, around three-quarters of accountants questioned believed that the introduction of special benefits would improve career prospects for women in accountancy.

However, there was some evidence of worry that positive discrimination could end up being counter-productive. As one female accountant put it: ‘I am concerned that positive discrimination towards women will upset the relationships most of us have built up with male colleagues’, while another commented: ‘Giving additional benefits to women will make employers even less keen to employ them.’

Several respondents from the public sector even argued that, in this area, positive discrimination was beginning to be unfair to men. One said: ‘In some local authorities equal opportunities are now so taken for granted that they work against the interests of male employees to the detriment of work, the quality of output and public services.’

This perception of the growing power of women in the workplace is not confined to a few public sector accountants. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission complaints from men about discrimination on sexual grounds in 1995 were up by 10% on the previous year and, for the first time since the Commission was founded in the wake of the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, the number of complaints from men actually overtook those from women.

Cases included a male nurse refused a job with the RAF because he wasn’t female which resulted in a # 2,500 out of court settlement; two men who were rejected by the Women’s Environmental Network, a group which campaigns on women’s issues; a male country club receptionist replaced by a ‘pretty girl’; and a bricklayer turned down for a job as a secretary because the employer thought he wouldn’t be willing to make the tea.

In general, those taking part in the Accountancy Age/Harrison Willis Qualified Accountants Survey appeared optimistic about the future. Sixty-two per cent of those polled believed equality of opportunity would increase over the next five years. Reasons given for this optimism included market forces such as the pressure of the ‘demographic time bomb’ leading to a shortage of young accountants, the growing number of women moving up through the profession and the phasing out of old attitudes.

One woman in particular drew on her own experience stating: ‘I remember what it was like for women 30 years ago, and it’s much better now.’ For simple logic, it would be difficult to better the conclusion of a young male accountant, who said: ‘My boss is a woman – QED.’

Graham Palfery-Smith is managing director of Harrison Willis, one of the UK’s longest established financial recruitment consultancies.