Our discussion boards have been pretty heated over the past week, as readers have debated whether or not moving up the Wall Street corporate ladder is harder for women than for men.

The latest round of this discussion was inspired, of course, by the recent high profile departure of Sallie Krawcheck from Bank of America. But it’s been a topic of interest to those in financial fields for far longer. Judging by the responses, readers are still divided over whether there’s a glass ceiling and whether or not it’s specific to Wall Street or a sign of a more general malaise.

Below, some highlights from the discussion: http://www.financial-planning.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=323052&topic=2367542

by rabbit »

I would not align Sally Krawcheck's recent status with a glass ceiling on Wall Street. Ms. Krawcheck has merely suffered a typical political play at the top. When a firm isn't producing and the Board is looking for blood, the CEO will throw his/her team to the wolves to buy more time for turnaround. No magic here. Ms. Krawcheck and her colleague may or may not be accountable for lack of momentum - publicly we will never know. Yes there still is a glass ceiling, but let's not confuse a common corporate exercise with this concept.

by e000071 »

Of course there's still a glass ceiling on Wall Street and on Main Street! It's painful to lose two female senior executives, Krawcheck and Bartz, in the same week! The most frustrating aspect of the glass ceiling is that research shows that companies with gender balanced leadership perform better than those without it. Recent studies by CMU & MIT and another by Catalyst detail the benefits of gender balance that would be worthwhile for companies who want to excel in an increasingly more diverse and global marketplace.

 by patmc202 »

Are you serious with this question? How many women need to be left behind before we finally acknowledge it's a fact and has been for at least the last 30 years! It's interesting that the (mostly male) boards and CEOs don't let the facts get in the way of their judgment.. .Female financial advisors tend to outperform their male counterparts in new business generation, client retention ...It's been proven time and again. If I were Sallie, I'd find another industry... How many times does she need to be humiliated??

by Isabella »

Of course there is. Go to any industry meeting and take a look around the room. There has only been a slight increase in the 17 years I've been in the industry, even in "progressive" San Francisco. I still get asked whose wife or assistant I am. Pretty pathetic.

by B Smith »

I strongly suggest as I do with most issues that we as financial planners put aside biases, look at facts, and try to understand the market.

The facts of bias in the market is that you hire those that produce the most for you, or you are an idiot because your competitor does and you fail.

Now, comparing Wall Street to advisors - advisors know that in order to be successful you have to put in 60+ hour weeks to get off the ground, forget a work life balance, and often postpone families, and when you don't you work through family life.

Sorry. It's pretty obvious why many females choose different paths. Any manager would be an idiot not to hire a woman if she could generate more business, a woman would start a business and hire women, and they would dominate the world according to the above posters. Some do. Many choose a different route. Facts are the market works. Facts are there are just as many studies that actually look at things like how many years women take off to start families that show there is no bias. You should know these things (especially that the market works) as advisors.

by B Smith »

From the woman herself -

 http://blogs.wsj.com/juggle/2011/09/07/ ... k-gave-up/

Tell me how many women you know that will work 90-hour weeks to keep up with male counterparts with children at home? I know 1 now.

by Bradly T. »