Toxic workplaces drive women away from STEM fields

Since my presentations, a new study has been published [1] investigating the reasons behind the high rates of women departing from US institutions. This research, based on employment records of 245,270 individuals, identifies toxic workplaces as the primary reason women exit academic positions.

This recent publication further underscores the importance of addressing this issue, prompting me to share this news item today. The slides from my talk can be accessed as a PDF [2]. I will refer to the pages within this PDF file during the summary below. Within this attached PDF, you'll find numerous valuable links for additional information and reading.

This news item follows up a number of other items published in 2022. A summary with embedded links is given as a PDF for download as well [3].

[1] K. Spoon et al., Sci. Adv. 9, 2023, Download Download (PDF, 1.4 MB)

[2]  Invited talk Prof. Ursula Keller,  Download Download (PDF, 2.3 MB)

[3] Summary of ULP News items in 2022 with regards to gender issues, Download Download (PDF, 797 KB)

I bring four decades of experience in science and engineering to this discussion, and I wish to focus on key elements that can encourage the success of women in these fields. My argument centers on the need for a cultural shift to retain women in the sciences, as opposed to solely focusing on work-life balance issues and fixing the women.

During the course of this talk, I will make book recommendations that can offer further insights. These books will be listed in the slides [2].

[Talk Page 2]

One such recommendation is a work by my esteemed colleague, Athene Donald. Now retired, Athene made significant contributions to progress in the UK, serving as an inspiration for efforts in Switzerland. Her book explores why we need more women in science . With science she means the full STEM field, given the cultural similarities between these sectors.

My presentation will also delve into the unique challenges faced by women in leadership roles, drawing from personal experiences throughout my career and examining their broader implications.

[Talk Page 3]

Another notable book that I would encourage you to read is Nancy Hopkins's story, titled "The Exceptions." This book details the battle for gender equality in science, anchored by the landmark 1999 MIT report. I will provide some context for this report later on. As many of you may know, I hold a professorship at ETH Zurich, often dubbed the "MIT of Europe," which makes the report’s findings particularly relevant to our setting.

It's noteworthy that MIT has been at least two decades ahead of us in terms of gender equity. The women there have been significant role models for me, although the path to emulate them has been fraught with challenges. A key takeaway from MIT's experience is the effectiveness of strong male leadership in driving change.

I am increasingly alarmed by the escalating discrimination against high-achieving women in senior leadership positions, particularly in science, engineering, medicine—referred to here as STEMM. I argue that this is a central hurdle to greater gender diversity, and will substantiate this with specific examples.

[Talk Page 4]

A brief overview of my journey: inspired by the moon landings and scientific advancements of the 1960s and '70s, I pursued physics. I earned my Master's— a diploma in physics—from ETH Zurich in 1984. I assumed that performance alone would be sufficient to eliminate gender barriers.

While I did experience support and mentorship early in my career, including being at the top of my graduating class at ETH Zurich, I quickly learned that gender issues were more persistent than I had hoped.

My academic excellence afforded me the opportunity to gain a Fulbright Fellowship and admission to Stanford University. If nothing else, I thought, the experience would at least improve my English. This move, however, was essential for me, having never seen a woman professor in Switzerland.

Stanford had a beneficial system that allowed Ph.D. students to rotate through different research groups. This approach was conducive to finding a suitable mentor-mentee match, something I consider crucial for successful Ph.D. research.

After an initial misalignment with my first advisor at Stanford, I had the good fortune of meeting a female professor who became a mentor to me. She astutely directed me to an advisor who proved to be an excellent match, something I would not have discerned on my own. My experience under this advisor was enriching, setting the stage for my future career.

Upon completing my Ph.D., I was able to leverage the strong recruitment network at Stanford to bypass the postdoctoral phase and directly secure a position at Bell Labs. There, I was given the latitude to establish my own lab and pursue innovative research, a freedom I attribute to my Ph.D. advisor's hands-off mentoring style.

It's important to highlight that before I joined Bell Labs, the organization had faced a significant lawsuit related to gender discrimination. This led them to implement a formal mentorship program specifically for incoming female researchers. Interestingly, upon hearing of the program's success, male colleagues also began seeking similar mentorship opportunities. In addition, Bell Labs also supported regularly scheduled all-women lunches focused on research discussions, which was instrumental in creating a network among women scientists.

In 1993, I received an invitation from ETH Zurich to join their faculty. Despite being just 33, I accepted the role, well aware that the appointment was influenced by mounting political pressure in Switzerland to increase female representation in academia. This made me the first woman tenured professor in physics at ETH, a milestone that came with its own set of concerns given its gender-specific nature.

A former colleague from Bell Labs, Anthony Johnson, advised me not to focus on why or how I got the job, but to simply excel at it. This is a mantra I share with women who often hear they were hired "because they're women," a comment that overlooks their qualifications and fosters unfair stigma.

[Talk Page 5]

Starting at ETH Zurich, I realized that my resource allocation was considerably lower than the average. This wasn't from a lack of negotiation skills, but rather a lack of information. Later, I discovered I could have asked for twice as much. Despite the setback, I had sufficient resources to succeed.

My struggles didn't end there. Promises of increased lab space and resources based on performance were not honored. In comparison to my male counterparts, I had to work a decade to attain the office and lab space they received upon hiring.

My career faced another obstacle in 1996 when I became pregnant. Despite my achievements, my department chair responded negatively, uttering, "This is what you get for hiring a woman." My journey to full professorship was paused, and I faced biased questions about my ability to manage a career and family.

Thankfully, Professor Rice, who initially recruited me and also had a background at Bell Labs, offered support. However, the road to balancing professional aspirations with personal life remained a challenging one.

[Talk Page 6]

Professor Rice assisted me at ETH, but his intervention led to considerable turmoil within the department. A month before giving birth to my first child, and visibly pregnant, I finally met with the department and institute heads to address specific questions.

The first question was whether I could meet my teaching obligations while raising children. I confidently said "yes." The second question was about whether I had lobbied for my promotion. Although Professor Rice advised me to deny it, the truth was that I had. As a prerequisite to proceed with my promotion, I was asked to apologize for labeling the situation as discriminatory. I did apologize. I was also warned that even one negative recommendation letter would indefinitely delay my promotion. Despite my concerns, I chose to move forward.

I gave birth to a healthy son in January and was promoted to full professor in October of the following year. However, the additional resources stipulated in my contract were delayed. Meanwhile, three male colleagues, all hired as associate professors like me, were promoted without significant deliberation after just three years. These male professors, who also had children, were never questioned about their ability to fulfill job responsibilities.

The drawn-out process for my promotion led to frustration among my colleagues. Eventually, I was unfairly branded as a troublemaker for "disturbing their peace." Despite these setbacks, I remained steadfast in my personal and professional commitments, having another child nearly two years later.

[Talk Page 7]

Another hurdle I faced was securing reliable daycare for my young children. Initially, the university president assured me that daycare facilities would be available. However, when the leadership changed, the new president viewed daycare as a private concern, not an institutional responsibility. He even warned that pressing the issue could cost me the goodwill of the university's leadership and the broader Swiss community.

Legal advice suggested that pursuing the matter in court, although a valid course of action, could jeopardize my career. Given this, I opted to focus on my research, determined to excel in my field even as a mother. This decision was particularly challenging, given my strong sense of justice. There were moments when I contemplated leaving academia altogether.

[Talk Page 8]

Today, balancing work and family remains a struggle, not just for me but for many women in academia. As the number of women professors increases, it becomes even more critical to provide robust daycare facilities and support for unexpected challenges like illness. These measures aren't just special accommodations; they're essential for retaining talented women in the academic pipeline. We must reform the work environment if we want to ensure both men and women have equal opportunities to succeed.

Having children significantly changes one's workload, and there are now programs that offer pragmatic solutions. At ETH, for instance, we recommend that faculty take a one-year break from teaching around the time of childbirth. The ERC Starting Grant has also adapted its policies, extending the eligibility period for researchers with children.

Additionally, at ETH, we've initiated a program where if a postdoc becomes pregnant, the department will fully fund an additional PhD student. This student is co-supervised by the postdoc and a professor. The idea is to retain women in the workforce without requiring them to overextend themselves. It's an opportunity for women to enter leadership roles and focus on priority-setting.

[Talk Page 9]

MIT's stance on gender bias had a significant impact on this issue. In 1999, MIT's president, Charles Vest, publicly acknowledged the university's discrimination against female professors. This admission, amplified by the rise of the World Wide Web, brought global attention to gender bias in academia. MIT subsequently became a leader in promoting gender diversity, which was detailed in a published report and a recent book.

While I was contemplating leaving ETH due to my experiences, this MIT report was published and served as a lifeline for me. It inspired me to continue my career in academia, and the women at MIT became my role models. Their efforts to collect data and advocate for change had a profound influence on my professional journey.

What I learned from the MIT report is that I was not alone in feeling stigmatized as a "troublemaker" within my department. This label wasn't a reflection of my individual actions but indicative of a deeper systemic issue. Fifteen years after receiving my master's in physics from ETH, I finally acknowledged what I had been in denial about: that discrimination was at play, despite all the signs I had chosen to ignore.

This acknowledgment led me to educate myself about the subject. There's a wealth of insightful literature that discusses what bias and discrimination are. This understanding allowed me to depersonalize the issue—it was not about me, but a systemic flaw. This realization was crucial as it enabled me to move forward without taking things personally.

[Talk Page 10]

The MIT report, led by President Charles Vest, was exemplary of supportive leadership. Vest wrote that while he initially believed gender discrimination was a blend of perception and reality, he came to understand that reality was the much greater factor. He also noted that, like many of his male colleagues, he thought they were supportive of their junior female faculty. But his views changed when a senior woman faculty member mentioned that she too felt supported when she was younger but not anymore.

This report offered me a new lens through which to understand my experiences and, ultimately, served as a catalyst for my own actions in fostering diversity and equity in academia.

Identifying discrimination is challenging when only a few isolated cases exist. As President Vest pointed out, a single incident can often be dismissed as an exception. Therefore, it's crucial to establish safeguards and systematically evaluate multiple cases to identify gender discrimination. In many European countries, including Switzerland, privacy laws sometimes shield organizations from scrutiny, making it easier to blame individual victims.

[Talk Page 11]

Motherhood is not the only obstacle women face. Research from MIT indicates that senior women experience increased discrimination as they ascend in their careers. This uptick occurs because these women directly compete for access to power, resources, and privileges. The current academic culture, often ruled by informal insider groups, offers little incentive for change.

As more talented women enter academia, the competition intensifies for limited positions, sometimes triggering hostility and backlash. Many women are unprepared for this hostile culture and opt out, further contributing to their underrepresentation. The stereotypical expectations for women in leadership roles are inconsistent and often contradictory, making it difficult for women to find the "magic line" of acceptable behavior.

In the coming sections, I will offer suggestions to empower women and promote a culture of inclusive excellence. Harvard has been effective in promoting inclusive excellence, showcasing that gender does not inhibit quality.

[Talk Page 12]

At ETH Zurich, the management model evolved towards strong departmental autonomy as the number of professors increased. Previously, professors reported directly to the president. The new majority-rule governance in my department hampered efforts for change. Whenever I proposed enhancements for transparency, accountability, or excellence criteria, my motions were consistently voted down.

For 22 years, every conventional selection committee chose male professors. I was unable to ascend to leadership roles at ETH due to this majority-vote system. Subsequently, I was selected to direct a well-funded Swiss research network, NCCR MUST. I co-led the network with a male colleague, adopting an inclusive leadership approach. We evenly divided power and responsibilities. He also had a vested interest in change, given that he has a working wife and a daughter. This network, backed by substantial funding for 12 years, mandated that its leadership must also focus on tech transfer, knowledge transfer, and the promotion of women.

I spent years focusing on my research until 2010, ultimately earning a leadership role. It was then that I founded the Women Professors Forum at ETH. Despite volunteering for leadership within the physics department, I couldn't secure a majority vote. I faced criticism for seeking "too much power," especially as I was already the director of the NCCR MUST program. When I became the first elected president of the Women Professors Forum, it seemed like a tipping point for some; they believed it was too much power concentrated in one individual.

[Talk Page 13]

Our first ETH WPF assembly meeting was in March 2012, and I was elected as the first president, with Janet Haring as vice president. Back then, women faculty members were mostly strangers to each other. We initiated a network featuring scientific luncheons, informal mentorship, and information-sharing sessions. These forums enabled us to discuss whether certain committee assignments were worth accepting, particularly since women often find themselves pushed into hardworking but powerless committees.

At that time, the supportive leadership evident at MIT was lacking at ETH. We undertook efforts to change the culture by promoting inclusivity and leadership criteria important to women. We even published a questionnaire assessing what mattered most to women at ETH. The overwhelming response was in favor of an inclusive work culture and vital leadership, both of which are crucial for success. Therefore, it's evident that without creating such an environment, we inhibit women from reaching their full potential.

I served in a leadership role for four years, followed by my Vice President, Janet Haring, who served for another four. This rotation was designed to prevent any single woman from dominating the leadership space. However, in 2021, when Janet stepped down, we struggled to find another senior woman willing to take up the mantle. Our experiences made us wary, especially considering recent events.

In 2019, ETH took the unprecedented step of firing a tenured professor, who was also a female colleague in the physics department. We had advocated for fair and unbiased due process since 2017, but our concerns went unaddressed. The case ultimately went to the Federal Administrative Court, which ruled that her dismissal was both "disproportionate and unjustified." However, according to Swiss law, the burden of proving discrimination falls on the individual, not the institution. This makes it challenging to address bias effectively, a contrast to practices at institutions like MIT.

[Talk Page 14]

The bias against women in leadership is pervasive. I recommend the book "Lean In," which discusses how high-performing women are often less liked by their peers—both male and female—compared to men who perform well. Terms like "aggressive," "not a team player," or "difficult" are often used to describe such women.

[Talk Page 15]

In a hostile work environment, these biases can escalate into character assassination, particularly if there are few women in the organization. Gossip and rumors spread quickly, with informal power networks perpetuating these narratives. Under these conditions, women are essentially considered guilty until proven innocent, undermining any benefits they might gain from having authority.

This issue escalates the risk of both upward and downward bullying. Notable examples include Professor Marcella Carollo from my physics department who was dismissed, and Professor Tania Singer, a Max Planck director, who was demoted and later signed a non-disclosure agreement. In each of these cases, the primary accusations were around significant management misconduct or inappropriate leadership. Notably, the accusers remained anonymous and the allegations severely undermined the personal integrity of these women.

This situation is particularly alarming given that many of these women had themselves experienced gender harassment early in their careers. Now they find themselves accused of harassing their students, which is a poignant irony.

Thomas Sattelberger, a German manager and politician, recognized this as a significant career risk for women.

[Talk Page 16]

This isn't an isolated incident; it's part of a broader pattern. In November 2021, we organized and published an open letter to voice our concerns about another case of a woman's demotion in Max Planck leadership. The letter was initiated by my colleague, Janet Hering, and me. It garnered 145 signatures from distinguished women scientists around the world.

We aimed to highlight the recurring issues of highly publicized dismissals and conflicts involving female directors. Other reports indicate similar problems at institutions like the University of Copenhagen and the University of London, showing that this issue transcends individual organizations. When a highly successful individual fails at a high-ranking position, it reflects not just on them but also on the institution. This is especially true when the individual in question is a senior woman, making this an issue of institutional failure.

[Talk Page 17]

I'm reminded of a quote by Albert Einstein: "A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." No one is a perfect manager; we all make mistakes. Yet there's a prevalent gender bias against women in leadership positions, stemming from both men and women. Younger women often hold biases against senior women as well. These biases result in women and other marginalized groups having a lower tolerance for mistakes and facing harsher penalties.

This problem is compounded by the absence of independent grievance procedures and a perception among male colleagues of reverse discrimination. Such attitudes exacerbate the issue, making minor mistakes or complex problems an excuse for perpetuating a management culture resistant to change.

For example, accusations ranging from disgruntled Ph.D. students to fabricated scientific misconduct charges have been weaponized against senior women. The uneven handling of these cases exacerbates inequality and wastes valuable resources.

[Talk Page 18]

The focus on autonomy in European organizations often drives these issues, creating a culture where prestigious institutes like the Max Planck Institute and ETH are seen as "untouchable." This viewpoint hinders progress and is based on the flawed belief that any critique undermines excellence.

This is a pressing issue, especially considering that approaches successful in the U.S. may not necessarily translate well in Europe. Therefore, it's crucial to address these issues to ensure fair treatment and to foster a culture that truly values excellence.

Preserving scientific autonomy is often cited as essential for maintaining excellence, but this argument can be misused to uphold the status quo and protect well-established power dynamics. The current academic culture is often controlled by these informal power groups who are reluctant to adopt transparent and accountable leadership practices.

While some argue that bureaucracy hampers progress, achieving fairness doesn't necessarily require a cumbersome system. Switzerland's recent acknowledgment that sexual harassment exists within its academic community is a step in the right direction, mirroring what MIT did in 1999. Acknowledging the problem is crucial, but the next challenge is distinguishing between scientific autonomy and managerial excellence.

[Talk Page 19]

One obstacle to progress has been conflating these two forms of autonomy. Embracing a more diverse workforce may lead to complexities, but diversity is essential for broadening perspectives. While good science doesn't guarantee good management, ignoring existing issues often exacerbates them.

It's also worth noting that concerns exist on both sides. For example, some male professors express reservations about meeting privately with female students due to the potential for misunderstandings. These concerns often stem from stereotypical biases and underscore the need for clear, objective performance criteria.

In sum, the academic community must evolve beyond current limitations to accommodate diversity and fairness without compromising excellence. This will entail clearly separating scientific and managerial autonomy, acknowledging existing problems, and developing solutions that benefit all.

Leadership is crucial for effecting meaningful change in management practices. For transformation to happen, it's vital to listen to critical voices and empower individuals to drive reform. Effective leadership is also required to successfully manage research groups, otherwise, we risk creating bureaucratic chaos.

Improving grievance procedures and clearly defining conflicts of interest are important steps. At ETH Zurich, for example, a consensus on what constitutes a conflict of interest is still pending. Similarly, we must strive to define criteria for excellence. Relying on "gut feeling" or undefined standards not only maintains the status quo but also limits diversity. While defining excellence is challenging, failing to do so risks perpetuating systemic issues.

[Talk Page 20]

Case studies from top institutions like MIT and Imperial College London demonstrate the importance of targeted programs for boosting gender diversity. At MIT, the initial uptick in female faculty was achieved through affirmative action in the 1970s, but then progress plateaued. A second wave of hiring occurred after women faculty raised awareness about existing biases. This indicates that sustained progress needs both political will and grassroots activism.

The motivation to advocate for change often stems from a deep-rooted sense of injustice and a desire to create a better environment for future generations. Fostering such awareness and commitment at all levels is key to breaking down systemic barriers and moving towards a more equitable academic landscape.

This issue deeply resonates with me, and it was the catalyst for organizing women at ETH Zurich. The Physics Department finally acted to hire more women faculty after the dismissal of a female colleague triggered public outcry. Over two years, they hired five tenure-track assistant professors, all women, focusing solely on their excellence. Despite this, the notion of "excellence" seems to be viewed differently when evaluating male and female candidates. For 22 years, committees consistently favored men, often based on subjective or emotional criteria.

[Talk Page 21]

In conclusion additional measures are still needed.

We must continue to focus on achieving gender diversity, aiming for at least 30% representation of women in faculty. This threshold is supported by research indicating that a critical mass is needed to begin changing a male-defined culture. Addressing both the stigma faced by women and the perception of reverse discrimination is essential. It's not only counterproductive but also inappropriate to tell anyone they were hired merely due to their gender.

Education on diversity and inclusion is crucial, and we should leverage existing research to form a coherent plan. There's already a wealth of knowledge available on these subjects, and there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Stronger efforts are also needed in retaining female faculty and promoting culture change. The emphasis should be on genuine excellence and fair representation, rather than relying on outdated or biased criteria.

To truly enable women to excel, it's imperative to offer adequate resources and establish inclusive empowerment. Leadership and networking are essential for enacting cultural change and improving governance. We need to fix institutional practices, not just individuals. The focus should not be on "fixing women," but on restructuring the institution to be more inclusive and equitable.

Effective change requires engagement from both men and women and must be supported by real incentives. These initiatives require top-down implementation and political decisions; they won't happen organically. Monitoring measurable results and conducting independent reviews are critical. For instance, the UK's Athena SWAN award and Juno project ties funding to demonstrated improvements in governance and transparency.

[Talk Page 22]

Addressing the broader issue, it's alarming that women leave tech fields at a rate 45% higher than men, according to a 2017 Forbes study. This underscores the urgency of changing institutional norms. The notion that women have difficulty working with other women is not supported by evidence. In fact, women tend to invest more time in supporting and advocating for each other compared to their male counterparts. Unfortunately, women who actively promote other women often face career penalties. This suggests that the real challenge is not division among women, but rather, systemic barriers to inclusion and advancement.

Certainly, the struggle for gender diversity and inclusion is not an issue for women alone to solve; it impacts the quality of science and benefits society as a whole. Unfortunately, both women and even male executives advocating for diversity often do not see any cumulative advantages, signaling systemic barriers to change. It's disconcerting that many highly qualified women are opting out of their careers, not for lack of talent, but because they find the environment inhospitable.

[Talk Page 23]

Given this reality, my recommendation is for women to actively cultivate networks that include other women, especially in fields where they make up less than 30% of the workforce. Sometimes, the simple act of commiserating over shared challenges can be empowering. Organizations should actively support initiatives like the Women Professors Forum, offering a platform for collective voices to share feedback on governance and suggest improvements.

In my own experience, advocating for gender equality in addition to my regular responsibilities has had a polarizing effect. Some of my friendships have been strained, but I believe that when you fight for just causes, the losses are outweighed by the gains.

Now is the time for systemic cultural change. We are seeing an increasing number of women in senior roles and academia, indicating that the conditions are ripe for reform. I advocate for everyone to join awareness networks aimed at transforming work culture. The collective efforts will not only benefit women but improve the working environment for everyone.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope this talk has been enlightening for all.