60 | WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE: METHODOLOGY Methodology COMPANY PIPELINE DATA AND PROGRAMS SURVEY EMPLOYEE EXPERIENCE SURVEY This study is based on research from 279 companies across North America and builds on Participation in the Employee Experience Survey was encouraged but optional. Employee similar research conducted annually by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company since 2015, experience findings are based on the survey results from more than 64,000 employees as well as research by McKinsey & Company in 2012. Each participating company submitted from eighty-one companies. No single company accounted for more than 5 percent of gender diversity talent pipeline, policies, and programs data to McKinsey. Pipeline data the responses. included the current representation of men and women (overall and, optionally, by race/ Group differences: To ensure that differences highlighted between genders or groups are ethnicity), and number of hires, promotions, and employees who left the company by gender both reliable and substantial, we used a dual cutoff for consideration. All differences noted and, optionally, race/ethnicity. Submitted data reflect diversity metrics and program and policy in this report are statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level using a two-tailed prevalence as of December 31, 2017. test and reflect a difference of at least four percentage points between two groups. Promotion, hiring, and attrition rates were estimated independently for women and men at each level. Promotion rates were calculated by dividing the number of promotions into a level GROUPING OF RESPONSES by the start-of-year number of employees of that gender in the level below. Attrition rates When appropriate, analyses of employee experiences and company practices aggregated were calculated by dividing the number of each gender who left the company at a given level the top-two and bottom-two boxes of the response scale. For example, the percentage of by the number of employees of that gender in that level at the start of the year. Hiring rates respondents who “agree” ties back to those who “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree.” were calculated by dividing the number of each gender who were hired into a level by the QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS number at that level at the start of the year. The ratio of men and women’s promotion and external hire rates was calculated by dividing women’s rates by men’s rates. We conducted qualitative interviews with thirty-seven women from thirteen companies in our sample, which include a range of industries including health-care systems and services, Scenarios to examine the potential of equitable hiring and promotion rates assumed that professional and information services, retail, tech, banking and consumer finance, and share of promotions or hires reflects the group’s representation in the appropriate candidate food and beverage distribution. Interviewees were chosen from volunteers and were pool. In the case of promotions, we reflected the representation from the level below at the selected to reflect a range of levels, functions, and demographic groups. Our interviews start of the year. In the case of hiring, the pool of candidates was calculated as the average focused on women’s workplace experiences in order to gain a deeper understanding of of the representation at the current level and the level below, consistent with an equal mix of the quantitative findings from the employee survey. Individual names, company names, and lateral and promotion types of hiring. any other identifying information were kept strictly confidential and have been redacted/ For the corporate pipeline: Companies were weighted based on the Fortune 500. All anonymized for reporting purposes. metrics (e.g., representation, promotion rates, hiring rates, etc.) were computed for each COMPANIES INCLUDED company. Industry weights were then applied to approximate the company composition Participating companies opted in to the study in response to invitations from LeanIn.Org of the North America Fortune 500 in 2017. This enabled us to avoid overemphasizing or and McKinsey & Company or by indicating interest through our public website. We have underemphasizing particular industries and better estimate trends over time based on grouped these companies into industry benchmarks that provide peer comparisons. The each year’s sample of companies. The industry breakdown of the Fortune 500 used for our reported industry breakdown of participating companies is as follows: weighting was: • Retail—17% • Asset management and institutional investors—21 • Energy and basic materials—16% • Banking and consumer finance—15 • Finance—17% • Consumer packaged goods—7 • Tech—12% • Consumer tech—8 • Health care—9% • Energy, utilities, and basic materials—21 • Automotive and industrial manufacturing—8% • Engineering and industrial manufacturing—18 • Food and restaurants—7% • Food and beverage distribution—19 • Media and entertainment—4% • Food and restaurants—48 • Transportation, logistics, and infrastructure—4% • Health-care systems and services—14 • Professional and information services—2% • Insurance—10 • Engineering—2% • IT services and telecom—5 • Media and entertainment—7 DEFINITION OF LEVELS • Pharmaceutical and medical products—20 Companies categorized their employees into six levels and the board of directors based on • Professional and information services—17 standard definitions. In assigning jobs/employees to one of the six levels, companies were • Retail—12 asked to consider reporting structure, salary, and advancement. The reported levels and • Tech: Hardware—10 definitions are as follows: • Tech: Software—20 • L1—C-suite-level executives and presidents: CEOs and their direct reports, or those • Transportation, logistics, and infrastructure—7 responsible for company operations and profitability For the industry pipelines, averages across companies: All metrics (e.g. representation, • L2—Senior vice presidents: senior leaders of the organization with significant business promotion rates, hiring rates) were computed for each company. Company results were unit or functional oversight then averaged, so as to best represent the practices across the range of companies, rather • L3—Vice presidents: leaders of the organization who report directly to senior vice than allowing the larger companies to overly influence overall results. presidents GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE • L4—Senior managers/directors: seasoned managers with responsibility for multiple This report covers only findings from North America (United States and Canada). We teams and discrete functions or operating units received additional data for four other geographic regions—Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin • L5—Managers: employees who manage people, programs, or projects America, and Middle East/Africa—to be used for company-specific comparisons. • L6—Entry level: employees who carry out discrete tasks and participate on teams, typically in an office or corporate setting (field employees like cashiers or customer service representatives are not included in our primary analyses)