To think you cannot do this?

[3littlemonkeys82]

All Male training course?

Some quick facts. I work for a public employer.

The overall breakdown for all employees is around 55% male staff 45% female.

Within my particular division however this is 25% male and 75% female.

There are 50 "entry level" managers within my division of which 20% are male.

We are having a new system installed. Senior management have selected 5 people out of the 50 managers to undertake the training and these staff will then role this onwards to the rest of us and our staff.

All 5 selected are men.

Apparently there is no issue here.

AIBU to wonder if the new system has a very special button that can only be pressed with a penis?

Welcome to the world of secondary school teaching. Very large % of the workforce are female. Take a look at photos of HT conferences.

It does seem statistically unlikely that all of the best people to deliver the training onwards would be out of the 20% pool of men. I have worked in a male dominated sector for most of my career and am used to it, but in this case, I would just flag this to management and ask do they not think it is unusual.

Is there same or worse underrepresentation higher up the chain?
Because if yes, it can be part of a drive to train and promote some later by giving them extra training and responsibilities. Like you would have if women or some other group were that underrepresented in the division.

So 5 of the 10 male managers have been selected for training and 0 of the 40 female managers? That is shocking OP. I wonder if maybe it was a male making the choice??

Can you mention it to HR?

@SchrodingersImmigrant

Is there same or worse underrepresentation higher up the chain? Because if yes, it can be part of a drive to train and promote some later by giving them extra training and responsibilities. Like you would have if women or some other group were that underrepresented in the division.

No, the further up the chain the more make dominated it becomes. In fact the executive board has just 1 female (who is also the only poc and the only one under the age of 55)

@Orangebug

So 5 of the 10 male managers have been selected for training and 0 of the 40 female managers? That is shocking OP. I wonder if maybe it was a male making the choice??

Can you mention it to HR?

The response so far is that historically 3 of these men had input in the previous rollout of a different system so its beneficial to have them again, and it's just coincidence that the other 2 selected are male.

In that case I would mention this. Because if the management above isn't having these underrepresentation issues than there is no reason to work just on men getting extra training.

@SchrodingersImmigrant

Is there same or worse underrepresentation higher up the chain? Because if yes, it can be part of a drive to train and promote some later by giving them extra training and responsibilities. Like you would have if women or some other group were that underrepresented in the division.

That isn’t what is happening though. Everybody needs training on a new system. However five out of ten men have been chosen to receive first hand training whilst 0 out of 40 women are to receive it first hand but will instead get second hand training from the five men who had the superior training.

It can be what is happening by giving the men extra responsibility to show if they are management material. I would expect also extra help.
But if they aren't underrepresented in management positions above, then this is just weird and op should mention it.

I struggle to see why we weren't all invited to apply to attend the 'trainers training' and then selected from the interested group, as opposed to senior management cherry picking and approaching the 5 directly.

@SchrodingersImmigrant

It can be what is happening by giving the men extra responsibility to show if they are management material. I would expect also extra help. But if they aren't underrepresented in management positions above, then this is just weird and op should mention it.

I have mentioned it, response is not much more than a hidden eye roll. 3 of these staff were part of a previous roll out (also all male cohort, but 10 years ago) And the response to the 2 new selections is that it's just a coincidence.

@3littlemonkeys82

I struggle to see why we weren't all invited to apply to attend the 'trainers training' and then selected from the interested group, as opposed to senior management cherry picking and approaching the 5 directly.

I would ask about it in this situation tbh.

And the response to the 2 new selections is that it's just a coincidence.

Ah. Ok. That's some coincidence

In another 10 years we will have another new system, based on current reasoning if we only select staff from the last rollout we will potentially have another all male group then.

At what point will they realise it's unacceptable? I know full well I will be ridiculed for even mentioning the boys club mentality as they simply do not think it exists.

Scatter a few token females in and all is forgiven?

I don't believe in coincidence. What a rubbish reply.

And you're right. So in 10 years with anther new system rolled out the trainers will be selected from this pool and it will be all male again.

Do they think you were all born yesterday or something?

Tbh, on this issue, given that all managers will get the training, I don't really see that the impact of these 5 being male has any impact.

Arguably, given the represent 25% of the division but only 20% of the management roles, it would appear, on paper, they're the discriminated against group!

We used to have this 'roll out' of training in our local authority libraries. As we all realise, 'knowledge is power', we called it 'drip training' because of the way the information came to us.

The people who were trained properly were not chosen for their ability to pass on the information, either succinctly or completely, and left out important chunks, whilst doing their official mansplaining.

@BusyLizzie61

Tbh, on this issue, given that all managers will get the training, I don't really see that the impact of these 5 being male has any impact.

Arguably, given the represent 25% of the division but only 20% of the management roles, it would appear, on paper, they're the discriminated against group!

I'll try to explain the structure a bit better.

The main arm of the organisation is male dominated in all of its sectors (fairly physical role) accounts for 70% of the total workforce.

I'd say entry level in this main arm 70 % male
Entry level management around 80 % male
Middle management 80% male
Senior management 90% male

Our smaller arm of the organisation accounts for around 20% of the overall workforce. Non physical desk based jobs.
Within the arm...
Entry level 20 % male
Entry level management 20% male
Middle management 50% male
Senior management 85% male

One of the issues in terms of representation at entry level management is that a lot of male staff make the move over to the main arm of the organisation if that makes sense.

Males are certainly not under represented in the whole.

We worked out previously that from entry level to senior management you are four times more likely to succeed if you're male within our division.

My level is the only one where men appear to be under represented. I do see this, however they are then given opportunities that their female counterparts are not. Generally the female staff for whatever reason are less likely to move towards the physical side of the organisation, therefore it skews the figures somewhat.

Do you expect them to give preferential treatment to women in the areas where women are underrepresented, to try and get the balance more equal? If so, it's only fair to assume they will try to address the segments where women dominate.

@skirk64

Do you expect them to give preferential treatment to women in the areas where women are underrepresented, to try and get the balance more equal? If so, it's only fair to assume they will try to address the segments where women dominate.

I'd certainly like to see more fair representation throughout, however as explained above once we reach entry level management more males from our smaller side of the business choose to move towards the more physical larger side so it looks that they are under represented in our area, in part due to this.

I've probably confused it by splitting the organisation in to 2.

Overall at this level of management if you put both side together there would be more men than women.

I see that part of the solution is to encourage more female staff to make the move to the larger side, but without solving the caring responsibilities etc that women take more of the burden for in society generally, this isn't a quick fix issue.

Anyway, back to the initial aibu... I'm personally still looking forward to seeing the special penis operated button 🤣

Coincidence isn’t an acceptable response.

you are right to complain here & raise it as an issue.

System roll outs usually have a 'train the trainer' element. A small group receive training and then share that to a wider pool. Often the group chosen will also be admins for the system.

Being one of these trainers is a lot of work. Not only is it the initial training but then organising and running the further roll out training. Also they will be on point for user support on an ongoing basis.

If 3 of those 5 selected already have experience of this then I'd chose them as well, regardless of gender.

Those other 2 spots I'd give to those I knew a) wanted the extra work b) I felt could do it

I think you're looking for an issue here.

@Twizbe

System roll outs usually have a 'train the trainer' element. A small group receive training and then share that to a wider pool. Often the group chosen will also be admins for the system.

Being one of these trainers is a lot of work. Not only is it the initial training but then organising and running the further roll out training. Also they will be on point for user support on an ongoing basis.

If 3 of those 5 selected already have experience of this then I'd chose them as well, regardless of gender.

Those other 2 spots I'd give to those I knew a) wanted the extra work b) I felt could do it

I think you're looking for an issue here.

As previously stated I fully see the benefit if the 3 that were involved 10 years ago.

However... I do not mean to drip feed but if it has any bearing 1 of these is leaving to move to the other arm of the service within the next few months so will not be available to act as ongoing user support.

Of the 2 new selections, 1 is a self confessed technophobe, and the other has only recently been appointed to the post and has had to be 'rescued' as such with operating and fixing our current equipment.

I'm my humble (non senior) position I am very doubtful that these are the most appropriate candidates. Now I could be wrong (but I don't think I am 🤣)