HR
is highly female at all levels. The irony is that men tend to be over represented at more senior levels than they are at junior levels though.
Why is it? Well it's probably
the same reasons as teaching and nursing - it just appeals to women more.
HR is a pretty broad church within itself - there's lots of specialisms within it. But generally most HR people need to be pretty good at emphasising with others without being walked all over. They often have to be pretty patient too. Although a lot of people won't necessarily see it there is this "caring" side to HR that you have to switch on a lot but at the same time you have to be absolutely ruthless on the other. In generalist HR, which is usually when you are the go to person for employees, you just have to deal with everyone's s**t, or at least have to listen to at a lot of it if you don't even have to deal with it. And they often have to be the messenger that everyone wants to shoot, when they should be really wanting to shoot the senior management.
So HR becomes a mixture of being a counsellor, negotiator, parent, confidant, teacher, middle man, messenger, note taker, friend, foe, and advisor. I think these responsibilities generally appeal to women much more than men.
HR has a weird dynamic and it's one I never really liked nor had much time for. It also the reason why HR gets a reputation for being quite cliquey/b****y (nice one minute, coming down hard the next).
But there are aspects/specialisms within HR that are really not like this at all. I was lucky to find mine early on in my career and avoided generalist HR thankfully.
It's also not very well paid compared to other professions. You can earn decent money from it (I did anyway) but when compared to what the equivalent manager levels earn in IT/Accounts and some other business service functions, HR tends to pay significantly less.
Women are less motivated by money than men, and so again it will probably attract more women to the profession.
Posted from TSR Mobile