Exploring the (Missing) Gender Training Gap in Germany: The Role of Organizations and Sectors in Continuing Training Participation

Abstract

This article addresses the question how organizational characteristics are related to gender differences in employer-provided continuing training participation. By building on labor market and organizational theory, four mechanisms are tested: (i) formal policies, (ii) relative power, (iii) resources, and (iv) training demand. Multivariate analyses based on the German IAB-Establishment Panel provide evidence that the gender training gap varies considerably between organizations. Organizational policies supporting women’s employment over the life course, a higher share of female top managers, and employee organizations help to prevent a gender training gap. Moreover, the gender training gap is related to sectoral differences and company size.

Does the provision of childcare reduce motherhood penalties in job-related training participation? Longitudinal evidence from Germany

“…Hence, they discriminate against all mothersregardless of whether they interrupt their work or reduce hours after childbirth (Havet and Sofer, 2008). This argument is consistent with empirical findings on motherhood penalties in hiring for Germany and unexplained motherhood training gaps (Dieckhoff and Steiber, 2011;Zoch, 2022), particularly in larger, more anonymous firms (Wotschack, 2019) or maledominated contexts (Tokbaeva and Achtenhagen, 2021).…”

“…As a result, mothers might prioritise family time over employment and career development and, thus, invest less time in jobrelated training. Empirical findings support this argument by highlighting a negative association between traditional attitudes and participation in job-related training (Dieckhoff and Steiber, 2011;Wotschack, 2019).…”

“…In addition to individual demand-side aspects, differences in the supply of and access to training across employers, occupations, and sectors explain much of the variation in training participation (Barry et al, 2020;Burgard, 2012;Dieckhoff and Steiber, 2011;Kaufmann and Widany, 2013). First, the type and size of the employer influences participation in further training (Kaufmann and Widany, 2013;Wotschack, 2019), as training is often directly organised or at least paid for by large companies or in the public sector (Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), 2019;Dämmrich et al, 2016;Dieckhoff and Steiber, 2011).…”

Participation in Job-related Training – Is There a Parenthood Training Penalty?

“…In addition, only a few of these studies consider the specific interaction of gender and parenthood. Using data from the ESS (wave 2), Dieckhoff and Steiber (2011) Lastly, a study on Germany examines gender training gaps with a large firm-level database for 2012 (Wotschack, 2019). Accordingly, training gaps vary considerably between organisations and sectors, with smaller gender differences in small firms and contexts with policies supporting women's employment, a higher share of female top-managers and employee organisations.…”

Participation in Job-Related Training: Is There a Parenthood Training Penalty?

“…Female-dominated occupations, in particular, are linked to stateprovided general educational tracks, so demand for employer-and job-specific skills is larger than in male-dominated occupations, e.g. in the health and social services sector (Wotschack, 2019). Accordingly, training rates are generally higher for women, especially for those with general educational qualification.…”