Glass Ceiling in Organizations Encouraging greater participation at work
Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Glass Ceiling Indicators ........................................................................................................................ 4 Barriers to shattering the glass ceiling ................................................................................................ 4 Breaking the Glass Ceiling .................................................................................................................... 6 Sponsor Effect ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 11 References ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Introduction The term “Glass Ceiling” describes the invisible barriers that women confront as they approach the top of the corporate hierarchy. There is a consensus among the minorities and women that glass ceiling does exist and that it operates to exclude minorities and women from the top levels of management. Glass ceiling, thus, works contrary to the notion that diversity is paramount to the success of the organization. The issues with glass ceiling as identified by various CEOs surveyed by the Glass Ceiling Commission in the United States are:
It excludes from top leadership of corporations able people of diverse backgrounds that businesses need in order to compete successfully. It reduces the motivation of people from these backgrounds to contribute to the success of the company
According to the findings of the Glass Ceiling Commission Report, there are three levels of artificial barriers to the advancement of the minorities and women in the corporate sector. These are
Societal Barriers o Related to educational opportunities o Prejudice related to gender, race etc. Internal structural barriers o Recruitment practices, corporate climate, lack of mentoring etc. Government Barriers Monitoring and law enforcement o o Inadequate reporting related to glass ceiling
Background According to surveys of Fortune 1500 companies conducted by Korn/Ferry International and Catalysts in the last decade, 95 to 97 % of senior managers were men. Even in 1994 it was found that only 2 among the Fortune 1000 companies had women at their helm. It was also found that most women and minority professionals did not work in the private forprofit sector. They held jobs in the public sector and non-governmental agencies like health, education and social welfare.
5.2
0.6
Hispanic
3.6
3.6
4.8
API African American
47.5
1.3
API African American
31.9
White
White
Men
Hispanic
Women
Above charts give a distribution of male and female population involved in public occupation. The Glass Ceiling Commission also analyzed salaries as an indicator of advancement. In 1992, it was found that in the US, the ratio of female to male earnings in management jobs ranged from a low of 50% to a high of 85%. Based on the analysis of factors contributing to the glass ceiling, the following steps could be adopted to help break the glass ceiling and involve a larger percentage of the minority population in the corporate sector:
They require the support of the top management CEOs need to include their strategy for advancing minorities and women. o They are inclusive in nature o There should be a systematic way of including all qualified employees They address the preconceptions and stereotypes prevalent in the organization Diversity training should be focused but not treated as a panacea. o They are comprehensive o The programs should be designed to ensure that high potential minorities and women do move up to positions that suit their education and background
Over the years, many of the top companies of the world like Xerox, Proctor & Gamble, IBM etc. have taken steps towards shattering the glass ceiling and paving the way for greater involvement of minorities and women in the corporate sector. Many of these measures have been successful while some have failed to garner the expected response.
Glass Ceiling Indicators The following were the findings of studies related to glass ceiling:
Only about 5 percent of the nation’s big six accounting firms’ partners are women. Of the 1000 biggest U.S. companies, women represent only 16.9 percent of more than 31,000 managers (Berton, 1993) Men outnumber women as executive vice presidents by three to one. (Korn/Ferry International, 1993).
Men average 50 percent more compensation for similar positions (Littlejohn, 1993).
Women occupy less than 3 percent of the top-level jobs in the largest U.S. corporations (McGonigle, 1991).
The above findings reiterate the fact that organizations were constructed and developed according to the expectations that men were the breadwinners and that a bureaucratic career is equivalent to a male career.
Barriers to shattering the glass ceiling Research over the years have identified a number of factors that prevent organizations from breaking the glass ceiling and encouraging women and minorities to take up higher management roles in the organization. Some of these factors are:
Lack of lateral movement deprives women of experience in line supervision needed for vertical growth. Putting women in line jobs is perceived as risky Many women feel uncomfortable dealing with women and doubt that women can balance a career and family Reluctance to admit women into informal office networks exists. Sexual harassment still exists Accountability for Equal Employment Opportunity responsibilities did not reach to senior-level executives. Women’s participative management leadership style is seen by men as a lack of authoritarianism and confidence. Standards of performance are higher for women and minority men than for traditional managers in the job and responsibility level. Human resource officers believe that women are less committed to careers, have less initiative, and are less committed to career, have less initiatives and less willing to take risks.
Based on the above factors, researchers came up with a number of practices that the management can adopt to remove the barriers to growth for women. These include:
Corporate culture o
Encourage better working relationships among diverse employees.
o
Upper management support for the advancement of women in their organization.
Human resource practices o
Quality improvement teams that specifically focus on issues related to women.
o
A rotation process that moves men and women through at least two or three functions before they reach top positions
o
Ensure that company policies and programs educate everyone about sexual harassment.
o
A statement of commitment to equal opportunities for women.
o
Clearly communicate goals for the movement of women to the managers of the organization.
Training and development 1. Career planning and mentoring programs. 2. Mandatory workshops to reinforce policies against gender bias. 3. Sexual Harassment workshop for the manager.
Flexible work practices 1. Help women with flex time and child care. 2. Use of family leave and part-time work.
Breaking the Glass Ceiling Research on the kind of managerial positions held by women in the 1990s revealed that the number of positions held was positively associated with the work-life human resource practices and the percentage of senior management positions held by women. Research carried out in the late 1990s suggested that the proportion of women occupying lower and middle management positions increased dramatically over a 30 year period while the number of women in senior management positions was relatively small. Hymowitz and Schellhardt (1986) first used the glass-ceiling metaphor to describe an impediment in organizational hierarchies, just below the top management level, that prevents or constrains women from rising into the ranks of senior management. In 2000, among Fortune 500 companies, women represented only 12.5 percent of all corporate officers and less than 5 percent of top earning officers (Catalyst, 2000). Subsequent research on the glass ceiling adopted a variety of approaches in trying to eliminate the barriers that prevented women and the minority classes from reaching the top management positions in the organization. One such theory blended the social contact theory and the strategic human resource management perspective to explain the concept of the glass ceiling and analyze the implications on individual careers. The social contact theory was based on the premise that opportunity for women to become a part of the top management would improve as more women become a part of the maledominated workforce. This suggested that as female/male ratios in lower-level managerial positions increased, women would experience less isolation and social pressure, begin to form coalitions and support networks, and become more acceptable as candidates for senior positions. The strategic HRM perspective put the onus of providing senior management positions to talented women on the organization i.e. the HR systems need to be created so that bundles of interrelated practices can exert maximum influence on key organizational objectives. For instance, creating a larger pool of qualified female talent may require very proactive and
integrated recruiting and retention practices along with multiple work –life human resource practices. Research was carried out to blend aspects of the above two theories to determine if the proportion of lower-level managerial positions held by women and the presence of work –life human resource practices (HRPs) are positively associated with the proportion of top-level managerial positions held by women. A set of hypotheses were developed to correlate percentage of female managers and work-life human resource practices with the percentage of women occupying senior management positions. The research was carried out a set of 72 large US corporations. This was one of the first studies to provide evidence suggesting that steps taken to recruit and retain lower- and mid-level female managers and to provide relief from a variety of non-work concerns can affect the likelihood that women will be able to compete for and move into top management positions. While the mean percentage of senior management positions held by women was 9.38 percent for the companies represented in this research sample, 11 percent of these companies had no women in senior management positions and 22 percent had fewer than 5 percent of these key positions held by women. Further research was carried out to establish the prevalence of barriers to growth of minorities by studying the variation in pay scales across countries. It was found that in countries with relatively large proportion of female workers, all workers are underpaid and strikes are rare. The idea of equivalent pay regardless of the gender composition was based on three observations. Women are underpaid compared to men with similar work Both men and women are underpaid in work where females are in the majority Departments in which the representation of women is clearly below or clearly above average are much more likely to be characterized by gender differentiation and discrimination.
The smaller the female minority, the larger the male majority, and the greater the contrast. The many factors that determine the objective size of this gender contrast in the workforce include the country’s overall female/male ratio (varying from .52 in Qatar to 1.19 in Latvia), fertility rate (varying from 1.2 in Italy to 7.6 in Yemen), economic growth rate (varying from –.09 in Georgia to .09 in China),the socioeconomic necessity of dual-income families (e.g. low in Ecuador ,high in Finland), the cultural acceptance of working mothers (e.g. low in India, high in Iceland) and, of course, war and emigration (Chafetz, 1990) The research suggested that pay discrimination by male administrators and managers can be direct (e.g. a male board blocks a salary increase for the majority of female nurses and the minority of male nurses) or indirect (e.g. male union leaders demand salary conditions that
disadvantage employees doing female-dominated work). It further believed that derogation and discrimination are implicit and unconscious processes. A study was conducted on 59 countries of the world for which wage estimates were available with the World Economic Forum. These countries represented parts of Europe, America, Asia and Africa. The report tried to establish a relation between underpayment at jobs and the proportion of working women in the economy. It was found that workers were underpaid in countries with larger proportions of working women.
Sponsor Effect As seen in the above sections, to some extent companies have been successful in breaking the glass ceiling. However, as Sylvia Ann Hewlett argues in her research “The Sponsor Effect”, the gains have been restricted to middle and senior management roles. Even today, only 3% of the Fortune 500 companies have women at the helm. The reason for the this last glass ceiling as Sylvia and her colleagues uncover, is not the biases that men hold against women, but the reluctance on the part of women to actively seek out senior colleagues who can help them grow in the organization. The report argues that behind every successful and highly visible women is a powerful backer, usually a male who puts his reputation on the line to promote her to the top.
95 85 75 65 55
Males
45
Females
35 25 15 Entry Level
Middle Management
Senior Management
Executive/ Csuite
Percentage of men and women at various levels
As seen from the above chart, percentage of women keeps on decreasing as the role within the organization keeps growing, with only 21% on the women reaching the executive level positions. Based on the research, Sylvia and her colleagues concluded that what women want are sponsors, powerful people who provide the required amount of attention and support to talented individuals. Women don’t invest time and effort in fostering better relationships with people who can act as their sponsors. Women tend to show an aversion to this give-and-take policy that sponsorship entails. It has been found that a mere 13% of the women at large companies have sponsors senior enough to help steer their career as against 19% of men. The research shows that both men and women seem to undervalue sponsorship but women tend to do so to a larger extent. The chart below shows the percentage of employees who are satisfied with the growth within the company. The employees are split based on those who are with sponsors and those who are without sponsors. 80 70 60
Men without sponsors
50
Men with sponsors
40 30 20 10
68%
70% 57%
57%
Women without sponsors Women with sponsors
0
Satisfied with the rate of advancement
According to the research on the Sponsor effect, 56% of male employees and 43% of female employees will ask their manager for stretch goals if supported by a sponsor. Having a sponsor also puts an upward pressure on companies to revise the pay based on the performance of the employee Women tend to miss out on sponsorship for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of female sponsors to more trivial aspects like golf sessions and barroom conversations. Women overwhelmingly believe that promotion at work is a function of merit rather than one’s network. Women tend to be focused on doing a great job and value the friendships at work.
They believe that using friendships and personal equations to get ahead in a job undermines the relationship itself. The authors of the research offer the following solutions to ensure that women can break this last glass ceiling and seek greater participation in the upper echelons of the company:
To understand that sponsorship is about long range goals and not self-serving, internal promotional dynamic Corporate programs should be more proactive in finding talented individuals who need to be sponsored Make sponsorship robust by incorporating senior leader support and education for women o Companies like American Express, Cisco etc. created comprehensive approaches to the sponsorship relationship. These companies tried to incorporate proactive talent management for women and minorities through various programs. Cisco introduced the Inclusive Advocacy program to open doors, create new networks, and enable the organization at a very senior level to develop a diverse talent pipeline across the enterprise. C-suite support of sponsorship is a key factor in the success of these programs o Visible and active support from the company’s senior leaders often signals the difference between good intent and real outcome. FTSE 100 started “CrossCompany Mentoring Programme” to increase the number of women on FTSE 100 boards. According to Peninah Thomson, the promoter of this program, the key to the success of the program was one-on-one attention over a sustained period of time. Also, the generosity of the mentors was one of the keys to moving women up the ladder. Sponsorship needs to be promoted at all levels of the organization Morgan Stanley started its program “Leadership Program for Newly Promoted o Women Managing Directors” to enable female talent who will attract both senior sponsors from above and sponsor junior professionals below them. The program helped female managing directors to acclimatize to the new role and recognize a new beginning to their careers. Sponsorships in the organization should be made safe. o Intel, initially, took up an initiative of mentoring high potential women into high potential performers. This was followed up by an initiative known as the “Extending our Reach” program that was aimed at pushing these high performing women into high leadership positions where they can in turn expand the pipeline of talented women.
Conclusion Barriers to the progress of women and minorities have existed both in the corporate and public sector for a number of years. These have resulted in companies not being able to exploit the benefits that are associated with workplace diversity. This has been a result of unwillingness of the higher management to do away with existing practices and the passivity on the part of minorities and women. Research has only been carried out in this sphere over the past 30 years. The research carried out has suggested a number of ways in which organizations can adopt practices that encourage these sections to contribute to the company and rise up to the higher management roles. A number of companies have adopted these practices and seen considerable improvement in the proportion of women and minority representation in the higher management. Some practices still exist which prevent these sections from realizing their true potential. In this report, measures have been recommended to further improve the conditions and break this last glass ceiling.
References
Baumgartner, M. S., & Schneider, D. S. (2010). Perceptions of Women in Management. Journal of Career Development, 37(2), 559-576. Baxter, J., & Wright, E. O. (2000). The Glass Ceiling Hypothesis: A comparative study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Gender & Society , 275-294. Billing, Y. (2011). Are Woman in Management Victim ofthe Phantom of Male Norm? Gender, Work and Organization, 18(3), 298-317. Catalyst. (2009). Women in US Management. New York: Catalyst. Chafetz, J. S. (1990). Gender equity: An integrated theory of stability and change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Shattering the Glass Ceiling: The Women Manager. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Dreher, G. F. (2003). Breaking the glass ceiling: The effects of sex ratios and work-life programs on female leadership. Human Relations, 56(5), 541-562. Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for Business: Making full use of the Nation's Human Capital. Washington D.C. Hewlett, S. A., Sumberg, K., & Sherbin, L. (2010). The Sponsor Effect - Breaking Through the Last Glass Ceiling. HBR Research. Maume, D. J. (2004). Is the Glass Ceiling a Unique Form of Inequality? Work and Occupations , 250-273. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways Women Lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 119-125. Stead, B., & Eyring, A. (1998). Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Some Successful Corporate Practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(3), 245-251. van de Vliert, E., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2004). Women and Wages Worldwide: How the national proportion of working women brings underpayment into the organization. Organization Studies, 25(6), 969-984.
