The Glass Ceiling Phenomenon Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Definition and Examples
Antecedences
Statistical Data
Equity Programs
Education
Work/Life Policies
Future Prospects
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The competition on the job market increases every day, and people with skills and professional experience rival each other on all levels. However, the hiring and promotional decisions of many companies sometimes depend not only on candidates’ professional qualities but also their inherent and perceived characteristics. From views rooted in discriminative influences such phenomena as the “glass ceiling” are born. This essay aims to define the concept of the glass ceiling, providing the history of the research surrounding this phenomenon as well as its most current examples. Then, the idea’s antecedents are analyzed, showing the historical precursors to this problem.

The statistical data is presented alongside the changes that occurred with the implementation of equity programs, reforms in the education system, and work-life balance policies. Finally, the future prospects of combating the glass ceiling are discussed. The central idea is that, at present, the glass ceiling, while being acknowledged by both researchers and governmental entities, still persists in most workplaces, limiting women’s access to top management positions and equal pay.

Definition and Examples

First of all, it is necessary to review the meaning of the phenomenon as well as the history behind its formulation. It is believed that the first mentions of the phrase “glass ceiling” appeared at the end of the 1970s, in conversations between female employees at Hewlett-Packard (Saxena, 2019b). Another story describes the panel visited by female business employees, among which was Marylin Loden, a consultant from the United States, who disagreed with the idea of female inferiority in business and coined the idea of an invisible barrier for women (Content Team, 2016).

Regardless of its origins, the phrase was later included in books and reports, and, in 1991, considered by the US Department of Labor to be a serious issue that needed thorough investigation. Upon the examination of salaries, positions, and interviews with employees of different levels, the Department of Labor announced that the term has grounds for existing.

Furthermore, the department also created a definition for the phenomenon, thus highlighting its opportunities for research. According to the government entity, a glass ceiling is a set of “artificial barriers based on an attitudinal or organizational bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their organization into management-level positions” (Saxena, 2019b, para. 8). While this definition does not mention women specifically, one can see that the central idea highlights the presence of biases, either external or internal, that interfere with individuals’ career opportunities.

Currently, the phrase is also used to describe the issues that minorities face in the workplace, but the problem of gender-based discrimination remains prevalent (Adams and Funk, 2012). The outcome of the glass ceiling is that women, when moving up the “career ladder,” eventually encounter an invisible barrier that limits their ability to occupy top-management or other leading positions. Therefore, women are passed for promotions, and male workers dominate higher levels of management. Another problem that also arises from this phenomenon is the gender pay gap – women earn less than men in similar circumstances.

One can present many examples of the glass ceiling in various industries and public spheres. For instance, Webb (2017, para. 5) finds that, in 2017, that women filled about 10% of all senior roles, while the percentage of buyers in the same industry showed a near-half divide between female and male clients. Moreover, a 2018 research showed that there were only 24 women CEOs in the list of Fortune 500 companies, making the rate of female top-level executives less than 5% (Noronha and Aithal, 2019, p. 386). At the same time, these women are paid less than their counterparts (Saxena, 2019a), while bringing more money to their respective businesses than male CEOs (Ganiyu et al. 2018; Glass, and Cook, 2016). This disparity in numbers signifies that the rate of female top-rank executives is not related to their skills.

An example of a glass ceiling situation disputed in court is the case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. A female employee accused the company of passing her up for promotion for two years in a row (Content Team, 2016). The woman received comments about the lack of femininity in her appearance, although her performance was on par, if not better than that of other workers (Content Team, 2016). This incident uncovers the deep roots of this phenomenon and their pervasive and corroding nature.

Antecedences

Women were not always a part of the competitive job market world. Historically, many societies imposed strict gender roles on women, whose primary purpose in a family was to be the keeper of the house (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Thus, traditionally feminine activities were related to childbirth and motherhood, as well as cooking, cleaning, and other domestic chores. As a contrast, men were expected to provide for their families, being the only moneymakers in a household. As a result of this dual system, the patriarchal society, guided by men in ruling and leadership positions, also influenced the characteristics communities associated with men and women.

On the one hand, the fixed status of women as mothers was linked to them being soft, caring, cautious, and risk-avoidant. On the other hand, men were expected to be ambitious, brave, strong-willed, and independent (Fernandez and Campero, 2017). Furthermore, the patriarchal view of womanhood centered on the male perspective, where women’s activities were not separate from but complementary to men’s achievements. Thus, women were ascribed to such aspects as servitude and family alignment.

This assignment of gender roles was reflected in religions as well, while also focused on maternal sides of women’s existence and the superiority of men above women. One can see this relationship in Christianity’s creation of man and woman; for example, Adam was created in God’s image, and Eve followed to assume the role of a companion (Phoraris, 2015). This description, mirrored in several other religions, became the center of the patriarchal system, in which men assumed the leading position in families, jobs, politics, and other structures.

A massive shift towards women becoming equal to men by societal standards happened during the movement for equal voting rights. Woman’s suffrage, which gained traction in many countries in the 19th and 20th centuries, helped women to assume their place as equal citizens of their respective nations (Snowdon, 2011). Changes in the labor market started happening in the 1940s, as men could no longer support the families on their own due to war and other economic and political factors. Nonetheless, while the last decades saw a rise in the rate of women in various jobs, the lasting cultural impact of patriarchy as the primary societal structure continued to enforce gender stereotypes.

Thus, the view of women as mothers did not disappear from the public’s opinion, and women still struggle to balance work and household activities. Although many female employees work the same hours as their male coworkers, they are expected to fulfill the roles of a parent, caretaker, and housekeeper (Ragins, Townsend and Mattis, 1998). This assumed inherent duty is what keeps the gender stereotypes of feminine personality in place.

Statistical Data

Since the US Department of Labor’s report that introduced the problem of the glass ceiling to the public, several organizations started accumulating data about women’s participation in the workforce. Most notably, The Economist frequently updates its “glass-ceiling index,” which compares the different elements of education, work, and pay in several countries. According to the data collected in 2017, women earn almost 19% less than men on average (The glass-ceiling index, 2017). Furthermore, while women hold around 43% of managerial positions, only a fifth of all board seats are occupied by female representatives in US companies (The glass-ceiling index, 2017).

Thus, while women can reach some leadership positions, the ceiling limits their ability to rise to the highest level. As for senior management roles, women occupy less than a quarter, when the rate is measured globally (The glass-ceiling index, 2017). As mentioned above, the top 500 companies only have 24 women in the executive position.

This discrepancy is apparent in most fields, including various business industries, education, and governmental entities. Moreover, while developed countries often have better rates, their representation of women in the force is far from ideal. According to Welham (2014, para. 4), in England, almost 75% of all teachers are female. However, the rate for deans and heads is vastly different – only 4% of women in schools work as headteachers (Welham, 2014, para. 5).

The number indicates that, even in professions dominated by female employees, men still occupy the majority of executive positions. In the field of healthcare, the situation is the same. In the US, around half of all graduates in such areas as pharmacology and dentistry are women, while female deans take up only 16% of the executive niche (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017, p. 315). Nursing is one of the rare spheres, where women have high rates of both graduates and managers. Nevertheless, this can be explained by the long history of nursing as a traditionally female profession, which further strengthens the idea of gender-based characterization for specific occupations.

In developing countries, women encounter the same problems, although the basis for them can be different. According to Sharma and Mishra (2019), developed countries place more emphasis on gender roles in business, while developing nations have stronger cultural implications. Here the view of women is followed by other human rights conflicts and religion or culture-based principles that are not as prevalent in developed countries. Thus, all states encounter the same outcome that is caused by nation-based values.

Equity Programs

To combat the issue of the glass ceiling, some countries attempted to introduce equity programs that establish the rate of women in certain positions or protect women and minority groups from discrimination. In Canada, certain territories have legislation that guarantees pay equity – such as the Ontario Pay Equity Act (McDonald and Thornton, 2016). Similarly, Taiwan has created the Act of Gender Equality in Employment, but it is unclear whether this legislation effectively combats the gender pay gap in the country (Grossman, 2016). In the US, gender-based wage discrimination is outlawed in some states.

Most of these programs challenge the financial aspect of the glass ceiling and its outcomes – women’s pay in relation to their male coworkers is the focus of the conversation. However, this legislation does not address the problem of unfair promotions and the lack of career growth for female employees. Thus, one may conclude that current programs do not consider all sides of equity to combat the problem of the glass ceiling.

Another law related to the phenomenon was passed in Norway in 2003. According to Bertrand et al. (2019), the country’s public limited liability companies now have to appoint at least 40% of each gender on their boards. Thus, out of ten board members, four to six have to be female. In contrast to other legislation, this law openly demands equal representation of men and women in a top-level decision-making position. This reform can offer more opportunities to women and make equality a part of the societal standard. It strongly affected businesses in 2003 and the following year, when they had to appoint new members to the board.

However, the effects of this policy are questionable, as they do not address the other problems that arise from the glass ceiling phenomenon. These issues include discrimination, gender pay gap, promotion outside of board membership, and earnings distribution (Arulampalam, Booth and Bryan, 2007). Thus, the legislation’s role seems superficial, and it does not have a substantial impact on other types of organizations.

Education

One has to consider the influence of learning on women’s ability to compete in the job market. The rising levels of higher education are especially relevant to this issue, as they are related to women’s access to the academic world as well as the variety of management and senior positions. In developed countries, women attain tertiary education more often than men – in the US, there were more female than male postsecondary graduates in 2017 (Winchester and Browning, 2015; The glass-ceiling index, 2017). Women take almost 39% of all GMAT exams, and the rate of female students remains high (The glass-ceiling index, 2017).

Thus, it is apparent that women are at least on the same level of academic achievement as men, considering the ubiquitous role of education in developed countries. Nevertheless, such a prevalence of female students poses another question of whether professional skills are enough for women to be considered equal to men in the workforce. The numbers of English teachers and heads presented above demonstrate the limit of women’s education leverage.

In developed countries, access to higher education also becomes more critical for one’s career. Flynn and Jeudin (2016) find that the number of female students continues to increase in Indonesia. At the same time, the rate of female employees is faculty positions, especially in leadership, is stagnant. Faculties employ anywhere from 20 to 70% women, but only 6 to 20% of them are at the top level (Flynn and Jeudin, 2016, para. 4). This finding shows that the skills are not the main factor in choosing candidates for leadership positions. Here, the effect of the glass ceiling returns – regardless of women’s academic achievements, other aspects such as prejudiced views toward female characteristics and gender roles affect their career.

In the countries of the Gulf region, the situation in the academic field is similar. Punshi (2018) compares the number of female university graduates and their rate in supervisor positions in the Gulf region and uncovers a large gap between female graduates and managers. Although more than 65% of graduates in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields are women, only 15% of all supervisor positions in this field are held by female professionals (De Vita and Giancola, 2017; Punshi, 2018).

At the management and CEO levels, the numbers are even lower – 7 and 3%, respectively (Punshi, 2018). Such a significant discrepancy is difficult to overlook – it points to the questionable role of education in women’s advancement. Although female graduates may hold more Masters and Doctorates, their chance of becoming a top-level manager or a CEO is still extremely low (Cook and Glass, 2014). In contrast, women may feel at though they need this level of education for mid-level positions, while their male counterparts can succeed with a bachelor’s degree.

Work/Life Policies

The balance between work and private life is a concern of many women who choose to pursue a career while also creating and supporting a family. Pregnant women and new mothers cannot fully participate in their work, especially if they have a demanding job or follow a 9 to 5 schedule, five days a week. They need to have sufficient time off to spend with their children, requiring maternity leave for some time after pregnancy (Albrecht, Thoursie and Vroman, 2015). As a result, many women cannot afford to work outside of usual hours, while many men do not experience the same problem, regardless of whether they have children (Perrigino, Dunford and Wilson, 2018).

This creates a need for work-life balance accommodations that some companies or governments implement in the form of policies. In many developed countries, for example, maternity and paternity leave are paid – mothers and fathers have an average of 32 weeks of paid leave to care for their newborn (The glass-ceiling index, 2017). In the US, this policy is not present, and neither parent gets paid leave.

The ability to leave work to care for one’s family without losing the position or income is a significant benefit for women. It offers financial comfort as well as the ability to regain physical and mental strength to return to work. However, it is also plagued by gender bias as women’s absence from work lowers their value in the eyes of executives, thus decreasing their chances for promotion (Baptiste et al., 2017; Straub, 2007). Various family duties that women balance with work also lead to fewer network connections and women’s inability to participate in informal job-related meetings (Saleh et al., 2017). As a result, women do not participate in link-building events.

Other work-life balance policies may include child care centers, dedicated spaces for nursing mothers, smoking restrictions, extended breaks, flexible schedules, wellness programs, consultations, and health-related events. These programs have some advantages for women, as they provide women with a more flexible environment for pursuing a career without sacrificing family life. However, their effect on promotion opportunities may be harmful as well – they reinforce women’s priorities for motherhood and family orientation, thus supporting some organizations’ biased views of women’s commitment to businesses’ advancement (Faniko et al., 2017; Finseraas et al., 2016). As a result, while such policies help women balance their duties, they also support the prejudiced arguments against promoting female employees.

Future Prospects

Scholars make different predictions about the wage and promotion gaps closing. Some believe that it may take decades to eliminate the gap between salaries of women and men, as countries with laws against this issue still struggle with unequal pay (Acker, 2009; Amon, 2017; Davis and Maldonado, 2015). According to Stier and Herzberg-Druker (2017), companies cannot eliminate this problem on their own as well. Although firms led by women were found more financially successful than those with men in positions of leadership, the current rate of female executives shows a slow rate of progress.

Furthermore, another problem is currently emerging from the glass ceiling phenomenon – the “glass cliff.” As Stewart (2018) explains it, women are often promoted to executive positions during a company crisis, stepping on a “glass cliff” of responsibilities under increased scrutiny from stakeholders and the public. As an outcome, women cannot adequately prove that they are good leaders, because they have to save the business from failure and deliver successes on a tight schedule (Murell, 2018). This phenomenon is a direct response to the glass ceiling programs, although it does not improve women’s opportunities in the long term (Sabharwal, 2015). Therefore, it is unclear whether the new CEO appointments will benefit the overall view of women in leadership positions and improve the perspectives of creating employment equity.

Conclusion

The phenomenon of the glass ceiling entered the sphere of business research in the 1980s, but the position of women in the workforce continues to be affected by it. Although women pursue education and continuously prove their knowledge, skills, and commitment to their jobs, their promotion rate remains low in comparison to male coworkers. This trend can be observed in developed and developing countries, although the underlying causes may differ. Overall, the patriarchal view of womanhood and traditional gender roles are the central barriers to women achieving career success. Various work-life policies and equity programs are both beneficial and detrimental to female employees’ experience. The future of closing the gaps in pay and opportunity is unclear and distant, as new problems arise in the corporate world.

Reference List

Acker, J. (2009) ‘From glass ceiling to inequality regimes’, Sociologie du Travail, 51(2), pp. 199-217.

Adams, R.B. and Funk, P. (2012) ‘Beyond the glass ceiling: does gender matter?’, Management Science, 58(2), pp. 219-235.

Albrecht, J., Thoursie, P.S. and Vroman, S. (2015) ‘Parental leave and the glass ceiling in Sweden’, Research in Labor Economics, 41, pp. 89-114.

Amon, M.J. (2017) ‘Looking through the glass ceiling: a qualitative study of STEM women’s career narratives’, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, p. 236.

Arulampalam, W., Booth, A.L. and Bryan, M.L. (2007) ‘Is there a glass ceiling over Europe? Exploring the gender pay gap across the wage distribution’, ILR Review, 60(2), pp. 163-186.

Baptiste, D. et al. (2017) ‘Gender differences in academic surgery, work-life balance, and satisfaction’, Journal of Surgical Research, 218, pp. 99-107.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994) ‘Shatter the glass ceiling: women may make better managers’, Human Resource Management, 33(4), pp. 549-560.

Bertrand, M. et al. (2019) ‘Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of board quotas on female labour market outcomes in Norway’, The Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), pp. 191-239.

Chisholm-Burns, M.A. et al. (2017) Women in leadership and the bewildering glass ceiling’, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 74(5), pp. 312-324.

Content Team (2016) Glass ceiling. Web.

Cook, A. and Glass, C. (2014) ‘Above the glass ceiling: when are women and racial/ethnic minorities promoted to CEO?’, Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), pp. 1080-1089.

Davis, D.R. and Maldonado, C. (2015) ‘Shattering the glass ceiling: the leadership development of African American women in higher education’, Advancing Women in Leadership, 35, pp. 48-64.

De Vita, L. and Giancola, O. (2017) ‘Between education and employment: women’s trajectories in STEM fields’, Polis, 31(1), pp. 45-72.

Faniko, K. et al. (2017) ‘Nothing changes, really: why women who break through the glass ceiling end up reinforcing it’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(5), pp. 638-651.

Fernandez, R.M. and Campero, S. (2017) ‘Gender sorting and the glass ceiling in high-tech firms’, ILR Review, 70(1), pp. 73-104.

Finseraas, H. et al. (2016) ‘Exposure to female colleagues breaks the glass ceiling—evidence from a combined vignette and field experiment’, European Economic Review, 90, pp. 363-374.

Flynn, L. and Jeudin, R. (2016) ‘Breaking glass ceilings in higher education’, Chemonics. Web.

Ganiyu, R.A. et al. (2018). ‘The glass ceiling conundrum: illusory belief or barriers that impede women’s career advancement in the workplace’, Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business, 3(1), pp. 137-166.

Glass, C. and Cook, A. (2016) ‘Leading at the top: understanding women’s challenges above the glass ceiling’, The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), pp. 51-63.

Grossman, N. (2016) ‘Shattering the glass ceiling in international adjudication’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 56, p. 1-80.

McDonald, J.A. and Thornton, R. (2016) ‘Have pay equity laws in Canada helped women? A synthetic-control approach’, American Review of Canadian Studies, 46(4), pp. 452-473.

Murell, A. (2018) ‘The new wave of women leaders: breaking the glass ceiling or facing the glass cliff?’, Forbes. Web.

Noronha, S. and Aithal, P.S. (2019) ‘Work life balance and glass ceiling of women employees–a literature review’, Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies, 4(5), pp. 386-396.

Perrigino, M.B., Dunford, B.B. and Wilson, K.S. (2018) ‘Work–family backlash: the “dark side” of work–life balance (WLB) policies’, Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), pp. 600-630.

Phoraris, S. (2015) ‘You should’ve seen it coming: examples of the glass ceiling effect’, CareerAddict. Web.

Punshi, R. (2018). ‘Breaking the glass ceilings of the future’, The HR Observer. Web.

Ragins, B.R., Townsend, B. and Mattis, M. (1998) ‘Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(1), pp. 28-42.

Sabharwal, M. (2015) ‘From glass ceiling to glass cliff: women in senior executive service’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), pp. 399-426.

Saleh, A. et al. (2017) ‘Gender equity, student loans and returns on investment in American higher education’, International Journal of Sociology of Education, 6(2), pp. 216-243.

Saxena, E. (2019a) ‘What is the gender pay gap and why does it matter?’, Stylecraze. Web.

Saxena, E. (2019b) ‘What is the “glass ceiling” and how to break it’, Stylecraze. Web.

Sharma, D. and Mishra, S. (2019) ‘Glass ceiling and women leadership: study between developing and developed nation’, Asian Journal of Multidimensional Research (AJMR), 8(2), pp. 211-218.

Snowdon, G. (2011) ‘Women still face a glass ceiling’, The Guardian. Web.

Stewart, E. (2018) ‘Why struggling companies promote women: the glass cliff, explained’, Vox. Web.

Stier, H. and Herzberg-Druker, E. (2017) ‘Running ahead or running in place? Educational expansion and gender inequality in the labor market’, Social Indicators Research, 130(3), pp. 1187-1206.

Straub, C. (2007) ‘A comparative analysis of the use of work-life balance practices in Europe’, Gender in Management, 22(4), pp. 289-304.

The glass ceiling index (2017). Web.

Webb, J. (2017) ‘Glass ceiling still keeps top jobs for the boys: women earn 75% of men’s salary’ Forbes. Web.

Welham, H. (2014) ‘The glass ceiling in education: why are so few women becoming headteachers?’, The Guardian. Web.

Winchester, H.P. and Browning, L. (2015) ‘Gender equality in academia: a critical reflection’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), pp. 269-281.

Click Here To Order Now!