Cultural Factors on Managerial Roles in Female Managers - Research Paper Example

? Cultural Factors on Managerial Roles in Female Managers It is regarded that the first insight on women in management was drawn in 1990, when the Journal of Business Ethics dedicated two of its Issues to discussing about women, particularly those in management (Burke, 2005). From that time on, several other groupings, comprised of management scholars, sociologists and activists have come forward to look at the balance, the opportunities, the hindrances and the threats that have affected the success of women in corporate management. There has been a realization that barriers women face exist in medium to large organizations throughout the world (Davidson & Burke, 2004). The glass ceiling, that invisible but impenetrable barrier that keeps women out of the top levels of organizations, is a worldwide phenomenon. Organizations are also beginning to conclude that the full utilization and development of the talents of all employees has become a business imperative (Burke, 2005). If firms are to remain productive and competitive in an increasingly demanding global marketplace, they must recruit, retain, develop and promote their most talented people-regardless of their sex. This is increasingly seen not only as the ethical thing to do but also as the most progressive way of advancing organizations. In light of this reality, a number of leading organizations are making conscious efforts towards being more women-friendly (Burke, 2005). Thankfully, these efforts have helped increase the attention accorded to women in management. Organizations have a more structured approach aimed at promoting more women than has been traditionally the case. Currently, we can see that the proportions of women in the American labor force, in management overall, and in top management have increased in recent years. Also, the gap between proportions of women in the labor force and in management overall has virtually disappeared. However, the gap between the proportions of women in management overall and in top management remains large (Davidson & Burke, 2004). Statistics Looking at statistics, the upward trend alluded to is visible only that the growth has been quite slow. Starting our analysis in 2009, at the time women occupied 49% of the jobs in the U.S. and they occupied 50% of the overall managerial positions. A prior report, released in 2006, indicated that the women population had exceeded the men population in mid-level positions and occupations. Looking at these statistics, it is clear that women have made substantial progress in mid-level management; however, they still remain much maligned in top level management as statistics will reveal (Catalyst 2013). In 2010, only 2.4% of the Fortune 500 senior positions were occupied by women. In the FTSE 100, the situation was even worse with women occupying a mere 1.8% of the senior/top positions. These wanting statistics extend to boardroom seats, mainly in the major economies such as U.S. and U.K. Looking at the FTSE 100, women constitute only 12.5% of the overall directors, though this was a slight improvement from 11.7% in 2008 and 12.2% in 2009 (Toegel, 2011). However, the situation is not all gloom, as in certain countries the number of women holding senior positions in the corporate world is competitive enough, an example of this is in Norway where women occupy 44.2% of the total board seats. All the same, this is an isolated case, and discrimination is more the norm in most corporations especially in U.S. and U.K. Research reveals that even in countries such as Norway, where women occupancy is quite competitive the number has not been achieved voluntarily (Toegel, 2011). The current situation was necessitated by a 2008 law which required that all publicly listed companies have a board constitution made up of at least 40 percent women (Catalyst 2013). Countries such as Norway provide hope for women, going forward much more effort will be directed to achieving competitive women numbers. There are some commendable steps, with France and Spain said to be considering ‘women friendly legislation’ and formal quotas, Sweden also hopes to achieve a 40% women representation in aggregate corporate senior positions by 2015. More promising for women managers are efforts not only by governments buts also certain corporations, for instance, Deutsche Telekom, in Germany undertook a plan to see 30% of its senior positions occupied by women in four years time (Toegel, 2011). In the following section, we look at the distribution of women in management/top positions in major companies (Catalyst 2013). Particularly those companies in the Fortune 500 bracket as they remain the most prominent global companies and are expected to set precedent on corporate governance including the issue of women in management. Women executive officers in Fortune 500 Companies (Catalyst.org) Fortune 500 Board seats occupied by women (Catalyst.org) Women in management Gender perspective in corporate governance has become very important. Gender is considered the learned roles of both women and men in society and these differ from one culture to another. Often, the gender view is employed to describe the situation of women in management. This model of thinking is based on the notion that the social place of a group is vital in determining the insight of others towards persons. Perceived masculine or higher positional status dictates that occupation of such senior positions is not in line with societal female roles (Burke, 2005). Thus women are relegated to deal with lesser positions and in most cases home related roles. This notion breeds stereotypes and thwarts women from joining occupational groups and jobs regarded as masculine jobs on an equal fit as men. Following this theory, one identifies that women are expected to labor harder to be accepted, and to demonstrate assertion and not aggression, in order to be successful (Ban, 2013). A major setback to women’s progress in management remains gender stereotyping of the managerial position and the credence of a prototypical male managers has been around for so long. Stereotypes are a result of learning through socialization; the roles to be taken up by either gender are externally defined (Flechl, 2010). Beyond stereotyping, other variables determining the participation of women in senior managerial positions have been identified; one of the most pronounced was access to social resources such as education, knowledge and their self drive to attain success (Davidson & Burke, 2004). The strength of the “think manager-think male” is still entrenched in society and men continue to perceive women as less qualified for managerial positions. One of the most pronounced explanations is a concept introduced in the early 1990s “the glass ceiling concept”, this sought to explain the few women occupying senior managerial positions. Even though the numbers have changed, women still remain maligned and the statistical section presented earlier demonstrates this fact (Flechl, 2010). Therefore, the glass ceiling concept still remains in action irrespective of the two decades of “activism” to get more women in these senior managerial positions. The glass ceiling phenomenon is an unseen barrier that keeps away women and minorities from top management positions. At the senior level, corporate culture progresses around men, who have a tendency to hire individuals who look and act like them, therefore this actuality does not change. For diverse groupings to thrive, organizations must implore on ways to eliminate the glass ceiling. The participation of the senior managers is, hence vital in breaking the ceiling and according women a chance to participate in these senior positions (Davidson & Burke, 2004). Besides more women joining these senior positions, other organization processes such as recruitment, mentoring, and diversity trainings must be geared towards preparing women for occupancy of these senior managerial positions. Modern day corporate culture is a mirror of white male model of doing business (Flechl, 2010). They tend to alienate women and minorities in making fundamental decisions or developing their capacity to go high in the corporate hierarchy. Throughout, it has not been difficult for women to assume employment, meaning the entry level has not been laden with similar hurdles (Ban, 2013). This is mainly because the criteria for selection and promotion are more objective, however, it still becomes a problem for these women to attain upper middle or senior management positions, as the higher one goes the more subjective selections and promotions become. One of the most objective ways of handling these organizational shortcomings and stereotyping in general is application of job analysis and competency modeling as these help introduce a systematic approach to understanding work in an organization (Hewlet & Luce, 2005). Davidson and Burke (2010) allude to a study they conducted which demonstrated that there is a continuing problem for women who aspire to top management positions. According to the study, women are not seen to have necessary characteristics for leadership in senior or middle management positions compared to men. Successful middle managers are perceived to posses those characteristics attitudes and temperament more commonly ascribed to men that women (Davidson & Burke, 2004). Not only are the characteristics held by a manager seen as similar to the conceptions of men, but also those who select managers are likely to see men as more plausible candidates for managerial jobs (Burke, 2005). The type of behavior deemed appropriate coincides with images of masculinity and centers around rationality, measurement, objectivity, control and competitiveness. Women are associated with ‘feminine’ characteristics such as caring, nurturing, and sharing (Davidson & Burke, 2004). Gender role stereotypes have a major impact not only on selection but also on promotion and evaluation of managerial performance. Besides the role of corporate cultures and stereotypes, other reasons explaining the scanty presence of women in senior top management have been advanced. One of the alternate arguments is that the presence of women in top management violates the norm of male superiority (Ban, 2013). This is one of the reasons as to why women are likely to be sexually harassed, men are hostile to women who compete with them for jobs and can demonstrate that hostility in the form of sexual harassment. Women as a minority encounter difficulties in adjusting to and fitting into male managerial cultures (Flechl, 2010). They become ‘tokens’, their behavior taken as an example of ‘women’s behavior and always in the spotlight’. They face an unsupportive environment, the ‘old boys’ network, an unwillingness by those in power to confront and eliminate sexism and being assigned less influential projects (102). Another ‘social’ factor affecting women’s managerial advancement is gender discrimination. This usually results from stereotypes that women on average are less productive than men or might leave the organization sooner than men, and so are less suitable to advance in management Davidson and Burke (2010). Statistical discrimination studies assess whether gender adds to the explanation of advancement beyond employees’ productivity and job and organizational factors. Empirical studies show that statistical discrimination exists against women for managerial advancement. A review of the empirical studies demonstrate that the promotion of female managers result in lower managerial levels and pay than of comparable male managers (Hewlet & Luce, 2005). Moreover, female managers incur higher standards for promotion and advancement that their male counterparts. Davidson and Burke (2004) allude to a study conducted by Kay and Hagan (1998), the study found that women in law firms needed to demonstrate much higher social capital inputs that men to advance to partnerships, including greater bringing in of new clients, establishing a large network of clients, and having a firm practice rather than a law profession disposition, as well as needing to have more human capital through the hours docketed. In overall, few studies demonstrate favorable discrimination towards women. Further, women are also aware that of the fact that they are discriminated against. A host of studies demonstrate that many more women report more discrimination against their advancement that men (Burke & Mattis 38). Women managers noted gender discrimination as the most frequent barrier to their advancement in management. There is another explanation on the scarcity of women at the top places which lays blame on women themselves. For a while, there have been assumptions on the differences between men and women particularly in regard to work related skills and attitudes. In most cases, women are believed to be deficient. In fact, the popular literature is filled with self-help techniques to enable women to overcome the inherent deficits that result from being female (Davidson & Burke, 2010). These literatures contain tips about succeeding at corporate gamesmanship, touching on strategies for “breaking into the boys’ club at the top”, and about improving one’s communication style, supervising skills, and long term career perspective (Sherrill, 2011). Authors behind these literatures believe that it is the inherent weaknesses of women that stand between them and senior corporate positions (Burke, 2005). Fortunately, empirical research has not offered any support to these insinuations. In any case, the contrary has been shown to be true. A host of differences that typically have been ascribed to men and women do not hold up under scientific scrutiny, and the idea that women are crippled by their own aptitude is unwarranted (Burke, 2005). Bringing every finding into perspective, it is sound to conclude that women are facing the same obstacles worldwide when it comes to getting senior promotions, advancing their educational careers, and dealing with issues of raising children and family responsibilities (Castro, 2007). These are just some of the issues affecting women in the international business field, and they provide a partial explanation of why so few women are on international business assignments and in senior management. A detailed analysis of real life experiences of women in management Buddhapriya (1999) in his research identified that women managers are androgynous. He defines androgyny as a desired means for individuals to move beyond the rigid constraints of sex-roles. When women managers adhere to the usual gender stereotypes they face problems in their functioning as behaviors specific to sex-roles limit the development of effective management styles in a specific situation. Secondly, androgynous individuals whose self image and behavior are less narrowly restricted along sex-roles line, are more ready to meet the complex demands of the society and this, they are more flexible (Hewlet & Luce, 2005). Thence, androgynous women managers who perceive themselves as having high levels of both stereotypical masculine and feminine behaviors have access to a wider repertoire of possible behaviors to meet various situations, because of greater psychological flexibility (Buddhapriya, 1999). Women managers are required to manage two separate fronts; family and profession. Most societies are patriarchal, in these societies usually, house-hold work, child rearing, maintenance of family and in extension variable domestic duties rest primarily with the female partner which require qualities like patience, sensitivity, and nurturance which are considered as basically feminine qualities. Sometimes she is required to be tough, task oriented and more assertive, which are considered stereotypically male traits (Ban, 2013). So, to maintain a perfect balance between home and profession, women managers are required to carry both the feminine as well as masculine qualities. In other words, in order to be successful on both the fronts, they try to be androgynous. Another explanation can be that, while dealing with the subordinates, sometimes situations warrant them to be tough, dominant, assertive and task-oriented, while at other times, situations require them to be tolerant, sensitive, gentle, participative and nurturing (Fielden & Davidson, 2010). Therefore, instead of sticking to a particular style, they adopt different styles according to different situations. Again, women in managerial positions usually prefer to have high occupation attainment, self-esteem and work satisfaction. Androgynous subjects having high level of occupational attainment are found to have higher level of self esteem and greater degree of work satisfaction than with other types of sex-role identity (Hewlet & Luce, 2005). Therefore, this might be one of the reasons why women managers prefer to be androgynous. Women managers feel they have labored enough to move beyond the ideal management. For most of them, though still challenging things have eased a bit, unlike in the past when a woman manager, bringing up small children, and all the others around her were men. Taking care of these children was alien to these other managers. All the same, the situation has improved since men started participating in certain family roles such as picking up children from kindergarten (Fielden & Davidson, 2010). In regard to what women managers’ experience, most of them cite that they are more thorough in their management roles. They take their managerial duties more “seriously” than do their male counterparts (Buddhapriya, 1999). Male managers are more authoritarian, at least according to female managers. Men’s thinking is more abstract, overlooking the practical and down to earth. Women managers are much more interested in seeing things work and ensure that the entire department/workforce is satisfied (Sherrill, 2011). Women managers also have to carry allowed the feeling and expectations to “see everyone”. Often, most women managers cite how they feel they have to chat jovially with everyone around, even when they lack adequate time to do so. According to these women, there are greater expectations for women (Hewlet & Luce, 2005). This mainly results from the rarity of women to assume power in most corporations, thence those who achieve these positions are under greater scrutiny and feel the burden to succeed on behalf of all women. This is a responsibility not shared with men as these have ‘historically’ been known to perform and head major corporations. Therefore, for them they have nothing to prove and everyone is certain they will succeed (Castro, 2007). The other factor facing women in management is lack of support, many women point to the fact that when a man takes on a management job the men around him give him a clap. This is the case for all men when they move up their career ladder they are recipients of unwavering support from colleagues and friends (Fielden & Davidson, 2010). Unfortunately, this is not the case for women as they move up the career ladder everyone including their colleagues fail to recognize their potential and always doubt their capacity and doubt their ability to handle increased responsibilities. The deficiency of support prompts a host of women to doubt whether management is worth its price (Sherrill, 2011). Adversities and challenges Some of the most pronounced challenges for women include discrimination in the work place. In general there are two types of discriminative behavior that hinders women’s progression, covert and overt discrimination. Overt discrimination takes place when the underlying assumption is that a male candidate is generally more suited to a senior position (Flechl, 2010). In reference to covert discrimination, individuals are treated discriminately without this being made apparent. The bottom line is that either of these forms of discriminations draws preference for males. Under covert discrimination, an organization comes up with conditions which do not favor women. An example of this is when a male candidate is recommended for assignments that require one to be away for some time, this discriminates against women who are generally associated with staying at home (Fielden & Davidson, 2010). At face value, these rules may appear fair but in actual sense they discriminate against females. Overt discrimination represents a direct form of discrimination. In most cases it is apparent that some workplace conditions disqualify women. This is the case when female’s potential in an organization is affected by such factors as marital status. The other challenge is the patriarchal culture of dominance. Most cultures, including the American culture are founded on the theory of male domination which permeates all spheres of life including the workplace. The theory of patriarchy hold that a male-centered culture seeks to greatly invest in men and consider female values and experience as inferior and less significant (Flechl, 2010). This theory has paved way for the existence of male “gatekeepers” which has been identified as a major factor limiting the progression of women in corporations (Ban, 2013). The gatekeepers often employ a subjective view in determining those fit to assume senior posts in organizations a methodology that rules out most females who are looked at as incapable. In aggregate, the greatest challenge for women has been the difficulty to eliminate bias and discrimination in the workplace. Men have been known to favor and feel at ease with other men, and the fact that most senior positions are occupied by men this out rightly makes it difficult for women. Further, the hiring and promotion decisions are subjective. This is compounded by a look at recent research which indicates that talented women in low/middle level may never acquire development opportunities in comparison to their male counterparts (Powell, 2010). In addition, most women are restricted to go for higher-level jobs owing to their familial responsibilities and the absence of family friendly workplaces (Davidson & Burke, 2010). Expectations of women in management vs. male expectations biasness Most women expect greater opportunities in future. However, they also identify that these opportunities will only come if they equip themselves accordingly. This explains why women in management support a continuation of efforts to support the education, training and mentoring of women into professional and managerial jobs and develop organizations that accommodate diversity and equality (Powell, 2010). Increasing the number of women in decision-making roles will facilitate change and improve the character of these decisions and will aid take the needs of women into account. In overall, this will not only improve the plight of women in our corporate environments but will also improve organizational and societal performance (Sherrill, 2011). This is in light of the fact that recent studies have rooted for the inclusion of women in senior positions as gender-diverse management teams’ record better performance. Mainly, women bring in organizational effectiveness, preparedness and they raise the benchmark for everyone else in the organization (Toegel, 2011). Women also expect governments around the world to facilitate friendly legislation to help equalize/improve the proportions of women in management teams, especially in boards and in directorship. Often, they cite the strides made by countries such as Norway which have been able to achieve equitability through legislation (Toegel, 2011). A lot more organizations should be convinced that aiding and developing their female employees makes good business sense. Lastly, women hope that there can be sustained effort to deal with the pervasive negative attitudes, behaviors and experiences that affect women globally. Throughout this study, it is apparent that through some structured economic and political changes the situation of women in assuming managerial roles can be impacted (Fielden & Davidson, 2010). However, it is also apparent that the biggest influence is entrenched in our social-cultural traditions and values. There is an immediate need to institute change at the macro level (societal level) in case any changes are to be expected at the micro level (individual women). It is the efforts aimed at changing the views of society that would help handle the biasness of men against women (Sherrill, 2011). If men are educated and accept the importance of diversity and equality in organizations women would be able to access the managerial posts that are now dominated by their male counterparts. This is because an ideological change would be the only solution to fighting the “old boy network” that currently plagues most corporations. References Ban, C. (2013). Management and Culture in an Enlarged European Commission: From Diversity to Unity? New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Burke, R. J. (2005). Supporting women's career advancement: Challenges and opportunities. Cheltenham [u.a.: Elgar. Buddhapriya, S. (1999). Women in management. New Delhi: A.P.H. Pub. Corp. Castro, C. (2007). Hispanic Women in Senior International Business Management: Why So Few?: Barriers to Women in Management. New York: iUniverse. Catalyst. (2013, March 13). Statistical Overview of Women in the Workplace. Retrieved April 22, 2013, from Catalyst:Knowldge Center: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workplace Davidson, M. J., & Burke, R. J. (2004). Women in management worldwide: Facts, figures and analysis. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Davidson, M. J., & Burke, R. J. (2010). Women in Management Worldwide: Progress and Prospects. Toronto: Gower. Fielden, S.L. & Davidson, M.J. (2010). International research handbook on successful women entrepreneurs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Flechl, V. (2010). Work Life Balance - A comparative Study of Women in Senior Management Positions in Austria, Denmark and Great Britain. Mu?nchen: GRIN Verlag GmbH. Hewlet, S.S., & Luce, C. B. (2005). Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping talented women and the road to success. Harvard Business Review, March 10. Powell, G.N. (2010). Women and men in management (Fourth edition). London: Sage. Sherrill, A. (2011). Women in Management: Analysis of Female Managersz Representation, Characteristics, and Pay. New York: DIANE Publishing. Toegel, G. (2011, January 18). Disappointing Statistics, Positive Outlook:The state of women's leadership around the world. Retrieved April 22, 2013, from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/18/women-business-management-forbes-woman-leadership-corporate-boards.html Read More