The Role of Gender Stereotypes at the Workplace - Essay Example

 Last July year 2006, Indra Nooyi became the chief executive of PepsiCo. She was only the eleventh woman to take the chair of a Fortune 500 company.1 Moreover, only 11.7 percent of board directors are women, about 10 percent (50 companies in all) have no corporate officers at all,2 and only 13.6 percent of the members of the United States Congress are women.3 These facts just prove that the corporate and political world have yet to overcome the stigma of hiring and trusting a woman’s capabilities. Despite the supposed fact that the 21st century is the age of equal opportunities, gender discrimination in the corporate world is still rampant. A proof of this is that as of July 2006, there were only eleven women Chief Executive Officers compared to the 489 men that were CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies. Why is this so? Is it because the idea that women are designed differently and therefore not able to excel as men can and do in the corporate or political world a fact? Or is it because this myth is so widespread that it is considered a reality? Which one is it? Is the proverbial glass ceiling an actuality that women cannot escape from? The term “glass ceiling” was coined in the 1980s to connote the limited advancement or the “invisible barriers” a woman stumbles upon in a company due to prejudices such as sexism.4 In the study conducted by Brian Welle and Madeline E. Heilman, they concluded that gender stereotypes are at the root of the glass ceiling that women encounter in the business and political arenas.5 Gender stereotypes are “conceptualized cognitive structures” of the characteristics, behaviors, attitudes, and even physical appearances of males and females.6 Thomas Eckes further explained that, based on his study on the range-of-fit effects theory which measures a sub-type’s suitability to a particular gender and situation, “female and male subtypes would differ in the range of situations with which they are commonly associated.”7 To cite a specific situation, males rated as more suitable for a the situation presented by a job meeting.8 This means that men are recognized as more suitable in a boardroom than women. “This fact, which is based on mathematical computations, can also be explained through social psychology as done by Welle and Heilman. Welle and Heilman explained that there are two contrasting views in the workplace that deter and limit women from being promoted to the positions they deserve.9 The societal and accepted views about how a particular work should be done, who should be doing that work, and the qualities needed to succeed contradict the views about women and their roles in society.10 Descriptive stereotypes, the preconceived notions of the unique characteristics of men and women, act as a disadvantage to women.11 For instance, while a top executive is deciding on two candidates for promotion, even if he does not actually know the two, he has already formed an opinion of who will better suit the job. If the job involves making critical decisions, chances are the man will get promoted, but if it entails creativity in marketing and public relations, then the woman is the top choice. In fact, women are known to occupy the position of Chief Marketing Officers, with almost 150 women CMOs compared to the 11 CEOs.12 This is because women have a descriptive stereotype as being outgoing and persuasive—traits that are a plus in a marketing executive. Women are also known for being fickle-minded, emotional, and temperamental—qualities that are detrimental to a company when possessed by a CEO. To generalize, Cangemi, et al.attested that “stereotypes based on gender have historically placed women in a nurturing, submissive role while men are seen as the dominant, more aggressive gender” while “cultural stereotypes suggest males are intellectually superior to women, are more emotionally stable, and are more achievement-oriented and assertive than women.”13 This is the underlying reason why women are promoted less when it comes to top managerial positions and a barrier that they need to overcome in order to rise to the top of the corporate ladder. Aside from the descriptive stereotypes attached to both men and women which, in a way, assign respective job qualities to them, the perspective stereotypes—societal beliefs of how men and women should behave—is yet another major contributing factor to the reality that is the glass ceiling. The perspective stereotypes extend beyond their limits into the descriptive stereotypes in that “people not only believe that women are more communal than men (i.e., the descriptive stereotype), but that they should behave in nurturing, sympathetic ways, and show high concern for others” (the perspective stereotype).14 “Prescriptive stereotypes therefore prohibit women from being tough, aggressive and dominant. The violation of these prescriptions leads to disapproval, often taking the form of social penalties.”15 And these social penalties can be seen in the fact that many women work so hard and excel at their jobs at the same rate and even more than most men, yet they are passed over for promotions in favor of their male counterparts. It is simply not accepted for women to become workaholics, when they should tend to becoming a good wife, mother or both. The lack of fit analysis done by Welle and Heilman explains why men are favored over women in handling top managerial and government positions.16 This is because “jobs become gender-typed by virtue of both the number of men and women who occupy them and the attributes deemed necessary for successful performance.”17 For instance, there are more male firefighters and pilots as there are more female nurses and secretaries. This is a prelude to the fact that these professions have certain quality requirements attached to them in order to be successful. Firefighters and pilots demonstrate the stereotypical male or agentic characteristics such as being brave, decisive and task-oriented while nurses and secretaries exhibit female or communal characteristics typical to that of women like being nurturing, caring, and relationship-oriented.18 To establish a lack of fit model, one side displays the job characteristics and the number or ratio of men and women associated with the job and the other side shows the descriptive stereotypes discussed previously. There is a lack of fit if both sides do not match. For example, if a woman with stereotypical communal skills is being considered for a position that is mostly occupied by men and requires agentic characteristics, the rate that the woman will be hired is very low. This is because there is a lack of fit. The one making the hiring decision already has preconceived notions of what and who would fit the job. This lack of fit analysis runs through the subconscious of the individual automatically. The lack of fit analysis in prescriptive stereotypes presents an even more alarming reality for women. Even if they excel at a stereotypically male position by exhibiting admirable agentic qualities, the fact they are women who should be more communal than agentic suggests a lack of fit that society frowns upon. “Successfully performing at male gender-typed jobs thus presents a conundrum for women employees: demonstrating the characteristics presumed to lead to effective performance means violating prescriptive norms for how they ought to behave.”19 Because of this lack of fit between prescriptive stereotypes and a woman demonstrating superb agentic characteristics, the woman suffers in the workplace for her social transgression. Because she dares to excel in a man’s profession, she is being given a hostile treatment by the people around her.20 Thus, a woman’s journey to the top of the corporate or political ladder is more challenging and difficult than that of a man’s. For a man is dictated by society to succeed in these fields, while society imposes on a woman the right to succeed in other fields. Thus, there are numerous barriers that stand in the way of women’s success in the corporate and political arenas. Due to the lack of fit theory, women have limited role models and mentors, they experience hostile working environments, stigmas that hinder their hiring and promotion, sexual innuendos and harassment, and numerous harsh and undeserved criticisms. While a working mother, for example, excels as a top executive of a bank, she does not get all praises for managing two jobs. People would always find loopholes whenever something bad happens like a divorce or when a child misbehaves. Comments like “she should have paid more attention to her husband than her job” or “if she was a housewife dedicated to her family, this never would have happened” would certainly find their way into people’s mouths. But if the exact same thing happens to a man, they would say “poor him, he was certainly a good provider.” In an interview by Warren Liu, a marketing officer by the name of Lauren, the “bitch factor” was stated as one of the worst scenarios for women due to gender stereotypes.21 “While men are assumed to be naturally assertive, women who assert themselves at work are often considered too pushy or aggressive.”22 She further explained that “it should just be the loudest voice” that gets the glory—especially since the loudest voice is typically male. And if the loudest voice happens to be a woman’s, the glory comes at the risk of being labeled a “bitch.””23 These are only a few examples of the challenges that make a woman’s job doubly harder. Besides the fact that women encounter these barriers at the workplace, there are also some women who face these challenges even before they embark on a job. J. R. Terborg stated in his study that “women often are discouraged or pressured by vocational counselors and family members not to seek nontraditional occupations, such as management positions.”24 Poor self-confidence is yet one of the many barriers that results from the actions of society prompted by gender stereotypes. While these evidences and barriers are based on credible studies, research and statistics, the fact still remains that the collective basis for these are social norms. The descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes—the roots of most of the barriers—which places a lot of influence on organizational decisions and experiences,25 are still gender discriminations rendered by the society. All of our preconceived notions about what a woman should be like and how she should behave negate the concept of individuality. No one, and certainly not society, can dictate what and who we should become. The decision to succeed the in the chosen field is based on the individual’s qualities, and not on the gender characteristics dictated by society. And this is why these gender stereotypes, like most forms of discrimination, are open to change, if not complete eradication and suppression. The evolution of today's organizations "requires a different emphasis on attributes in developing future managers. These attributes include team working, high interpersonal skills, negotiating, consensus management, and the ability to handle several issues or projects at one time. It is interesting that these are the attributes that social evolution has developed in women. Female ways of managing life are much better suited to tomorrow's business than is traditional male behavior."26 While the statistics mentioned in the introductory paragraph stated the grimness of the standing of women in the business and political world, it is already a vast improvement from the previous years. For instance, in the year 2000, only two women were CEOs among the Fortune 500 companies, with one a company specializing in beauty products (Avon), and there were 90 companies who previously had no women corporate officers at all.27 In 2004, Morgan Stanley’s investment banking company paid out a total of $54 million to more than 300 female employees “who claim to have been denied pay and promotions equal to those received by their male colleagues.”28 Likewise, the courts ruled just this year that Wal-Mart is going to face a class-action lawsuit for sex discrimination against 1.6 current and former female employees.29 While these are far from the true-to-the-letter equal opportunities notion, they are evidences of progress. The notion that women are designed differently and therefore not able to excel as men can and do in the corporate or political world is a product of centuries of gender stereotypes imposed by society. It is a myth that grew stronger until it resided in the subconscious of everyone. However, with the coming of the 20th and 21st centuries, these gender stereotypes have begun to crumble. With the hardworking and persevering attitude of women all over the globe, the world is finally starting to recognize their struggles and reward them with much-deserved credit. Today, with the conscious effort of organizations, corporations, and governments, the ideas of equal opportunities and individuality are reachable at last. The glass ceiling is definitely not impenetrable. With the right combination of effort, perseverance, and the acceptance of the true essence of equal opportunities instead of the reliance on social norms, the glass ceiling has been cracked. And, in time, it may shatter into a million pieces, never to be formed again. Works Cited: Articles from Web Sites: Applebaum, Michael. Beyond the Glass Ceiling. 26 September 2006. BrandWeek. 28 February 2007. . Liu, Warren. Women Managers: Twice the Effort, Half the Reward? WetFeet. 28 February 2007. . The White House Project. Women in Politics: National Statistics. 28 February 2007. . Articles from a Scholarly Journal: Author(s). "Title of Article." Title of Journal Volume.Issue (Year): pages. Cangemi, Joseph P. “The Glass Ceiling: Are Women Where They Should Be.” Education. 115.3 (1995). Eckes, Thomas. “Linking Female and Male Subtypes to Situations: A Range-of-Situation-Fit Effect.” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. 35.7-8 (1996). Lemons, Mary A. and Parzinger, Monica J. “Designing Women: A Qualitative Study of the Glass Ceiling for Women in Technology.” SAM Advanced Management Journal. 66.2 (2001). Research Paper: Welle, Brian and Heilman, Madeline E. Formal and Informal Discrimination against Women at Work: The Role of Gender Stereotypes. John F. Kennedy School of Government: Center for Public Leadership, Harvard University (2005). Read More