The Myth of the Glass Ceiling - Term Paper Example

The Myth of the Glass Ceiling The often used phrase ‘glass ceiling’ is generally invoked when describing working environments where women face limitations regarding pay and career advancement due to an unspoken policy of gender discrimination within the hierarchy of an organization. Women’s groups and civil rights activists have skewed government statistics to ‘raise the alarm’ about the inequalities suffered by working women as compared to their male colleagues. The ‘glass ceiling’ is a flawed term based on distorted facts and in fact never existed. Naturally, examples of bias will likely always occur in one form or another, but the suggestion that there has somehow been a concerted, secretive international conspiracy by evil corporations directed against women is ridiculous. This paper debunks the glass ceiling myth by examining the arguments by those who would defend its existence and by injecting context and perspective into the discussion. Prior to delving into the multiple facets of the supposed wage gap between men and women in the workplace, one indisputable aspect should be addressed. This nation operates on a capitalistic system. Companies large and small, in every industry and service, have one main goal which is to make a profit, the bigger the better. Therefore, it is an economic reality that if a company could hire women who would accept 25 percent less compensation than a man to perform the same job, as is popularly claimed, they would hire only women. Since this phenomenon hasn’t occurred either locally or nationally, it can be safely assumed that there is no gender-based disparity in wages, no unspoken conspiracy to discriminate against women, no glass ceiling. A recent study which surveyed nearly 900 companies of various sizes found that about half reported that it was at least somewhat likely its next CEO would be of the female gender. This would not have been the case 30 years ago when women, driven by economic necessity, began to enter the workforce in larger numbers. Business analysts have estimated that “it takes the average man 20 years to become general manager, 25 years to become president, and 30 years to become CEO assuming he has the personal and professional qualities to make it in the first place” (Larson, 2005). Thirty years after women on the whole became more career oriented, they are today as likely as men to assume the head position of businesses, right on schedule. It is only reasonable to expect that there was a gender discrepancy among the top jobs in the beginning years of the historic redefinition of roles that originated in the early 1970’s. The rhetoric of the feminist movement in those early years decrying the gap in pay and position has not changed since that time even though that gap has been all but eradicated as a result of the natural evolutionary assimilation process. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the myth of the glass ceiling persists and has progressed to the point of being widely espoused and accepted as fact, but the facts have changed over the past three decades. According to a nationwide survey, today, women are paid between 95 and 98 percent the rate of their male counterparts. The often cited statistic which alludes to women earning only 75 percent of what men are paid was recently ‘substantiated’ by the Women’s Policy Research in association with the AFL-CIO. The combined study included only woman aged 50 and older, the majority of which were less educated then their male colleagues. When today’s 20 year-olds are in their 50’s, this will not be the case, quite the opposite. As opposed to the ‘disco era,’ now, the majority of associate, bachelor and master degrees are awarded to women. Forty percent of doctorate degrees are accepted by women. This illustrates again how the times have changed but the arguments supporting the existence of glass ceiling have not (McNutt, 2002). Other studies have determined that women, across the board, receive about three-quarters what men earn. Assuming this data is current, which is charitable at best, the number is deceptive because it refers only to the average pay of both genders and does not take into consideration occupation, experience, education or hours worked. Any one or all of which are credible rationalizations to explain this difference in pay. When these significant factors are entered into the equation, the gap in wages all but disappears. When these factors are taken into account, such as in the study compiled the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, “among people ages 27-33 who have never had a child, women’s earnings are actually 98 percent of men’s” (“Equal Pay Day”, 2001). Another common misperception is that discrimination is the cause of the discrepancy in wages. This practice has always been irresponsible but has been illegal thus actionable since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963 which was strengthened by Civil Rights Act in 1964. It is market forces that dictate pay discrepancies. Full-time employees earn more per hour than part-time, an executive’s salary is higher than a clerk in the mail room. The demand for a certain position sets the pay scale as does skill level and an individual’s willingness to work longer hours or under less than safe conditions. Many reasons exist for variances in wages. This difference in pay is seldom an indication of sexual discrimination in the workplace. Another myth concerning discrimination is claims that women are channeled into low-end jobs by a chauvinistic society. It is also widely accepted that positions such as clerical, sales, Human Resources, administrative and service-oriented jobs pay less on average because they are traditionally staffed by women. This is offered as additional evidence that discrimination is rampant and conspiratorial in nature. This misconception disregards the facts, however. First, “the value of a job is determined by the supply and demand of able and willing workers” and second, “women who might be able to hold a better-paying job often choose a job that pays less but provides more flexibility” (“Equal Pay Day”, 2001). This cannot be characterized as discrimination, but rather is an individual life choice commonly shared by many women. A justification for discrepancies in pay which, if often overlooked or ignored, is the fact that women have a tendency to avoid particular types of jobs such as agricultural, construction and service jobs (plumbers, electricians, etc.). According to the Jobs Rated Almanac, 94 percent of the positions in what they consider the ‘worst 25’ jobs are occupied by men. This explains why men account for 92 percent of all job-related fatalities. Jobs identified as ‘dangerous’ generally pay greater wages which must be factored in to any ‘pay-gap’ equation if it is to be considered credible information. “Men work more hours a week than women do. Men represent 92 percent of work force deaths because they take dangerous, dirty jobs that pay better. Women tend to select jobs that are safer, more pleasant with a lot of human interaction” (Hawkins, 2007). Men are also more likely than women to pursue full-time careers that are uninterrupted by breaks in service which puts them on a faster track to the top positions within a company. This intense path to success appeals to men more than women, as men are more willing to accept the consequences of this sacrifice such as time away from family. Success is a relative term that has different meanings for different individuals. Many women choose the family life or to contribute to their particular community instead of climbing the ladder of corporate success (Larson, 2005). According to The U.S. Labor Department’s ‘Glass Ceiling Report’, there is “an invisible but impenetrable barrier between women and the executive suite, preventing them from reaching the highest levels of the business world regardless of their accomplishments and merits” (The Northwest Research Group, 2001). This finding, which cost taxpayers an untold amount of money, is wildly inaccurate. The report assumes, incorrectly, that women are routinely deprived of promotions which they not only pursued as eagerly but were also as equally qualified to occupy as were their male colleagues. The report bemoans the fact that just five percent of Fortune 2000 senior officials were women. The report also cites a study that showed men who graduated from Stanford University Business School were up to eight times more likely to be a CEO 10 years after leaving school than were women. The study didn’t take into account, however, that women tend to make life choices that differ from men, choices that greatly affect their professional aspirations but again, this does not represent gender discrimination. Though the feminist movement does not like to admit it, it is common knowledge and backed by numerous surveys that women who are employed in all levels of management ultimately put their family’s interests before their job (Chavez, 1995). In these cases, it is the women themselves who limit their career path, not the corporations. The climb up the corporate ladder usually involves great personal sacrifice including long hours, travel and the willingness to move when the situation warrants. It requires an obsessive dedication to the company which almost always takes precedence over everything else. Most women are unwilling to make such sacrifices. If they decide to have children, their career path is severely interrupted. A study conducted of women MBAs who temporarily left their job to start a family earned 17 percent less than women who did not make this choice. Forty-four percent of the women who interrupted their career attained the senior management level as compared to 60 percent of women who did not choose to take a break in service. “Shattering through that ‘glass ceiling’ risks deep cuts into a woman’s personal life that many of us would simply rather forgo. Women often make different choices than those men make, choices that profoundly affect their careers but which don’t constitute discrimination” (Chavez, 1995). There are, of course, exceptions to this scenario which have largely been facilitated by the general acceptance of the changing gender roles in society over the past three decades. Maj. Gen. Janet Hicks, for example, was able to attain and maintain her position because her husband stays at home with the kids, commonly referred to as a ‘house-husband,’ a term that was unheard of 30 years ago. Hicks expressed that had she been the one who had primary care of the children, her chosen career path would have been impossible. Though ‘house-husbands’ are becoming more common by the day, the vast majority of care-givers are women which lowers their overall earnings potential. Situations such as the Hicks family are not taken into account when calculating the mythical glass ceiling because by doing so would weaken the argument of its existence (Ferris, 2005). This myth concerning the glass ceiling effect, that women are prevented from the upper echelon corporate positions by the ‘ole boy’ network is flawed. “Their finding was politically useful but statistically wrong. It was based on the number of women in the total labor force, rather than the number of women actually qualified through education and experience to hold top positions” (“Equal Pay Day”, 2001). According to the Small Business Administration, women own 40 percent of small businesses in the U.S. A National Foundation for Women Business Owners survey found that many of these businesses are operated out of the family house. Besides employing the owner, these female-owned businesses created more than five million full-time and eight million part-time positions. “Home-based’ may sound unimpressive compared to the prestige of a major corporation, but today’s small business can become tomorrow’s major contender. Mrs. Field literally started her cookie business door-to-door” (Larson, 2005). Women are also making steady gains in the corporate world. As evidence, women occupied positions in just 11 percent of the corporate boardrooms in 1973. The percentage of women on corporate boards increased to 72 percent in 1998. As time passes, women continue to make great strides in catching up to men in terms of workplace equity. After being relegated to being the home-maker for all of recorded history, women have relatively quickly reached equality in the workplace in terms of pay and position. This would not have been possible had the charges of discrimination and a glass ceiling been remotely accurate. “Women’s progress in the workplace shows that if a glass ceiling ever did exist, women have long since shattered it” (Lehman, 1999). The final myth this paper will address is that more stringent laws should be enacted that ensure people are paid according to their ‘comparable worth’ because some continue to be taken in by the misnomer that men are paid more for doing the same job. This type of legislation has already been attempted in Britain where a supervisory body can mandate that a company must pay higher salaries than a competitor. The idea of comparable worth leads to arbitrary bureaucratic decisions that could adversely affect an entire company thus its employees. It produces “arbitrary, inconsistent and inefficient outcomes” (Reed, 1994). For example, in Minnesota, a state that is also considering this type of legislation, librarians and fire fighter have been judged to be occupations of comparable worth. All available evidence suggests that no glass ceiling exists. If some disparities are occurring in the workplace concerning women, studies show them to be in the lowest levels of management. “On the basis of the data analyzed here, the disadvantages women face in acquiring authority are, if anything, greatest at the lower levels of the managerial hierarchy, not the upper levels” (Yamagata et al, 1997: 578). The glass ceiling describes the perceived barrier to senior levels of management. Because women did not immediately rise to the same level as men, numerically speaking, in the upper echelons of management in the 1970’s, reactionary feminist groups cried foul. However, this was a case of unreasonable expectations that have since been realized. The glass ceiling was a myth then as it is now. This metaphor should be re-examined by those that believe it to be true because is there is a problem of gender discrimination in the workplace; it’s in the lower end of the employment ladder, not the top where their focus is concentrated. This takes the attention away from the actual place of potential concern. It’s an imperfect world; therefore bias, prejudice and discrimination will likely always be present in business as well as in other aspects of society. However, it serves no purpose to invent conspiracy theories concocted with erroneous facts, logic and reasoning and call it the glass ceiling. Works Cited Chavez, Linda. “Glass Ceiling Myth: Reality is Women make Different Choices.” Milwaukee Sentinel, (March 25, 1995). “Equal Pay Day 2001: Economic Choices for Women.” Independent Womens Forum. (April 3, 2001). May 14, 2007 Ferris, Nancy. “Women Atop IT Ladder say Glass Ceiling not Apparent.” Federal Computer Week. (April 14, 2005). May 14, 2007 Hawkins, John. “An Interview With Kate O’Beirne.” Right Wing News. (2001). May 14, 2007 Larson, Elizabeth. “Women and the Many Varieties of Success.” The American Enterprise. (2005). May 14, 2007 Lehman, Joseph. “Shattering the Myth of the ‘Glass Ceiling’.” MI: Mackinac Center For Public Policy. (November 3, 1999). May 14, 2007 McNutt, Lindsay. “The Glass Ceiling: It Can’t be Shattered if it Doesn’t Exist.” I Feminist. (December 17, 2002). May 14, 2007 Northwest Research Group. “Self-Audit for Gender and Racial Equity Conducted for the Glass Ceiling Task Force.” Washington: The Glass Ceiling Task Force, (2001). May 14, 2007 Reed, Lawrence. “Comparable Worth or Incomparably Worthless?” Midland, MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy Research, (September 1994). Yamagata, Hisashi, Kuang S.Yeh, Shelby Stewman, and Hiroko Dodge. “Sex Segregation and Glass Ceilings: A Comparative Static Model of Women’s Career Opportunities in the Federal Government over a Quarter Century.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 103, N. 3, (1997): 566-632. Read More