The Glass Ceiling:Are Women Treated Differently - Assignment Example

I. Introduction The concept of ‘glass ceiling’ is created in the 1980s to illustrate the invisible barrier that women become aware of when they are trying to climb the corporate ladder (Parkhouse, 2001). This type of discrimination and mistreatment has been described as a barrier sop delicate that it is crystal-clear, though so powerful that it averts women and other marginalized groups from moving up in the corporate hierarchy. The glass ceiling has been apparent in both status and compensation within organizations. Although it seems to still exist, the composition of the glass ceiling has been transformed. This essay will discuss the debate about the discrimination and mistreatment of women, particularly in the workplace, as emphasized by the notion of glass ceiling. In order to do this, I will discuss the influence of traditional gender stereotypes and the false impression of equality to provide support for the argument that women are indeed mistreated in the workplace; and the stories and characteristics of women who become successful in the corporate world, and the true origin of the glass ceiling, if gender-based or policy-initiated, to substantiate the claim that the glass ceiling has been broken and that women are actually treated well and respected in the corporate world. II. The Glass Ceiling: Women are mistreated in the Workplace Traditional gender stereotypes have historically positioned women in a child-rearing, nurturing, passive and subservient role whereas men are perceived as the governing, more forceful gender. Self-assured and aggressive behaviors of the males are regarded as more important due to its attributes of objectivity, lack of prejudice, and focus toward analytical work or problem solving. Traditional views of males indicate they are more appropriate to managerial and executive positions than females due to their leadership orientation. Men seem to be more commanding or domineering whereas women go for a more involved and compassionate approach. Further traditional or stereotypical perspectives on the variation men and women are seen from a psychoanalytical point of view in a current commentary in the American Psychologist by the well-known Harry Levinson. As Levinson states, the male focus and orientation is characterized as incursion and drive against the female orientation of participation and environment. The entire psychology of management is all about self-assured approach and power; either to be on the top or on the bottom, defenseless, reliant and exploited (Coyne et al., 2004). Gender discrimination frequently prohibits women from management and executive positions. Gender stereotypes advocate males are mentally or intellectually better than women, are more psychologically stable, and are more focused on achievement and more aggressive than women. Effective and successful managers and executives are believed to have masculine features and attributes. Stereotypical belief and philosophy in organizations not merely affects the staffing and hiring of women to certain positions, it as well influences career growth and development and performance assessment. Societal standards and thoughts with respect to women often restrain women from being selected for managerial and executive positions in the business world. Terborg (1977) claimed the presence of a male managerial paradigm which states that women must not or cannot be effective managers or executives, which then preserves societal standards. Moreover, Terborg (1977) observed women often are disheartened or strained by occupational therapists and family members not to pursue nonconventional jobs, such as managerial positions. Goodale & Hall (1976) discovered students of high school of both genders who had comparable goals for college and career preference were not supported evenly by their families. Male students revealed their parents showed substantially more pressure and attention to their career aspirations than did the female students’ parents. Women who were rejected admission into medical colleges obtained various counsels from psychiatrists than men. Men were persuaded to reapply to more colleges or to take into account a doctoral study in a related discipline. On the contrary, women were cautioned of the difficulties which would come with a choice to aspire for a medical diploma and were counseled to change their career ambitions to seek for a more stereotypical gender-role line of work such as nursing (Goodale & Hall, 1976). Possibly, one of the greatest explanations women are not selected to more managerial positions relates to the socialization of women regarding traditional gender roles. Parents usually bring up their children to obey the expected roles they should fulfill in society. Bartleson & Cangemi (1983) claimed males are viewed as more advanced and better than females because of the attitudes prevalent in the larger society. They claimed the notion of male dominance commences at birth and carries on throughout adulthood. Parents rear males to be self-assured and females to be submissive. Women, in general, are socialized to think they are inferior since birth. Females are regarded as the weaker sex, and are most probably not aggressive or self-confident enough to endure the cutthroat competitiveness of the male-governed corporate world. Females are supposed to be familiarized toward people rather than duties, which are seemingly men’s area of expertise. Men are encouraged to develop the aptitude and capabilities required to master their surroundings and contexts. Women are persuaded to think they are not appropriate to male-dominated positions and have problem triumphing over cultural standards out of anxiety of being judged as ‘strange’ or ‘different’. This as well results into a form of self-fulfilling prophecy. Generally, women do not feel they have the capability to fulfill tasks of top level managers or executives. Females, in general, recognize the belief that femininity and accomplishment are irreconcilable, and hence often do not try to aspire for these top level positions because of feeling of remorse, fear, or insecurity. Since women are considered the child-bearing and child-rearing gender, employers think that they are risking the organization’s objectives by hiring them. This is because of the difficulty of filling provisional or long-term available jobs when women go on maternity leave or indefinite leave of absence to rear their children. The societal perspective of women as destined to fulfill domestic responsibilities increases the probability of difficulties in the workplace. Studies demonstrate identical accomplishment by men and women is undervalued if it is seen as being accomplished by a woman. This seems to be true in both the points of view of men and women of women’s accomplishment and performance (Reid et al., 2003). These conventional outlooks toward women have added significantly to gender discrimination as well as the glass-ceiling consequence. A guise of equality has been promoted by regime and organizations in an effort to verify that the glass ceiling is no longer existent. The 1963 Equal Pay Act stated that equal compensation should be given for equal labor, regardless of sex (Reid et al. 2003). Nevertheless, laws can be effortlessly circumvented by business organizations. Organizations justify discrimination through claiming that men merit higher pay than women since they are the usual ‘breadwinners,’ or through providing identical jobs dissimilar designations as a pay difference basis. Several companies rationalize paying women lower compensations due to economic grounds. The justification is that women will end their employment earlier than men and are less probable to furnish recompense on the costs of recruitment and training of the company. Women frequently are not provided the equivalent training and development, and familiarity men of similar position receive. This reduces their opportunity of obtaining promotions when measured up to others. Hence, women are valued less from a viewpoint of cost and benefit. Nevertheless, research does not back up the notion that women end their employment earlier than men or entail more cost for an organization in training and recruitment (Reid et al., 2003). Another influential indicator of the existence of the glass ceiling is the obvious gender discrepancy in wages has persisted over the recent decades. Women obtain hardly any promotions and are regarded to be trapped in occupations and profession with negligible authority and comparatively low compensation. Although women have been more and more hired in nonconventional professions such as lawyers, doctors, police officers, positions in the organization held by women continue to be inadequate in both position and compensation. Although women fill some managerial positions, they are not provided with the equivalent authority and power given to men in those identical positions. Though attempts have been made to reconcile the inequality between the genders, there is still much more to do before women are completely acknowledged in an equal capability with men. III. The Glass Ceiling: Women are not actually mistreated in the Workplace There are arguments which depict a different image of the effective and successful woman. It has been mentioned that women have the attributes to be the stronger sex. Progressively, men are more bodily or physically susceptible and prone to stressors, both since birth, during and after. Women live longer, deal with pressure and stress better, are ill less frequently, and are more liberal and articulate. Previous researches have contended the belief that women have lesser capabilities, skills, and enthusiasm (Schreiber et al., 1993). The managerial approach of women is regarded more resilient, liberal and participative than the conventional male approach. Female managers were evaluated as more interpersonally compassionate throughout their initial interactions and relationships with their employees and personnel. Female managers furnish exceptional attributes than men do not have or have so far to build up. Male managers frequently have been suspended or fired because of lack of compassion in handling and dealing with subordinates. Female managers are often commended for their skill to work more efficiently with subordinates. Female leaders are more able to communicate more openly and are more simply recognized because of their open and clear communication approach. Women in managerial positions as well are no more probable to have departed and reentered employment than men, which may be accounted to these women putting greater precedence on their career development than other women (Mani, 1997). The notion of a glass ceiling is not recent. An unseen barrier that puts off competent and skilled employees from being endorsed to managerial positions, the glass ceiling is frequently believed to impact exclusively women or be brought about by prejudice or discrimination. A far more influential and widespread glass ceiling influences men just as women. Majority of corporations can be characterized as meritocracies or sites wherein promotions are gained or earned on the basis of merit. Accomplishment and performance are put into emphasis; promotion and advancement is obtained through diligence and hard work. Nevertheless, between top management and the executive position, corporate culture and responsibility almost always moves to a culture founded on power and authority. The change is imperceptible and seldom, if ever, recognized explicitly. To progress further, an employee should conform to the new rules of the game although they have never been clarified. Actually, the new rules of the game are extremely important to the manner top groups work that even highly skilled individuals. Those females who manage to become triumphant seem to share identical attributes. On an individual term, they have great capacities, high skills, high self-confidence, and a strong intellectual self-awareness. They as well hold broadminded judgments and values pertaining to women’s functions in society. They comprehend their capabilities and potential and are not put off by their sex or gender orientation. These women can be portrayed as having genderless personality qualities. They sustain feminine attributes such as kindness and sincerity, but as well display masculine features such as high intellect, assertiveness, aggressiveness and self-sufficiency or independence. A general factor seems to be higher educational achievement with a focus in mathematics. Achiever or highly educated parents as well as female role models seem to have had constructive impact or influence as well. Effective and successful females as well seem to delay marriage and having children, as most are uncommitted or single and have few or no children (Tilly & Albelda, 1997). IV. Discussion and Analysis of The Glass Ceiling The contemporary society is frequently typified as highly liberal, humanistic and technologically advanced. Simultaneously, the arguments, regarding the actual equality among people despite of their racial, social or gender realities, still continues. In such a circumstance, the arguments regarding the status of female in contemporary society are among the most conflicting because on the one hand, there are individuals who truly think that women have finally been able to attain an equal status in society as measured up to men and, at currently, they have in fact equal opportunities given to men. On the other hand, there is a completely dissimilar perspective on the status of women in the contemporary society, within which the glass ceiling continues to be insurmountable barrier women consistently confront throughout their life. The latter status is more sensible and matches up to the real status of females in the contemporary society since their management is still to a certain extent an exclusion than a standard. Apparently, both arguments are founded on particular justifications which should be explored so as to completely disclose the degree to which the principle in the real development of the status of women in the contemporary society and their entry to high positions is flawed. Above all, it should be mentioned that the reality that women have made a tremendous stride and advancement compared to the earlier period is beyond question. It is actually true that women fulfill important role in the contemporary society and they have greater prospects and officially they have completely equal opportunities compared to men. As a principle, those, who think that the indication of the glass ceiling has vanished and absolutely disappeared from the contemporary society, firmly stand on the position that contemporary women have not merely equal rights compared to men but as well expansive opportunities to understand their right. In this term, it is essential to agree that at present women have actually had an opportunity to receive the same grounds for their prospective professional growth and development and career prospect. To place it more accurately, contemporary women have access to education and possess the opportunity to acquire higher education of the equivalent quality that men have that is one of the fundamental circumstances of their future points of view as prospective leaders. Moreover, it is in fact an indisputable fact that privileges and rights of women are acknowledged and adequately sustained by the current legislation which concentrates on the defense of women against any type of prejudice or discrimination, including the gender-based bias. Furthermore, women are not perceived as inferior or subordinate citizens any longer who are expected to use up their existence taking care about domestic responsibilities such as child-rearing. Nonetheless, perhaps the most influential argument of those, who think that women have in fact truly surpass the glass ceiling barrier, is the belief that, at present, women are broadly embodied in practically all dimensions of life and, furthermore, frequently they occupy the top positions. To place it more accurately, it is probable to assume that several women are fairly successful policymakers. For example, at present, the point of view of two female contenders on the recent Presidential elections in the United States appears to be quite sincere and true. Identical patterns may be identified in other societies of the world; for instance, Germany, wherein the Chancellor is a woman, or the United Kingdom which has previously witnessed the era of the former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Parkhouse, 2001). Basically, the similar instance is evaluated to be in economic realm. The advocates of the premise that the modern circumstance suggests to the end of the period of the glass ceiling emphasize that women can be as well affectionate among executives of the most commanding and influential corporations and financial institutes. In such a manner, evaluating from such an important incursion of women to high level positions in the political arena and economy, it is actually likely to think that the glass ceiling has been already shattered. V. Conclusions Unluckily, the fact becomes to a certain extent different from such a positive thinking. In reality, the status of women has barely transformed considerably in recent decades. Regardless the apparently developing appearance of women in the economy and politics, in reality, they still continue to be underrepresented in a chauvinistic society, particularly women are lacking from high-level jobs. Although women can have a genuine opportunity to acquire the higher education equally to men but this does not essentially imply that they will and in fact have the genuine opportunities to understand the obtained capabilities, skills and knowledge in their specialized life. To place it more accurately, recent studies disclose the reality that a high proportion of knowledgeable and experienced women that can take up high positions confront critical barriers brought about by the present stereotypes and preconceived notions which are essentially created by male and amassed in the society wherein male philosophy is controlling. Moreover, researchers as well specify that numerous employers plainly feel repugnance to assuming the risk through hiring a woman, or not definitely setting up their careers or work-related tasks to benefit them and, moreover, a negligible proportion of CEOs realize the progress of highly prospective women as a main concern. In such a manner, it is evident that the traditional gender perceptions and prejudices still put off women from a prospect to occupy high level positions in the corporate world. In relation to this, it is even likely to allude about the shortcoming of anti-discrimination policies, which, being in fact excellent in principle, has became incapable to alter the stereotypes that have been present for several decades, perhaps centuries. Furthermore, talking about the broader opportunities and prospects of women with respect to their career development, it is essential to emphasize that high level position still continue to be hardly available and accessible to women. In reality, despite of the considerable progress of women employed in various sectors and fields, including those which were conventionally thought as entirely male-dominated, they remain unrepresented on the high level position. In short, although there is an increasing contribution of women in organizations their points of views of acquiring high level or top positions are exceptionally low. Furthermore, the circumstances of pay and work remain disproportionate. It is not unknown that numerous women can barely sustain their careers after having children. This is certainly the reality for women that have been previously fulfilling the leading position in organizations wherein they took up high level positions. It is as well essential to emphasize that compensation discrepancies are as well the fact of the modern life because, as a principle, men remain to have more opportunities to receive a better compensated occupation or profession, or, moreover, men have higher income than women although they fulfill completely the same work. Dramatically, the discrepancy for part-time work is customarily broader than for the full-time work. Consequently, asking for amenable working still implies career termination for numerous women in the modern workplace. Simultaneously, it is as well valuable to mention the other aspect of the dilemma of the still developing glass ceiling. Actually, frequently professional, when they talk about the glass ceiling or mediocre or equal prospects of women, overlook that there are women from marginalized groups such as ethnic minorities who, currently, appear to be almost disregarded among the leaders of the corporate world, neither in economy nor in politics. In reality, the instances when a woman of non-white background is an executive, for example, are extremely rare. Consequently, the existing leaders favor to improve and train men as prospective leaders instead of training and educating women which capability may be tantamount or even greater than the capability of some men that are in the summit of business organizations. Apparently, such a scenario cannot persist as is and the dilemma of the glass ceiling still should be resolved in such a manner that women can obtain a genuine opportunity to completely understand and be aware of their potential as leaders in the corporate world. References Bartleson, F. & Cangemi, J. (1983). A Brief Psychology of Discrimination Against Women. Journal of Institutional Psychology , 3-8. Coyne, B. S. et al. (2004). Human Resources, Care Giving, Career Progression and Gender: A Gender Neutral Glass Ceiling . New York: Routledge. Glazer, P. & Slater, M. (1987). Unequal Colleagues: The entrance of women into the professions. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Goodale, J. & Hall, D.T. (1976). Inheriting a Career: The Influence of Sex, Values and Parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 19-30. Jenson, M. (1987). Women who want to be boss. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Mani, B. G. (1997). Gender and the Federal Senior Executive Service: Where is the Glass Ceiling? Public Personnel Management , 545+. Miller, T. R. & Lemons, M.A. (1998). Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Lessons from a Management Pioneer. SAm Advancement Management Journal , 4+. Morrison, A. & Van Glinow, M.A. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologists , 200-208. Parkhouse, S. (2001). Powerful Women: Dancing on the Glass Ceiling. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Reid, M. F. et al. (2003). Glass Walls and Glass Ceilings: Womens Representation in State and Municipal Bureaucracies. Westport, CT: Praeger. Rusaw, C. (1996). Achieving Credibility: An Analysis of Womens Experience. Review of Public Personnel Administration , 19-30. Schreiber, C. T. et al. (1993). Workforce Diversity and the Glass Ceiling: Practices, Barriers, Possibilities. Human Resource Planning , 51+. Terborg, J. (1977). Women in Management: A Research Review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 647-664. Tilly, C. & Albelda, R.P. (1997). Glass Ceilings and Bottomless Pits: Womens Work, Womens Poverty. Boston: South End Press. Wren, D. (1994). The evolution of management thought. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Read More