The Glass Ceiling and Gender Gap - Coursework Example

The Glass Ceiling Carol Hymowitz and Tomothy Schellhardt gave the phrase universal exposure in an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, on March 24, 1986. However, the first recorded usage of the term was in 1979, by two Hewlett-Packard female employees (Katherine Lawrence and Marianne Schreiber), who initially laid out the perimeters for the contextual framework of the concept. The article written by Lawrence and Schreiber, indicated that while there appeared on the surface to be a clear path for women towards advancement into top executive positions, that in real terms, women were not afforded the opportunity for advancement on par with their male counterparts. Companies are known to engage in a number of practices which may appear on the surface that they are making an earnest effort to practice diversity, but in most instances the diversity is merely a diversion to avoid parity. Since the term first came into vogue, and with more women entering the labor force during the 1980’s, the glass ceiling has assumed a number of variations; for example, the bamboo ceiling, (Fisher 2005) which entails the exclusion of Asians from manager and executive positions. The criteria for assessment is purely subjective, i.e., an absence of leadership skills, or the inability to communicate at a high level. Another manifestation of the glass ceiling is the glass elevator, which involves the advancement of men over women, particularly in female dominated professions, such as nursing, and teaching. Then there is the sticky floor ( Noble 2008), pertains to women who are employed in low paying jobs. According to the latest EOC report, The Confederation of British Industry said many women chose relatively low paid careers because they offered more flexibility when they chose to start a family and the opportunity to work part-time. However, it believed too many organisations and businesses were still prone to sidelining mothers onto a so-called 'Mummy track' where career choices were much more limited. It has been demonstrated that it is not impossible for women to reach the executive suite, it is just that so many get stuck on the middle rung of the ladder, this is described as the sticky ladder. And of course there is the glass cliff, where a woman is promoted into a risky and often difficult job, where the chances of success is minimal. Approximately 20 years subsequent to the allegations of a glass ceilings existence, Hewlett-Packard went on to appoint the first female CEO of a major corporation. After assuming the position of CEO, (Fiorina) debunked the charges made by Lawrence and Schreiber, that a glass ceiling existed at Hewlett-Packard. In 1999 during a period when the company was beset by shrinking market share, This appears to be a pattern amongst companies who are in crisis. (Haslam and Ryan.2005). It seems that if the company is in crisis, then managers always turn to women as a kind of last resort. Male managers think women are better at dealing with a crisis (Haslam and Ryan 2005). Fiorina brokered the deal to acquire Compaq. The returns on the investment were less than commendable. After demonstrating that she was unable to appreciable improve the company’s position, she was forced to step down, she then issued an apology to women, for refusing to acknowledge that the discrimination against women, did in fact exist within the company. This is a classic case of the slippery cliff which is associated with the glass ceiling. The Equal Opportunities Commission report of 2007 states that, just 1% more women were occupying senior positions in business, the police force and the judiciary than a year ago. Additionally,Women accounted for 11% of director level positions in British businesses in 2004, the report found, and 21% of senior positions in the public and voluntary sectors.(EOC) The number of female directors in the top executive positions ( Cranfield University School of Management 2007), actually declined by four positions over the previous years figures, and that the number of executive directors is a little less than four per cent, while the overall female workforce in the UK is more than 46 per cent. The report shows that the total number of women directors of the country's 100 largest public companies fell from 121 in 2005 to 117 in 2006, reversing several years of steady increases. . Moreover, the number of female executive directors is only 15 out of a possible 391 – less than four per cent compared to the 46 per cent that women represent in the overall UK workforce.(EOC) Does the glass ceiling exist? Of course it does and it has taken on chandliers. There is little statistical deviance or anecdotal data which does not point to the reality of the existence of discrimination in our labor force.. The fact that women earn on average approximately 18.4 per cent less than their male counterparts (see Appendix “A”),is solid evidence of widespread discrimination. The fact finding report, Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital highlighted some of the most telling data. Simply put, surveys of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies show that 95 percent of senior level managers are men and of that 95 percent, 97 percent are white.(See Appendix “B”) And of the five percent of these managers who are women, only 5 percent are minority women.(Redwood 1996). There are many commentators who stress that women as a group should strive more diligently in acquiring upper level educational degrees. Which is a laudable thing to do, and very necessary for entrance into any management training tract within the corporate structure. If one were to take a close review of the numbers which are presented in Appendix “A”, it is evident that irrespective of the manner in which females prepared, the disparity in income continues to be a systemic problem.While income is but one aspect of the delimma, it points to the continued existence of the glass ceiling. The proportion of women in the work place has increased 5% since 1980 whereas the number of women in management positions has increased 19% in the same period (Powell & Graves, 2003). Although these numbers are encouraging, research indicates that there is still a gap between women and men regarding compensation for producing similar work. When one views the dilemma from the standpoint of the top down, it is obvious that what we actually have is a problem with perception. Of course, the numbers point to the existence of a problem. However, if one puts the question directly to a group of CEO’s, then one receives responses which run contrary to the standing numbers. In a survey conducted by Financial Women International, where the respondents were male CEO’s and female vice-presidents; when they were queried on the existence or non-existence of a glass ceiling 73 % of the male CEO’s said there was not a glass ceiling, and 71% of the women vice-presidents said, yes there is. As the perceptions on the existence of the glass ceiling vary, so does the criteria which is used to assess men and women. It has been found, through judicial review, that even though women may out perform their peers (male and female), and that all males in their companies or firms with performance records which may be comparable to those of a female, these males have made it to the upper levels of the executive ladder, while the women are being assessed by a different standard. Two examples of this different assessment criteria syndrome concerns the cases of Nancy Ezold of Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen and Ann Hopkins of Price Waterhouse. Both of these firms have highly structured, hierarchical management paths, their procedures and criteria for evaluating senior managers moving through the pipeline are explicit and detailed.Not only had the type of assessments made on Ezold and Hopkins not be applied to their male counterparts, during the pipeline years of these two women, no such assessment had ever been suggested. The assessments applied when it was time for the establishment of parity, was outside of the realm of the traditionally structured performance rating criteria. In the case of Ezold, they said she had not attended an Ivy League law school. And in the case of Hopkins, it was said that she did not wear enough make-up and she was prone to a considerable amount of swearing. Both cases, were subject of judicial review, and it was found, that Hopkins and Ezold had not been assessed by the same standard used to assess their peers. Nancy distinguished herself as the Plaintiff in the ground-breaking case, Ezold vs. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, the first case brought by a woman attorney, and tried, against a law firm for sex discrimination in the denial of partnership.Both of these cases point to the enigma of the likeness syndrome. It is fine and dandy for someone who is not a good ole boy to labour in the trenches, but it is quite another thing, for the labourer to aspire to be one of them. Particularly, when the aspirant is a woman. The subjective criteria which was attempted in these two cases, did not stand up to the scrutiny. . Research suggests that the underlying cause for the existence of the glass ceiling is the perception of many white males that they as a group are losing - losing competitive advantage, losing control, and losing opportunity as a direct consequence of inclusion of women and minorities.(Redwood 1996) Conclusion The gender gap and its consequences has received legislated guidance, and when a plaintiff has been successful in presenting a prima facie case, it has been ejudicated. The legislation has put forth various programs which are designed to monitor and discourage the practice of exclusion in the work place. There are those who say, that exclusion in the work place is symptomatic of exclusion in society-at-large. It is not simply enough to say that men are chauvinistic, and that they believe that a woman’s place is in the home. I get a very different feel from the research. The reason why the glass ceiling still exists, is not a cross which must be exclusively borne by males. Somewhere along the gender divide, men and women began to view work in a different way. My point here is, that men have always been the gatherers, and work to them is equated with advancement , and remuneration to adequately support their families or lifestyles.This has traditionally meant that they will adhere to a specific code of behaviour for achievement. For women, it has not always been about advancement, and climbing the corporate ladder. Most women are not solely career driven. Also, there are perceptions amongst women who feel that, women on and of themselves, are complicit in maintaining the sticky floor. These commentators attribute this analysis to the manner in which some women in business treat each other. That while most men pursue their careers aggressively, most women do not. This in part accounts for some of the disparity in the numbers which show women occupying less than a proportionate share of upper management positions. Nonetheless, for those women who do aspire to occupy upper level management positions, their perceptions clearly indicate that they are not receiving equitable treatment. Until and unless everyone in an organization is held to the same assessment standard, there will be instances of unfair treatment, and a persistence of the gender gap. Bibliography Cranfield University School of Management's annual Female FTSE report., Retrieved on line on September 2, 2008, from www.management-issues.com Equal Opportunity Commission Report 2007 Fisher, A. (2006) Piercing the bamboo Ceiling, Fortune Magazine August 8, 2005, fetrieved on line on September 2, 2008, from www.fortunemag.irg Haslam A., Michelle R., Focus on discrimination misses the point, 09 Mar 2005, Retrieved on line on September 2, 2008 , from www.management-issues.com Mescon, Michael H., “Comments on Organization.” The Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 1 (September, 1959), pp. 34-36 Noble, B. (2008) At work, and now the sticky floor, The New York Times, 22 Nov. 1992, March 2008, Retrieved on line on September 2, 2008, from www.nytimes.org Powell, G., & Graves, L. (2003). Women and men in management (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc. Redwood, R.,(1996) The Glass Ceiling, the findings and recommendations of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission Appendix “A” National Mean Income Disparities Race/ethnicity by gender of executives, administrators, and managers of private-for-proft companies with Bachelor's of Master's degrees: 1990  Race / Ethnicity    Bachelor's Degree    Master's Degree    Male Female Male Female Non-Hispanic white $47,181 $31,338 $57,371 $38,391 African American ($15,180) ($754) ($10,137) ($4,385) Chinese ($5,924)  ($2,032) $1,481 $7,292 Filipino ($7,992)  ($3,045) ($7,204) ($7,160) Japanese $22,406 ($373) ($13,071) $1,533 Asian Indian ($1,872) ($6,096) $5,997 ($6,970) Korean ($4,400) ($5,559) ($5,801) ($10,576) Vietnamese ($2,768) ($6,267) $5,923 ($4,350) Other Southeast Asian ($20,211)  ($6,679) ($20,694) ** Hawaiian ($11,252) ($8,066) ($14,079) ** Other Asian/Pacific Islander ($6,853) ($1,688) ($12,734) ($11,695) **results very unreliable due to extremely small sample size     How do you read the "Mean Income Disparities" Table? This table shows the mean income of those executive, administrators, and managers who earned a bachelor's or master's degree for specified population, with the white non-Hispanic mean incomes, male and female, as the comparative. The mean income or average salary of the white non-Hispanic executive. Source: Women and Work Commission Appendix “B”  Race % of total workforce Male Female non-Hispanic white 78.8%  43.2% 35.6% African American 10.1% 4.1% 5.3% American Indian / Eskimo / Aleut 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% Asian & Pacific Islander 2.8% 1.4% 1.3% Hispanic (of "white" and "other" races) 7.8% 4.6% 3.2% non-Hispanic other  0.0% 0.0% 0.0%   100.0% 54.3% 45.7% Source: Women and Work Commission Read More