The Glass Ceiling - Essay Example

Section/# The Glass Ceiling – Scenario 3 The Glass Ceiling The “glass ceiling” is a term that is used to define the way in which women ultimately reach a point in their career that they are not allowed or expected to proceed above. Naturally, the mere existence of such a “glass ceiling” portends a degree of sexism and bias with regards to the unwillingness of stakeholders within the employment field being willing and able to promote their female counterparts (Hogue, 2009). As a function of seeking to understand this dynamic, the following analysis will focus specifically on the field of the glass ceiling as it exists within women’s ability to attain positions on the board of directors for firms within the United Kingdom. It should not be misunderstood by the reader that the glass ceiling is specific a position as the director of the board. Instead, a more nuanced and broad understanding of the glass ceiling within a variety of different fields calls the reader’s attention to the fact that it is exhibited within many different spheres. Moreover, by focusing upon the impact and realities of the glass ceiling with respect to women’s lack of representation on the board of directors for firms within the current environment, the analyst does not detract from the glass ceiling as it exists for other industries and professions; rather, it merely helps to underscore the fact that glass ceiling exists nearly universally. The gender representation within offices around the country is recognizably skewed. Males outnumber females on the board of directors for firms at a rate of nearly 9:1.. This is an interesting topic as it is indicative of a more nationwide trend and less culturally dependent and/or bound than the ways that the glass ceiling might be exhibited within other sectors of the economy (Bowling et al., 2006). Examination of such a determinant is necessary and important as it gives key insights into the broad/over-arching definitions of the glass ceiling as is evidenced through a large cross-section of our current society/government. Even a cursory level of analysis would lend one to suspect that since females comprise such a very small percentage of the legal field, they might necessarily be promoted and experience success much the same degree as their male counterparts (Bruckmüller & Branscombe, 2011). However, an inherent bias is indicated to exist due to the fact that even though women make up little more than 10% of those represented in such positions, they are overly represented within the lower positions and a number of studies have indicated they are unlikely to be promoted throughout the course of their career; as compared to their male counterparts (Hoobler & Lemmon, 2009). Furthermore, the researcher denotes the existence of a glass cliff. Within this particular understanding and definition, a glass with merely denotes fact that women are unlikely to exist within levels of upper management and leadership as compared to their male counterparts. As such, even though women make up approximately 40% of the total workforce, a much lower percentage is able to break through the glass ceiling experiences hardship of coming into any type of position of leadership and/or power. Regardless of the factors discussed, it cannot be stated that the glass ceiling has not grown and evolved throughout the course of the past several decades. Rather than being a static concept, this glass ceiling is redefined and re-engineered in almost every firm that it is extant within the current environment. Furthermore, since it is not a static concept, many researchers argue that it is possible for the term to morph and change throughout time and within the organizations that are affected (Haslam et al., 2010). Furthermore, although many changes have taken place, the glass ceiling and its traditional interpretation and implementation have remained largely unchanged. As a direct function of this lack of overall representation, the Lord Davies Report set forth 10 recommendations for how the gender gap could be closed in the near future; noting that at the current rate of gender integration in the workplace, it would take an additional 70 years to accomplish parity. Naturally, this unrealistic time frame engages the reader to understand that immediate changes should be encouraged and engaged as a means of ameliorating the issues that have thus far been noted. Accordingly, the second half of this analysis will focus specifically on the recommendations that the Davies report made and the means through which they can be implemented. Firstly, the Davies report proposes that the Chairmen of the board for all FTSE 350 companies should propose the percentage of women they intend on representing within their boards by 2013-2015. Furthermore, FTSE 100 firms should aim for 25% representation within this same time period. Moreover, rather than merely having these goals, the Davis report engages the reader with the understanding that these aspirations should be well known within the culture of the firms; thereby encouraging women to engage the process to an even further degree. A secondary approach that the Davies Report promotes is with regard to requiring quoted companies to disclose each and every year the overall representation of women on the board (Guyot, 2008). This would engage a level of competition and willingness to change with the times that might not otherwise be evidenced. Further, the report encourages the UK Corporate Governance Code to be expanded as a means of including measurable objectives for promoting women in leadership. Fourthly, the report indicates the companies should provide metrics of accomplishment on a yearly basis with respect to the first, second, and third recommendations that have thus far been analyzed. Fifthly, increased levels of transparency and openness should be engaged with regard to the way in which nominations to the board of directors are made. Through such a level of engagement, the Davies report denoted that this level of engagement could drastically diminish the level of biased or gender based appointments that were made nationwide. Sixthly, encouraging investor engagement in the process and the overview of the yearly accomplishments is another recommendation that is made within the report. The Davies Report therefore believes that the mediating influence of the investor will encourage previously intractable firms to begin a more integrated policy of gender appointment within the board of directors for the firms in question. The seventh recommendation that is made is that firms should regularly advertise non-executive board positions as a means of encouraging a greater level of gender equality within the firm itself; the underlying rational behind this is that the infusion of fresh talent within the organization will be very nature encourage a level of increased gender equality for those firms that had otherwise ranked very poorly with regard to this metric. Likewise, the eighth recommendation was concentric upon the need draft a Voluntary Code of Conduct that codifies what specific qualities are sought after as a function of appointing or selecting someone to a position on the board. The rationale behind this would be that firms would have no recourse but to select talented and qualified applicants, irrespective of their gender, as long as they met the requirements they had set forth previously. The ninth recommendation was for these firms to express a level of understanding that not all women within the workforce should be categorized. This effectively denotes that even though there is a great amount of change to be effected, the cross-departmental nature of these changes should not equate to a situation in which women are understood to be a commodity for promotion based upon gender alone. Finally, the last recommendation encourages the steering committees/boards to meet every six months as a function of addressing the potential progress or needs that might have been presented over the intervening period of time (Bowling et al., 2006). From the recommendations that have thus far been provided, it is clear and apparent that the Davies Report has accurately denoted some of the best practices that can seek to rapidly provide a greater level of gender integration; specifically with respect to the overall number of women that are represented on the boards of FTSE 100 and 350 firms. Regardless of the “recommendations” that have been elaborated on thus far, it is ultimately up to the legislative actions of the government to provide these recommendations the force of law. At such a time as this becomes a reality, it is more likely that the gender disparity that has thus far been noted can experience a much more rapid level of change; as compared to the previous models of change that have been discussed. Additionally, it should be understood that the provisions of the Davies Report only provide a roadmap for change; not a direct level of policy that is actionable. In order for sustained change, it is not only necessary for firms to consider and apply the recommendations herein provided, but to seek to alter the culture as a means of accurately representing a higher level affirmative action and gender equality throughout the entire firm. Bibliography Bowling, C Kelleher, C Jones, J & Wright, D 2006. ‘Cracked Ceilings, Firmer Floors, and Weakening Walls: Trends and Patterns in Gender Representation among Executives’. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 823-836. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00651.x Bruckmüller, S & Branscombe, N 2011, ‚How Women End Up On the "Glass Cliff"’. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 26. Guyot, J 2008, ‘Is the Ceiling Truly Glass or Something More Variable?’. Society, 45(6), 529-533. doi:10.1007/s12115-008-9154-9. Haslam, S Ryan, M Kulich, C Trojanowski, G & Atkins, C 2010, ‘Investing with Prejudice: the Relationship Between Womens Presence on Company Boards and Objective and Subjective Measures of Company Performance’. British Journal Of Management, 21(2), 484-497. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00670.x Hoobler, J Wayne, S & Lemmon, G 2009, ‘Bosses’ Perceptions of Family-Work Conflict and Women’s Promotability: Glass Ceiling Effects’. Academy Of Management Journal, 52(5), 939-957. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.44633700 Read More