Challenges Women Face in Their Career Progression - Research Paper Example

Over the past thirty years, much research and talk has gone into the study of women’s career advancement. It is not erroneous to say that there are many more women now seen in senior management positions in organizations, panning a plethora of industries and businesses than a few decades ago. However, there is still a gaping difference between the number of men and women. With this study, we want to establish whether or not women have risen higher to senior levels in organizations of have been held back by the ‘glass ceiling.’ Described as a “transparent barrier that [keeps] women from rising above a certain level in organizations” (Sools, van Engen and Baerveldt, 2003) the glass ceiling is often blamed for the phenomenon. The purpose of this study is to explore the careers of Midwestern women who hold prominent positions in their respective industries to understand the progression of their careers and the obstacles they faced during. This study attempts to research and answer two questions: a) What challenges have women faced in the past 30 years? b) What opportunities for women have developed in the past 30 years? Limitations This research paper is limited to the information gained by interviewing two Midwestern female executives; the secondary data collected is based around that information. The time-frame allotted for the research also restricted a more extensive study. Role of the researcher This research has allowed me to study this topic in great detail. However, it is based on my own understanding of the research materials and is subject to my inexperience. The conclusions drawn are intended to be my opinion and in no way expected to be the final word on this evolving subject matter. Furthermore, the topic is very sensitive and susceptible to bias and there may be unintentional proclivity towards one way of thinking. That said, this paper should be taken in the educational purpose intended and should be used as basis for further research. Data collection procedures For the primary research, raw data was collected by way of conducting two interviews. The candidates were selected based on their years of experience, career progression and expertise. Each of these women, belonging to two very different fields, started from the very rudimentary department and progressed through the ranks to reach the level they are at today. I initially got in touch with them via email, sharing my purpose and questions of study and scheduled interview time and location. I preferred meeting them face-to-face for a more thorough interview and to have a better understanding. The protocol form was reviewed and interviews were conducted. Data analysis procedures After the interview sessions, each of which lasted a little over half an hour, I made notes to remember my thoughts and conclusions. Later, I reviewed both the audio recordings and notes before transcribing and coding the recordings. The transcription was then themed by listing and collapsing codes to arrive at general themes. The main themes that emerged are: 1. Discrimination does exist today, in spite of skill level of women. 2. Willingness, capabilities/education and meticulousness are the key success factors 3. Skill level of women and assertiveness required to lead Strategies for validating findings For accuracy, interview transcripts were shared with the interviewees and were checked. Triangulation and data checking was adopted by interviewing women from two very different industries and comparing the themes to other secondary data, again from a variety of sources. Anticipated ethical issues The interviewees were informed in advance the questions they would be asked and were requested to familiarize themselves with the procedure beforehand. To further curb any anticipatory issues, the transcriptions were also shared with them. For secondary data, well-known sources were used. Literature Findings There is increasing evidence to point that firms today make effort not to discriminate based on gender for a variety of reasons including the proven high efficiency and capabilities of women, the libel associated with being called a discriminating company and the high lawsuit and litigation costs. However, if all big companies are pro-women leadership, then what is the explanation for the abysmal statistics showing as little as 4% representation of women in top executive spots in the biggest companies? Here, I would like to throw light upon a number of studies which attempt to explain this very phenomenon. Some forty years ago, women were generally assumed - and even observed - to not hold jobs at all. If they did, it was only temporary until they got married, or it was forceful because they could not find a man to get married to and who would support them. It was around the mid 1960s that careers for women actually began to be seen more frequently. (Walsh & Osipow 1994, p2) By the time the 70s rolled in, there was increasing attention devoted to more equitable representation, esp. in public bureaucracies (Bowling, Kelleher, Jones & Wright, 2003). This interest was not especially focused on gender equality until the 1980s and kept increasing throughout the 90s, with special emphasis on ‘top levels’ (Bowling et al., 2003, 823). Bjerk states that in 1995, according to Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 95% of senior-level managers in the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies in the US were male (2008), showing that there might be women in management, just not in senior-level.. Sools, van Engen and Baerveldt (2003) performed a study where they interviewed men and women in a Dutch multinational organization to try and decipher the reason why, despite 43% of the labor force being female, a mere 3.3% held executive positions. The researchers say that men’s career paths are very linear, uninterrupted and step-by-step in progression, whereas women’s are ‘often ambiguous and complex, more sequential and characterized by interruptions’ (p.414). Furthermore, the abstract, paragon manager was perceived to be typically identified as a male, who was happily married to a woman who took care of their children at home. The authors describe that managers demonstrated that they belonged to the organization by displaying through their behavior ways which were ‘naturally recognized as conveying ambition’, but never explicitly stating it. This creates something of an ambition paradox. When interviewed, the managers denoted ambition with negative characteristics when they said ambitious people would trample on anybody else to get ahead than others. On the other hand, the unambitious person was often described as a quitter and a ‘loser’ who never got promoted at all. In effect, ambition represented both positive and negative attributions which these managers never directly associated with themselves. The authors concluded that for women ‘doing ambition’ presents a self-contradictory complication: on the one hand, women cannot explicitly state that they are ambitious based on the negative connotations attached to the word; conversely, they are taken to be without any ambition as it is a shared belief that women ‘naturally lack ambition” (Burke & Mattis, p98). And those women who do have ambition are likely to ‘lose’ it as they will get married and have children. This paradox has been a roadblock for women’s career advancement. Back in the 70s and early 80s, cases of sexual discrimination were dealt with ‘radical rhetoric’ and ‘legal action’ (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000) in a very overt fashion because the few cases that there were stood out. Today, decades later, the problem is that discrimination has become quite deep-rooted and is not as easily discernible because there are stringent equal opportunity laws in place that disallow overt discrimination (Meyerson & Fletcher). It has, instead, taken a more perilous turn by going ‘underground’. These practices are entrenched in work culture norms and practices that are so banal and commonplace that nobody even questions them. Through these a natural filter takes place which removes all but a very few women capable to take on top positions. A firm, for example, was extremely proactive in fostering gender equality in the workplace and was quite public about its respect and need for women workers. The culture of the organization was extremely informal, with meetings and deadlines getting rescheduled to random, impromptu times, initiatives and projects were discussed by any and everyone in the entire organization and authority was also informal to the extent of being vague. The implication for such an environment on both men and women was taxing but particularly so for women because: a) women have more responsibility and demand on their limited time outside of the office which made it impossible for them to be available at all times for crucial, decision making conversations, as demanded by the office, despite working up to ten hours a day; and b) their defined and set schedule made them appear less ‘committed’ than the male colleagues (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). It is also often that women were libeled as ‘control freaks’ when they displayed male-oriented characteristics such as strict resolve, whereas men were lauded for the very same behavior. It is important to note that these practices were not in any way made to underhandedly spite women or surreptitiously undermine them but on the simple understanding that most men were available for meetings 15 hours a day. Nobody questioned whether women were or not. These inadvertent practices foster gender inequality. If a study has to be made on the root causes and underlying factors of this displayed yet unintentional gender inequality, we must understand that most of today’s organizations were created by men and run by them for decades and were thus based on ‘male experiences’ and successes (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). Therefore, in order to succeed and reach higher levels on the organizational chart, women must display ‘male’ enough characteristics, and at the same time be feminine to avoid being labeled (Burke & Mattis, p100). It is an established understanding that women generally have a different leadership style compared to men, the former being more collaborative rather than authoritarian. The issue of discrimination, or perhaps lack of understanding and empathy, arises when an authoritarian male leader has to decide about the promotion of the more collaborative woman (Segal, 2005). As this required leadership denotes the kind of authority and decisiveness associated with men, women are at a disadvantage. Furthermore, the demands on the human brain that are made by top level management positions, notably occurring when men and women are in their forties, affect the sexes differently. During that phase in life women with children normally have the ‘lion’s share of responsibility on the home front’ falling on their shoulders (Brizendine, 2008). According to this study, at this phase the woman’s brain is stretched and stressed to the maximum level and thus, this phase proves to be highly ill-timed for career ambitious women, as it also represents the time when they will likely be considered for top management slots in their companies. By the time this phase passes for the woman, the top management focus has shifted to ‘the next cohort and her candidacy is off the table’ (Brizendine). Therefore, this isn’t about the glass ceiling at all, according to the author, but lack of understanding of the female psyche. In another study three job levels were identified starting with low-skill jobs, career-track jobs and director-level jobs (Bjerk, 2008, p.962). It is safe to assume that a career progresses through these levels: starting with an entry-level low skilled job, every person is expected to complete a number of tasks before being eligible to apply for and be promoted to a middle level, career track job; there is, albeit, a longer average time required for movement into the career-track jobs. Bjerk (2008) noted that specifically for women with familial duties the time taken is longer so fewer get through this stage. Even when there is no explicit discrimination for director level jobs, the lapse of time for obtaining the career-track job makes the major difference, implying that despite equal opportunities for higher slots, inequality occurs on lower levels. Bjerk say that this issue may not be so much of a glass ceiling, rather a ‘sticky floor.’ In the services industry, it has been observed that women rarely make it to partner level, despite being among the top executives. In one study, two explanations were found. The career development process is deemed to be highly ‘self-managed’, meaning employees are required and expected to chalk their own career path, taking proactive initiatives and being highly self-motivated (Kumra & Vinnicombe, 2008, p.S71). To be successful in such an environment, one has to be highly individualistic, putting oneself and one’s achievements first over others in order to stand out in front of the team and management. This is an environment where most women feel ‘discomfort’. This is because women are generally more team oriented, focusing on everyone’s contribution rather than letting a single person take credit, including themselves. Women generally avoid ‘self-promoting behavior’ (Kumra & Vinnicombe) and prefer their work to speak for itself. Another finding of this study was that for a person to be elevated to the top – in this particular study the top position being a partner at the firm – the individual must fit the understood and accepted ‘mould’ or stereotype of what the partner or leader should be like. As historically these positions have been held by men, it is automatically taken that women would not fit into this mould. Other similar causes, which lead to women being disregarded for promotions, include the perception that women will be unwilling or unable to travel extensively due to family pressures, to relocate, to work in overtly ‘masculine’ environments like manufacturing and operations, etc. (Kumra & Vinnicombe, 2008, p.S72) Findings The interviews clearly showed that career progression for women has smoothed out vastly over the years, from 1970’s to date. Both interviewees claimed that they faced discrimination of some sort at the start of their careers in the 80s – whether it was overt in discriminatory and degrading phrases like “I don’t like you, I don’t want you in this position, I was told to take you” (these lines were said to my interviewee who works for AT&T, during her first stint as an operations officer) or behind the back practices like men jokingly bantering “No skirt is going to command here” (this was a hurtful statement my other interviewee heard uttered by subordinates when she was given her first detachment to command). Both women, however, were prompt to point out that they were given tougher spots which were traditionally meant for and occupied by men after they displayed thoroughness, commitment and hard work. Women are better listeners and are deemed to be better at collaboration. These attributes must be taken as strengths and in addition to the other necessary qualities of business acumen, marketing and sales skills and ‘solid’ experience (Avery, 2008). Successful women must also help one another, guiding others through their own experiences especially pertaining to good career progression, as my interviewees pointed out. Fact is, women have to work harder to prove themselves and earn respect in a male-created organization and male-dominated top management. The Commander I interviewed informed me that she was expected to be available all the time: “I think that’s the thing, people have to be able to present themselves always.” This capacity – being available and ready to work all the time – is a key, decisive factor in determining if a woman will get the next spot or not. Additionally, women should not expect companies to motivate them or train them; they must be proactive in such situations. Discussion My research and findings during the interview lead me to the conclusion that this necessity of managers to be available at every beck and call of the company – whether for meetings, for crucial decision-making circumstances or even informal gatherings where important conversations might take place bolster unintentional discrimination against women. I have gathered from my secondary research that women generally are not comfortably available at any and all times for work, despite working many straight hours a day, due to increased demands on their time by their children and other household responsibilities; men, on the other hand, are more likely to be present for a quick conversation at ten at night or seven in the morning which makes them more ‘available’ for the office. This is one of the important underlying reasons why women still face trouble reaching the very top of the organization. This inference does not supply evidence that there is still a glass ceiling in place, but shows other factors leading towards the phenomenon under discussion. Back in the early 70’s, human biology in general and female physiology in particular provided much towards the understanding of women and their significance in the workplace. Archaic beliefs that women’s menstrual cycle, reproductive age, female hormones and finally menopause affect women, their brains and their everyday behavior, rather than just particular phases or points in their lives shaped attitude towards women (Arthur, Hall & Lawrence, p113). It was believed, for example, that menstruation slows the supply of blood to the brain and thus weakens the ability of a woman to make good and sound decisions and that they are ‘too emotional to be good leaders’ because they are biologically like that (Arthur, Hall & Lawrence). These beliefs shaped the way women were perceived in the workplace and with time, became so entrenched and ubiquitous that they are covertly a part of our ‘cultural, political and social situation’, along with our perception of women. The fact of the matter is these assumptions have shaped the way women are expected to behave and are perceived by males in the organization. In this paper, I endeavored to determine the career progression of women over the past thirty years, if these women have surfed easily through their careers to reach top management spots and the kind of obstacles they had to face. Through primary and secondary research, it is correct to point out that now women are increasingly observed in the top echelons of major companies, alongside their male counterparts. There is also noticeable decrease in overt sexual discrimination for a variety of reasons. However, discrimination still exists in an imperceptible, inadvertent way which does not allow women to reach the very top of the organizations in the form of heads and CEOs. Although things have improved remarkably over the years, for this phenomenon to completely pass there has to be massive restructuring in the organizational cultures and the very definition and description of leadership, toning down the strict masculine affiliations and incorporating more feminine attributes such as collaboration, consideration and subtlety. With this, perhaps, in another few years the ratio of women in the topmost levels of organizations will be far more balanced relative to men. References Arthur, Michael B., Hall, Douglas T., Lawrence, Barbara S. (1989). Handbook of career theory. Cambridge/New York: Press Syndicate of the Cambridge University Avery, Susan. (2008). Cracks appear in the glass ceiling. Purchasing, 49-52. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Database. Bjerk, David (2008). Glass Ceilings or Sticky Floors? Statistical Discrimination in a Dynamic Model of Hiring and Promotion. The Economic Journal, 961–982. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Database. Bowling, Cynthia J., Kelleher, Christine A., Jones, Jennifer & Wright, Deil S. (2006). Cracked Ceilings, Firmer Floors, and Weakening Walls: Trends and Patterns in Gender Representation among Executives Leading American State Agencies, 1970 – 2000. Public Administration Review. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Database. Brizendine, Louann (2008). One Reason Women Dont Make It to the C-Suite. Harvard Business Review, 86(6). Retrieved from EBSCOhost Database. Burke, Ronald J. & Mattis, Mary C. (Eds). (2005). Supporting womens career advancement: challenges and opportunities. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Meyerson, Debra E. & Fletcher, Joyce, K. (2000). A Modest Manifesto for Shattering the Glass Ceiling [Electronic Version]. Harvard Business Review, 127-136. Walsh, W. Bruce & Osipow, Samuel H. (Eds) (1994). Career counseling for women: Contemporary topics in vocational psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Kumra, Savita & Vinnicombe, Susan (2008). A Study of the Promotion to Partner Process in a Professional Services Firm: How Women are Disadvantaged. British Journal of Management, 19, S65-S74. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Database. Segal, Jonathan A. (2005). Shatter the Glass Ceiling, Dodge the Shards. HRMagazine, 50. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Database Sools, A. M., Van Engen, M. L. & Baerveldt, C. (2007). Gendered career-making practices: On ‘doing ambition’ or how managers discursively position themselves in a multinational corporation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 413–435. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Database Read More