Increasing The Proportion Of Women

Findings and Conclusion: This research shows that women are still unrepresented in top management globally. The difference in performance of the companies in the same country and same industry implies that diversity serves a competitive differentiator. Certain companies focus on gender diversity and others focus on ethnic and racial diversity but no company in the top quartile focus on both. Companies which have greater diversity are able to attract top talent, improve internal and external customer satisfaction, improve decision making and hence improve

Since the early 1800s, women in higher education have been battling to overcome barriers to gain access to education, and equal career opportunities. Research posits that women have made significant progress through government legislations during the 1960s and 1970s, which eradicated some of the barriers of gender inequality. The research also supports that women are moving the needle in educational attainment and employment in higher education as students, faculty members and senior-level administrators. However, recent data suggest that there is still work to do to increase the number of women in leadership roles. Especially black women in higher education.

In the United States, study after study continues to show that women have fewer opportunities to advance in the workplace than men. These disadvantages are a result of society’s views of women in leadership positions and how women may view themselves in these roles. Women have been making progress in terms of equality in pay and job positions, but significant gaps remain. Women who strive to be promoted into higher levels of responsibility in their companies often meet resistance that prevents them from achieving the goal of a senior or executive level of management. This barrier is referred to as the “glass ceiling” and it is a controversial issue in our country today. The glass ceiling called this because women are able to see the higher level positions, but can reach them because of an intangible barrier. One can look at the Fortune 500 companies, which are the most successful companies in the U.S. in terms of revenue to see how few women are in leadership positions. Clearly, women are significantly underrepresented in these companies, as less than 5 percent of these companies have female chief executive officers (CEO) today (Dockterman 105). Providing the opportunity for women to move into management positions, like CEOs, would bring a unique talent and a new perspective on how the company can operate to perform better (Buckalew 147). The “glass ceiling” is a real obstacle that creates an intangible barrier that puts women at a disadvantage in advancing in a company.

Meaning women have additional problematic issue then man. For example in education women face more obstacles as faculty rather when in manager and directors in corporate America. Even though there been great progress in the workplace, most jobs are segregated by sexes. There is wag gaps, the average women have to work roughly 4 months extra every year to make the same wage as man. For example, when the educational attainment increases the gender pay decreases for women no matter what levels of education than men. In other words, women earn 77cents for every dollar man earn and put in their pocket (Benokraitis, 2010, p.160-161). Discrimination where both woman and man share in the workplace is the glass ceiling and glass escalator. The glass ceiling being, “women efforts to scale organizational and professional hierarchies but cant because they are constrained by invisible barriers to promotion in their careers, caused mainly by sexist attitudes of men in the highest position” Similarly, men that choose to go into position like nurse and librarians encounter the glass escalator mostly vituperative criticism from the public when they are in the most female-identified specialties” “Therefore man are pressured to move out of the most female-identified areas, and up to those regarded as more legitimate and prestigious for men” (Williams, 1992, p.

It is easy to make a case to pass legislation for a quota for women on corporate boards. There is statistical data showing a difference in pay between men and women. Women often hit a ‘glass-ceiling’ when it comes to promotions in the workplace; and even when they are able to progress, it is often more difficult than men. Women lack a female mentor in the workplace to sponsor them because women who are in a position of power are afraid of losing that position. According to the text, “women who have achieved positions of power in male-dominated environments may fear competition from other women and actively work to undermine them” (Allard & Harvey, 2015). Lastly, on a global scale, four prominent countries (Norway, Finland, France, and Italy) have already passed legislation involving quotas for women in corporate positions (Allard & Harvey, 2015).

Although in 2012, only 18 women served as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Furthermore, in a recent report, women only held 16.6% of board seats in 2012 in the fortune 500 companies (Aguilar). Women are somehow being held back from achieving their higher potential, and is is not due to lack of education. The department of education found that “140 women will graduate with a college degree at some level this year for every 100 men”(Aguilar). Most people believe the reason is because of the phenomenon of the “glass ceiling”. Many large companies do not hire women for the upper level positions, because they have always hired men, and many companies may believe that they do not see women in that position. This is also influenced by the media as well, as “women hold only 3% of clout positions in telecommunications, entertainment, publishing and advertising.”(Newsom 2011). With so few women leaders in the media industry, women are rarely portrayed in highly respected executives roles. This in turn communicates to young girls and the public in general that women are not supposed to hold these

This myth has been perpetuated throughout history and in result; we have barriers such as the glass ceiling in existence. If we were to pull up a list of the Board of Directors for any given company, the probability of it being a predominately male group is high. This notion alone shows how companies have continued to dwell in olds days where men are considered more capable than women. The Glass ceiling effect has continued to place barriers against women endeavor in achieving success in their careers and participation in their work place. Women have not been able to realize their potential in their work places since they are not offered equal chances as compared to their men counterparts who enjoy great opportunities in organizations. The fact that an organization is ran by men, may cause an adverse effect on the performance of men. Obviously, a man thinks differently than a woman. It is likely that a decision made by men only is likely to ignore the interests of women in the organization. This creates a domino effect because it affects the woman’s performance in business since they only get limited chances to learn, and limited job assignments that will enhance their skills. Hence, low or limited skills and experience will lower their overall

While women make up 46.6% of the Fortune 500 workforce and 51.4% of middle management, according to Catalyst, in these companies they represent only 14.1% of executive officers, 7.5% of the highest paid and only 4% of CEO’s Despite the fact that women have a foot in the door with 4% of all CEO positions of the Fortune 500, the rest of their frame is stuck in the entry level, which is 46.6% of the Fortune 500 workforce. The difference is not in men and women; it is in masculine vs. feminine ways of thinking and acting. Both men and women incorporate masculine and feminine approaches (Forbes).

Conversely, ingrained expectations that a male career takes precedence of woman’s is evident with the ever-present glass ceiling, glass cliff, and now the glass elevator. Predominately female occupations such as nursing, elementary education, and social work witness discriminatory practices labeled as the ‘glass escalator’ with men ascending to management positions at a greater rate (Goudreau, 2012; Eagly & Carli,

At the risk of placing myself of sleeping on the couch for a week, I am present with the thought … if the idea of” breaking the glass ceiling” is ultimately for women to have the power to choose and compete fairly against its male counterparts… whom is more in control women or men? Therefore, can only come to the conclusions women are as much responsible for the lack in opportunities for women in leadership roles in the public and private sectors.

It can be argued that it is the students and academic teaching staff themselves who are forcing females into ‘female type jobs’ and males into ‘male type jobs’. Connell et al. (2013) discuss gender cannot be argued against as being irrelevant to educational outcomes and student performance. A significant factor in Australia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was the expansion of education on a massive scale, with the result being a ‘school conceiving social class’ (Connell et al. 2013, p.106).

In the recent years, many women have made progress in obtaining jobs as CEO’s of major companies, hold seats on the board of directors, and many other high profile positions however, the percentage of women and minorities that hold these positions are very low in comparison to males hence, the glass ceiling remains. The term Glass Ceiling is the “unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rings of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements” (Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). Stereotypes and biases have created an image that women are not capable of effectively filling the role of managerial jobs. In 1995, Glass Ceiling Commission noted that women filled only 3 to

As we shift, focusing on gender equity in the business community a quote from antiracist, educator, and author Tim Wise,“we (referring to white man) have to take some responsibility for the unearned advantage, which mean working to change the society which bestow the advantage” (Wise, 2013). Through an evaluation of a catalyst study, only 12 women in the United States have been inaugurated to the corporate boardroom. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) stated, “women are the most underutilized economic asset in the world’s economy” (Ledbetter, 2014). Perhaps, the process for a gender equality movement is slowly moving.

Recent research vindicates this prediction, demonstrating that women at all levels of management still report gender discrimination as a barrier to their advancement in Australia (Metz & Moss 2008). The gender pay gap is also reflected in the low numbers of women in leadership positions (Goward 2004). Therefore, the state enacted Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to assist the government for this issue. Under the Sex Discrimination Act it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of gender, marital status, pregnancy and family responsibility (Loudoun, Mcphail & Wilkinson 2009).

Even though numbers are slowly rising in the United States, there are still more men in executive positions than women. According to one survey, female workers only made up 43% of legislators, senior managers, and senior officials whereas male workers made up 57%. In congress, congresswomen make up only 17% of representation compared to congressmen making up 83% (Ferrante, 2011, p. 312). Gender stratification is one explanation for the tremendous gap. Ferrante (2011) describes gender stratification as the unequal distribution of opportunities and resources amongst male and female employees. (p. 311) For example, male workers have an increased opportunity to receive a promotion than a female worker. According to Tinsley (2013), women are more likely to receive executive positions when a company is doing well, rather than when a company is suffering. Some companies stereotype that women workers will leave the workforce soon to bear children, limiting their chances of achieving executive status (Ferrante, 2011, p. 316).