Leadership, a Gender Comparison

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.

A recent study by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (2008) looking at the challenges facing women in leadership roles highlighted the following areas as being significant;

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).

Gender plays a huge role in workplace 'success' and can be a big challenge especially if the employee is a woman in a male dominated workplace or career. No matter how 'hard-nosed,' 'ruthless,' 'workaholic' a woman may be, or how much personal success she achieves, there will always tend to be some type of obstacle to keep her from getting completely to the top of the corporate ladder. She must also still fight stereotypes that undermines her confidence or limits her potential. Since the early 20th century, women and minorities have sought equal opportunities in education and in the labor force with little success. These obstacles or barriers are all known as the glass ceiling.

Thank you for sharing such an excellent post and drawing attention to such a profound and systemic issue in our global culture. Researcher Daniel Levinson in A Conception of Adult Development addresses the issue of the role of gender in adult life development. Levinson and his colleagues believed that women go through the same developmental periods as men, although some of the specific issues might differ between men and women. Based on the study, “the small proportion of women at senior management levels suggests that many women do not move beyond jobs in lower and middle levels of management” (Greenhaus, Callanan and Godshalk 323), indicating the reality of a proverbial glass ceiling.

This concern aroused when analyzing women who were well-established in their company and their performance and school achievements evidence their high capabilities (Foley, Kidder, & Powell, 2002). However, at some point of their career, these women encounter an invisible top surface called “glass ceiling” who prevented them from reaching higher positions (Agier, & Szafarz, 2013). (Frone, Russell, & Cooper,

Catalyst (2012) indicated that corporate world data showed that women represented only 4% of chief executive officer positions within Fortune 500 companies; similarly, DeFrank-Cole et al. (2013) advised that the lack of progress for women is dumbfounding considering that for the last 25 years; women’s entrance into professional and managerial careers has been on par with their male colleagues. Relatedly, Barsh (2012) identified a disparity of gender representation in senior leadership within the corporate pipeline from 2012 to 2015. Hannum et al. (2015), added that fundamental changes are underway in the higher education segment; noting that female leaders are needed who are familiar with navigating growth and diversity with a focus upon diminishing gender discrimination and bias. Moreover, DeFrank-Cole et al. (2014) acknowledged that mentoring and leadership development programs geared toward women are needed; yet, difficulties in locating a mentor persist (Haley & Jaeger, 2015), within what is recognized as a male dominated culture. Contrastingly, within a recent gender neutrality study, a significant disparity in female viewpoints were found related to their organizations voice and if the organization had an active approach to gender diversity (Jones, 2016).

One might be able to make a fleeting attempt at justifying the disparately of female representation in leadership roles if opportunities for each gender were equal or if the most qualified individuals got the jobs. When one examines the qualifications of women in the workforce however, this argument quickly loses its footing. Northouse (2013) points to the research fo Catalyst (2011) who demonstrated that, “Women earn 57% of the bachelor’s degrees, 60% of the master’s degrees, more than half of the doctorate degrees, and nearly half of the first professional degrees awarded in the United States” (as cited by Northouse, 2013, p.352). Clearly the qualifications of women are not the cause of why so few have reached the pinnacle roles in organizations. One must wonder then, what are the barriers that prevent women from achieving success.

Disturbingly, it is as if the male candidate was seen as more worthy of advanced than the identical female candidate. Decision makers routinely exclude women from higher paying job and leadership positions, consciously or not. It is important for decision makers to check their bias from time to time in order to counter any unwarranted stereotypes in the hiring or promotion process. Nonetheless, it is not uncommon for women to “take themselves out of the running for certain positions because when they note to preponderance of males in those positions, they feel that “I don’t belong here” (Fine 2010).” Consequently, women often use the glass ceiling as an exit strategy, forcing women to turn away from fields and positions historically or currently occupied predominately by

Understanding the processes that cognitive lights stereotyping causes of the phenomena studied by organizational psychology underlying. Research on gender and leadership focuses on both college students and executives in various business settings. A common theme concerns the idea that a good leader is "model described incompatible male with feminine behavior, sometimes thought of as" think-Manager. For example, to provoke some settings pronounced stereotypes. If the expected leadership style of an organization at a given hora direct, exacerbate uncaring, or from top to bottom, traditionally masculine behaviors can be expected by executives. This expectation May effects of stereotypes of women who hold that competence and warmth of personality are dichotomous, making it difficult for women in leadership positions a balance that effectively to find in this organization.

The terminology of ‘the glass ceiling’ defines a variety of barriers that prevent qualified individuals from advancing higher in their organization and the phrase glass ceiling is used most often in regards to women in the workforce (Adair, 2009). In addition, the glass ceiling was a term coined by an American newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, a couple of decades ago to describe the barriers that prevent women from reaching the top ladder in both economic and political fields (Williams, 2006). Although it is true that many women have finally become managers after fifty years in the job market (Driscoll & Goldberg, 1993), few have made it to the very top (Adair, 2009) in recent years.

Some studies show that there are companies that have the best records for promoting women who was able to outstrip competition when it comes to profitability and performance. Yet, many believed that women still fail to attain high level positions in the organization (Johns, 2013). And for many years women had fought this right not only in the society, but as well in their place in the organization. Eventually, when women gained their rights in the society such as the right to suffrage in 1928 via the People Act 1928, this opened up new doors and opportunities for women. This paved way for women to be treated not just as a second class citizen at home, workplace and in the society (Breitenbach, 2014). Soon, debate arose on whether women should be entitled to equal pay and equal treatment in the workplace. Since the feminist movement had first achieved its goal of equality in the workplace, still many wonder if glass ceiling does still exist in the US organization. Reviewing some related information on women in the workplace, studies on the relationship between gender diversity in company performance and literature on women’s rights, this article explores the main point that glass ceiling no longer exists particularly in organizations dominated and handled by female species.

While the corporate environment has significantly progressed in terms of incorporating women and minorities into the work face, the glass ceiling still poses a threat in the environment for women. Fortune magazine periodically ranks and publishes a list of America’s largest companies. Crampton (1999) reports that among the Fortune 50 companies, only 1.3% of corporate officers were women, while 1.7% were among the Fortune 500 (Daily 1999). Among two-hundred of America’s largest companies, women hold less than a quarter of executive jobs and less than five percent of the vice-presidents are women (Daily 1999). In the past ten years no more than two women have served as CEO’s for a Fortune 500 company (Daily 1999). The number of women who serve on the boards for these major corporations comprise a relatively modest percentage of all board members (Daily 1999). Discrimination against women still plays a large part in enforcing the artificial barrier. Crampton (1999) reported that a recent study found that 79% of the CEO’s believed that prejudice and stereotypes are among the most identifiable barriers to women’s advancements. Crampton (1999) reported that discrimination can occur in forms of organizational structure policies, informal networks, and cultures that are so male-dominated that they become barriers for women to rise in the organization.

The paper will also include facts of each culture that play an important role in how women can achieve to climb the corporate ladder and to sustain a position in senior management.

The literature review presented in Chapter 2 of this study discusses the issues associated with the “glass ceiling” phenomena by explaining why there are smaller proportion of women leaders in business and project management using the case of Transport for London. The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study is to ascertain whether women employees in TfL experience the “glass ceiling” effect. As a result, the study is designed to focus on the positive experiences and approaches that contribute to and influence the success of women in senior level administration positions instead of focusing on the barriers to such.