What IS the Glass Ceiling?
The Glass Ceiling
effect is an imaginary wall that blocks women from attaining promotions up to a
certain point (Kramer 134). Although this is not a physical wall, this is a
mental block that is all too real to working women. The term “glass ceiling”
first came into existence when a Wall Street Journal columnist asked the
question why women could not climb the upper rungs of corporations despite being
qualified and experienced. The answer to this question is men. Men in top
companies in the USA, make up 95%-97% of the top managers of Fortune 1000
Industrial and Fortune 500 companies. (The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,
1995b, p. 9) Some studies have cited that a common reason behind this is not
intentional discrimination, rather that the managers and board members in charge
of promotions are deeply rooted in homophily. In other words that their
decisions are based on people who display characteristic closely relating to
themselves. Therefore since most of the upper echelons are males, they are more
likely to promote other males, much like themselves (Kramer 142).
effect is an imaginary wall that blocks women from attaining promotions up to a
certain point (Kramer 134). Although this is not a physical wall, this is a
mental block that is all too real to working women. The term “glass ceiling”
first came into existence when a Wall Street Journal columnist asked the
question why women could not climb the upper rungs of corporations despite being
qualified and experienced. The answer to this question is men. Men in top
companies in the USA, make up 95%-97% of the top managers of Fortune 1000
Industrial and Fortune 500 companies. (The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,
1995b, p. 9) Some studies have cited that a common reason behind this is not
intentional discrimination, rather that the managers and board members in charge
of promotions are deeply rooted in homophily. In other words that their
decisions are based on people who display characteristic closely relating to
themselves. Therefore since most of the upper echelons are males, they are more
likely to promote other males, much like themselves (Kramer 142).
The Glass Ceiling Effect
One study argues that not every seemingly gender
disparity in corporate America is part of the glass ceiling effect. This study
cites four criteria for a glass ceiling effect to be in existence in a
corporation:
1) “A glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial difference
that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee. In
practice, this means that glass ceilings are measured as the residual
differences due to race or gender after controlling for education, experience,
abilities, motivation, and other job-relevant characteristics.” (Cotter ,
Hermsen, Ovadia, and Vanneman 656)
2) “A glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial difference
that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an
outcome.” In other words, “discrimination increases as one moves up the
hierarchy” (Cotter , Hermsen, Ovadia, and Vanneman
658)
3) A glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial inequality in
the chances of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportions of
each gender or race currently at those higher levels. Promotions to higher
positions and raises of income are the proper subject of glass ceiling tests”
(Cotter , Hermsen, Ovadia, and Vanneman
659)
4) “A glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial inequality
that increases over the course of a career” (Cotter , Hermsen, Ovadia, and
Vanneman 661)
disparity in corporate America is part of the glass ceiling effect. This study
cites four criteria for a glass ceiling effect to be in existence in a
corporation:
1) “A glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial difference
that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee. In
practice, this means that glass ceilings are measured as the residual
differences due to race or gender after controlling for education, experience,
abilities, motivation, and other job-relevant characteristics.” (Cotter ,
Hermsen, Ovadia, and Vanneman 656)
2) “A glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial difference
that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an
outcome.” In other words, “discrimination increases as one moves up the
hierarchy” (Cotter , Hermsen, Ovadia, and Vanneman
658)
3) A glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial inequality in
the chances of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportions of
each gender or race currently at those higher levels. Promotions to higher
positions and raises of income are the proper subject of glass ceiling tests”
(Cotter , Hermsen, Ovadia, and Vanneman
659)
4) “A glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial inequality
that increases over the course of a career” (Cotter , Hermsen, Ovadia, and
Vanneman 661)
Why hasn't this changed?
First of all, we must take into consideration the fact
that most discriminatory behaviors/attitudes are informal, thus changes in the
legal framework had a rather limited impact both on individuals and society. A
better way to commit to change would be to try and influence a change
individuals, organizations and even societies at a psychological level,
referring to culture, values and other informal aspects of everyday life. Laws,
rules and regulations against gender discrimination (or which encourage
affirmative actions) are nonetheless necessary, as they represent the basis for
a better representation of women in management and actively discourage explicit
actions against them. In order to encourage present and future male managers to
promote and accept equally qualified women, we cannot (and should not) intervene
only with “the hammer of the law” because finer tuning is necessary and more
appropriate. We can achieve this through awareness campaigns, training
seminars, and setting a good example in practice (Macarie, and Moldovan
169).
that most discriminatory behaviors/attitudes are informal, thus changes in the
legal framework had a rather limited impact both on individuals and society. A
better way to commit to change would be to try and influence a change
individuals, organizations and even societies at a psychological level,
referring to culture, values and other informal aspects of everyday life. Laws,
rules and regulations against gender discrimination (or which encourage
affirmative actions) are nonetheless necessary, as they represent the basis for
a better representation of women in management and actively discourage explicit
actions against them. In order to encourage present and future male managers to
promote and accept equally qualified women, we cannot (and should not) intervene
only with “the hammer of the law” because finer tuning is necessary and more
appropriate. We can achieve this through awareness campaigns, training
seminars, and setting a good example in practice (Macarie, and Moldovan
169).