Unit 8, activity 1
The term ‘Glass ceiling’ was first coined by Hymowitz & Schellhardt (1986), who were Wall Street Journal reporters. The glass ceiling is defined by Wikipedia as “a metaphor used to represent an invisible barrier that keeps a given demographic (typically minorities) from rising beyond a certain level in a hierarchy”. A very famous example of this in recent times is Hillary Clinton not getting elected to the US presidency despite being a very qualified candidate. Eagly & Carli (2007) argue that this term is a misnomer, as it inadequately represents the challenges that a certain demographic might face on their way to the top. They argue the term ceiling implies that the lower positions are more easily accessible, and that there is this “single, invisible, and impassable barrier”. They propose an alternate term- ‘the glass labyrinth’- representing the challenges that women must face at multiple levels, and not just at the top.
The Case Study 15.1 (NOrthouse, 2016) is a classic example of this metaphor. The glass labyrinth model as described by Northouse, citing several authors, gives three types of explanations for this phenomenon (Northouse, 2016, p. 399-406) – difference in investment in human capital, gender differences in men and women, and prejudice. In the case of Lisa the first explanation does not seem to be applicable; from her educational achievements we can assume that she is at par with her colleagues. There is also no mention of family commitments. She does appear to have a different style of leadership from her peers. She appears to be engaging more in a transformative style of leadership, by being available for advice to her peers. She also has trouble with self-promotion as is evidenced by her reluctance to correct her boss’ misconceptions about her competence. She is eager to be seen as a team player. Eagly and Johnson (1990); van Engen & Willemsen (2004), say that ‘women lead in a more democratic, or participative, manner than men’. Lisa is epitomizing this statement. The third explanation of prejudice seems to be very much in play here. For undisclosed reasons her boss seems to be convinced that her male colleagues have more knowledge than her. She is forced to make the decision to quit the firm because she does not see a future for herself in the face of such bias.
In the section ‘Navigating the labyrinth’, Northouse (2016, pp. 406-408), the authors propose some solutions- changing gendered assumptions, encouraging flexibility and diversity in hiring, women starting their own ventures etc. What I found interesting is that there isn’t much discussion about how to tackle work place prejudice. Lisa is stuck working for a boss who is clearly prejudicial. Bosses like everybody else are a product of their upbringing and background; biases and prejudices included. I think everybody who is making decisions about promotions, should have education and training in recognizing their bias. There should also be personality tests to promote awareness among leaders about their often-unrecognized biases. A great example of gender bias was reported by Goldin & Rouse in 2000, where they found that orchestras that auditioned applicants while hidden behind a screen increased the proportion of women applicants being selected. How can this gender blindness be applied to hiring and promotions is a challenge that organizations needs to take up.
Our Unit notes mention that somehow blinding resumes could help reduce the bias. While this would help getting women selected to a position within an organization, this does not ensure they will be given an equal chance at promotion, as was the case with Lisa. Organizations must focus on training and education to ensure that gender discrimination is acknowledged and dealt with, so that women leaders are allowed the same opportunities as their male counterparts.
References
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L.L., (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Eagly, A.H., & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership and style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.
Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90, 715-740.
Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T.D. (1986). The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. The Wall Street Journal, pp. D1, D4-D5.
Van Engen, M.L., & Willemsen, T.M. (2004). Sex and leadership styles: A meta-analysis of research published in the 1990s. Psychological Reports, 94, 3-18.
Glass Ceiling. (2017, November 12). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 12, 2017), from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling.
Unit notes. https://create.twu.ca/ldrs500/unit-8/unit-8-notes/.
Simarjit,
You highlight a deficit in this week’s readings, which, while they do provide very specific examples of what leaders and/or organizations can do to facilitate women’s leadership development, do not highlight strategies individual women can take to move forward in their own career progression.
You may be interested in this resource, designed by career coach Kathy Caprino, which addresses that deficit by providing strategies and tools individual women can employ in their own careers: http://kathycaprino.com/
The concept of bias is always an interesting phenomenon to wrestle with, particularly when there is such definitive evidence that bias continues to be such a significant issues. (The same bias has been shown to be evident in student evaluations of instructors. See, for example, Flaherty, 2016). “Blind” review of resumes, musicians, etc. can be one way to eliminate bias, but as you point out, we will need other strategies to address bias as part of the development and promotion process.
— Leadership Prof
Flaherty, C. (2016). Bias against female instructors. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/11/new-analysis-offers-more-evidence-against-student-evaluations-teaching
Simarjit,
A few sentences that you wrote stood out for me. I like that you suggest that people in hiring positions should take personality tests. I feel that this could be extremely interesting and eye opening. Some people may not even realize that they are prejudicial.
You also stated that blinding resumes could help women get a position but not necessarily a promotion. I also feel that even if they don’t have opportunity for promotion, they may also experience prejudicial treatment in the workplace.
Thanks Sadie
I do feel very strongly about this . It is leadership (mostly men) who are responsible for creating the hurdles for women in promotions. There needs to be more focus on education and training for them in recognizing their biases. Leaders with hiring or promoting responsibilities should be vetted for prejudicial beliefs. Thanks once again for validating my thoughts.
Simarjit,
Thanks for the post. I also choose to write about the glass ceiling case study in my post this week. I mention the dangers I feel with some of these quotas or strategies. Although, I agree they can be used to help initially break the glass ceiling that they aren’t really a long lasting solution. If women end up being promoted based upon requirements of having a certain percentage represented in different positions if they aren’t the best person for the job then resentment could easily come into play.
That being said in the case study of Lisa there are 103 years of not promoting women to partner. Definitive action I believe should be taken in this instance even for a short time to finally break historic sexism at play in their organization. Decisive and bold action at the start would help break the barrier for the future.