Cracks in the Glass Ceiling?

During the 1990s, much was written about how a "glass ceiling"â€"the invisible barrier that prevented women from moving into the very top jobs in business firmsâ€"was starting to break down. Some changes actually did occur: in the automobile business, for example, Maureen Kempston-Darkes was appointed CEO of General Motors of Canada, Bobbie Gaunt became CEO of Ford Motor of Canada, and Cynthia Trudell became president of Saturn Corp., a subsidiary of GM. These were major changes in an industry that had been very male-dominated since its beginning early in the 20th century. As the years have passed, other high-profile appointments of women have continued to be evident. For example, in 2009, Carol Bartz was appointed CEO of Yahoo, and in 2008, Monique Leroux was appointed CEO of Desjardins Group, Quebec's largest financial institution. Leroux is the first woman to lead a Top 10 financial institution in Canada.

So, progress is evident, but it is also fairly slow. A 2008 Statistics Canada report showed that women age 25-29 who worked full-time earned only 85 percent of what men earned. That gap is the same size it was five years earlier. During the last few years, other studies have revealed some interesting facts about women's outcomes in the workplace:

•
• during the period 2002-2006, the percentage of top paying positions held by women grew from 3.9 percent to 7.3 percent (that’s a significant percentage increase, but the absolute numbers continue to be very low)
•
• women with advanced degrees earn 96 percent of what men earn; women with bachelor's degrees earn 89 percent; and at the trades certificate level, women earn just 65 percent of what men earn
•
• the average single woman earns 99 percent of what the average man earns
•
• in law firms, women comprise 50 percent of associates, but only 16 percent of partners; women also drop out of law practice at two or three time the rate of men
•
• more than half of all senior management positions are occupied by women at Vancouver City Savings Credit Union and Coast Capital Savings Credit Union
•
• no member state in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been able to erase the wage gap; in the OECD as a whole, the difference is about 15 percent
•
• for men age 55-64, the proportion of potential years of work spent actually working is 92.3 percent, but for women 55-64, the ratio is only 64.2 percent
•
• compared to men, the average woman has less labour market experience, is less likely to work full time, and is more likely to leave the labour force for long periods of time
•
• a British study that analyzed the pay earned by males and females at equivalent levels of responsibility found that base pay rates were not much different, but that men received bonuses that often doubled their total pay while women received bonuses that only slightly increased their total pay
•
• at Telus, 40 percent of the staff is female of 25 percent of the most senior executive positions area held by women
•
• in the executive ranks at Canadian Pacific, 50 percent are women
•
• a study by Catalyst found that companies with the highest representation of women in top management positions performed better financially than companies with low representation of women in top management positions

Various reasons have been proposed for pay inequity and the under-representation of women in the top ranks of management. They include: simple male bias against promoting women, the old-boys network, women dropping out of the workforce to have children, lack of organizational support and role models for women, stereotyping, husbands who don't help at home, and a work culture that’s not compatible with family life. Researchers have found that both men and women are ambitious, competent, and competitive, but that men often take things to an extreme. For men, winning is everything and they feel the need to decisively stomp their opponents (think sports). This line of thinking says that male hormones (notably testosterone) cause men to have an extremely strong drive for dominance, status, power, and control and that is the kind of behaviour that gets rewarded in organizations (think promotions). Most women don’t have such strong drives for dominance and control, so they are less likely to get promoted into top management positions.

One study found that women simply don't aspire to top management positions to the extent that men do. About one-third of the men surveyed said they wanted to be a Chief Executive Officer or Chief Operations Officer, but only about one-fifth of the women wanted such a job. Age was also a factor: 89 percent of women age 25-34 aspired to top management positions, but only 58 percent of women age 45-55 did. This latter finding suggests that the issue is generational, and that more and more women are going to be appointed to top jobs as time passes because younger women have different attitudes about the desirability of top management jobs.

Another way to address the gender issue is to determine how different countries divide their available resources between men and women. Each year the World Economic Forum (WEF) publishes a "gender gap" ranking that measures this. The ranking takes into account four factors: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment, and health and survival. In 2008, Norway, Finland, and Sweden ranked 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, respectively out of 130 countries (Canada ranked 31st). Saudi Arabia, Chad, and Yemen were at the bottom of the index.

The fact that the index ranked Canada lower than countries like Namibia, Cuba, Lesotho, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines is surprising, but the methodology used by the WEF makes it clear why this happened. The rankings are based on the relative difference between men and women in a country, rather than on the absolute level of resources that men and women have available. Thus, a country is not penalized for low education levels per se, but only if the distribution of education between men and women is uneven. The fact that Namibia, for example, ranks higher than Canada means that the differences in outcomes for men and women are smaller in Namibia than they are in Canada. It does not mean that the average Canadian woman would feel like she would be better off if she lived in Namibia.

It is also important to note as well that the differences between the ranks are often very small. For example, the Netherlands score (73.99) is not much different than the score for Losotho (73.20). These small differences mean that a country can dramatically rise or fall in the rankings from year to year. On the education criterion, for example, the U.S. made only small gains between 2007 and 2008, yet those small gains were enough to vault the U.S. from 76th place in 2007 to 1st place in 2008. It is doubtful whether such a change in rankings has any practical significance. The Caucasus Research Resource Center argues that the WEF rankings are based on a hodgepodge of incomplete data, and that such rankings do nothing to further the cause of gender equality.

In Canada, women’s groups as diverse as Equal Voice and REAL Women of Canada are also questioning the results of the survey. Equal Voice, for example, points out that women's involvement in politics is at the highest level in Canadian history, with 29 percent of the federal cabinet positions held by women.

Questions for Discussion

1. The statistics cited above regarding women’s success in organizations sometimes show very large inequities and other times very little or no inequities. Explain how this can be possible.
2. Consider the following statement: "It is true that women are generally not represented as well as men in top management jobs, but it has nothing to do with men discriminating against women. The real reason is that women work a smaller proportion of their potential years of work than men do. Because of that, they don't develop a consistent career track record, and they don’t get the promotions into top management jobs at the same rate men do." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Explain your reasons, citing theoretical and empirical evidence as appropriate.
3. Do you think that the gender gap will eventually disappear in organizations? Give reasons for the position you take.

Sources: Ann Gibbon, "Crashing Through the Glass Ceiling, Women Thrive in what were once Predominantly Male Jobs," National Post, February 25, 2009, p. FP13; "Survey Reveals Global Gender Gap," www.spiegel.de/internatonal/world/0,1518,589955,00.html, accessed February 3, 2009; Tavia Grant, "Wading Into the Talent Pool," The Globe and Mail, January 26, 2009, p. E5; Deirdre Kelly, "New Faces, New Customers," The Globe and Mail, January 26, 2009, p. E3; Sandra Rubin, "What Will it Take to Crack the Glass Ceiling?," The Globe and Mail, December 17, 2008, p. B8; "World Economic Forum Gender Gap Index," November 13, 2008, www.crrc-caucasus.blogspot.com/2008/11/world-economic-forum-gender-gap-index.html; Carly Weeks, "Canada Plunges by 13 Spots in Gender Gap Index," The Globe and Mail, November 13, 2008, p. L1; Wallace Immen, "One More Gap in Pay Between Men and Women," The Globe and Mail, August 15, 2008, p. C1; Meagan Fitzpatrick, "Women Still Earning Less than Men: Statistics Canada," Winnipeg Free Press, May 2, 2008, p. A5; Konrad Yakabuski, "Meet the New Leading Lady of Finance," The Globe and Mail, March 27, 2008, pp. B1-B2; "Women Less Likely to Aspire to Top Corporate Positions," Hudson Canada, www.hudson.com/node.asp?kwd=03-06-08-women-survey; Rudy Mezzetta, "Banks, Credit Unions Put Women in Top Spots," Investment Executive, February, 2008; Matthew McClearn, "Mind the Gap," Canadian Business, November 5, 2007, pp. 21-22; Margaret Wente, "It's Manly at the Top," The Globe and Mail, May 7, 2005, p. A21; Janet McFarland, "Women Still Find Slow Rise to Power Positions," The Globe and Mail, March 13, 2003, pp. B1, B7; Virginia Galt, "Top Women Still Finding Barriers," The Globe and Mail, September 25, 2002, p. B7; Marie Drolet, "The Male-Female Wage Gap," Perspectives on Labour and Income, the Online Edition, December , 2001, www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/75-001-XIE/01201/hi-fs_200112_01_a.html; Elizabeth Church, "Women Still Shut Out of Many Top Posts," The Globe and Mail, February 10, 2000, p. B15; Belle Rose Ragins, "Gender Gap in the Executive Suite: CEO's and Female Executives Report on Breaking the Glass Ceiling," Academy of Management Executive, February, 1998, pp. 28-42; Greg Keenan, "Ford Canada Gets New CEO," The Globe and Mail, April 9, 1997, p. B1; Greg Keenan and Janet McFarland, "The Boys' Club," The Globe and Mail, September 27, 1997, pp. B1, B5; Greg Keenan, "Woman at the Wheel," The Globe and Mail, July 8, 1995, pp. B1, B6.

Answers to Questions for Discussion

1. The statistics cited above regarding women’s success in organizations sometimes show very large inequities and other times very little or no inequities. What do you think causes these contradictory findings?

There are thousands of organizations and millions of people in the workforce. Overall statistical trends are clear, but there will always be specific instances of statistics that seem to be contradictory. These apparently contradictory findings become clearer once specific factors are taken into account. For example, it is correct to say that there is a glass ceiling in place in organizations because it is generally true that women are not represented in top management positions to the same extent as their representation in the general population would suggest. But there are exceptions in specific companies. At Vancity Credit Union, for example, more than half of the senior management positions are held by women. As another example, the statistical evidence showing that women are generally discriminated against in terms of salary is quite strong. But there are various exceptions (women with advanced degrees and single women earn about the same as men do).

In addressing this issue of gender inequality, it is perhaps most useful to begin by making sure that students have a discussion about why the glass ceiling exists. Various possible reasons are presented in the material students have read, and each of these possible reasons should be systematically addressed. In any such a discussion, it is important to make sure that unsubstantiated claims are challenged, and that objective data are used wherever possible. For example, suppose a male student argues that women are somehow psychologically unsuited to top management positions, or a female student argues that men simply don't want women to be in management positions. Both of those claims need to be backed up with evidence, but it is not clear that there is any hard evidence for either position (but there is no shortage of opinions). Other claims may be more supportable. For example, various surveys show that women have insufficient role models, and that men do not help in the setting of the home.

There are great possibilities here for students to (a) gain a better understanding of why things are the way they are, and (b) discuss whether that is the way things should be.

2. Consider the following statement: "It is true that women are generally not represented as well as men in top management jobs, but it has nothing to do with men discriminating against women. The real reason is that women work a smaller proportion of their potential years of work than men do. Because of that, they don't develop a consistent career track record, and they don’t get the promotions into top management jobs at the same rate men do." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Explain your reasons, citing theoretical and empirical evidence as appropriate.

Students who agree with this statement will likely cite the statistics presented above which show that for men age 55-64, the proportion of potential years of work spent actually working is 92.3 percent, but for women 55-64, the ratio is only 64.2 percent. They will argue that this statistic is compelling because (a) there is a large difference in scores for men and women, and this difference explains salary differences, and (b) organizations reward people (in this case men) who do not have interruptions in their careers. The students who take this position may also add the opinion that you can't blame organizations for wanting people whose careers are not interrupted.

Students who disagree with the statement are likely to make two arguments. First, they will point out that the statistics simply show that the average woman moves in and out of the labour force more than the average man does. That means that the argument does not apply to women who do not interrupt their careers. This conclusion makes sense, but students should go beyond simply stating a technical point about averages. We need to compare the salaries of women with uninterrupted careers with those of men (or to refine it even more, men with uninterrupted careers). If a salary inequity still exists, the argument that uninterrupted careers are causing the inequity is not supported.

Second, students who disagree with the statement will likely argue that it is not reasonable for organizations to discriminate against anyone (either a man or a woman) who decides to (or is required to) interrupt their career to do something like taking care of children at home. Note that this argument is really an opinion and not an answer to the question (although it may have merit). Answering the question requires an analysis of whether the argument being put forward is sound, i.e., is it true that organizations discriminate against people who interrupt their careers? This seems to be a plausible explanation, but testing whether it is true is difficult.

If the general conclusion of the class is that the statement is true, the most interesting part of this discussion will be student views about how feasible it is for organizations to stop penalizing people who interrupt their careers.

3. Do you think that the gender gap will eventually disappear in organizations? Give reasons for the position you take.

Students will have various opinions here. Some will point to the fact that during the last five years the salary gap between men and women has not narrowed, and they will conclude that the prospects for improvement are not good. Other students will argue that the gender gap will eventually disappear, but that it will take much more time than everyone originally thought. As part of their argument they will note that change sometimes takes a generation or more to implement, and they will point to other parallel situations they think might be relevant (for example, racial discrimination). Progress at any one point in time seems very slow or nonexistent, but over the long run major changes really do occur.

It is important to analyze the logical and empirical evidence that students provide to defend their conclusion. For an issue like pay equity, for example, statistics showing long-term trends are important. During the last five years, the gap between the pay of men and women has not narrowed, but what does a longer historical trend line look like, and what does that imply for the situation 20 or 30 or 50 years from now? Also, what recent societal trends are evident that facilitate or inhibit the achievement of pay equity for women?