The Relationship Between Gender Differences - Essay Example

?The Relationship between Gender Differences and the 'Double Bind' As Important Drivers of the Glass Ceiling in Leadership Introduction In leadership, the traditional trends and expectations have mostly been gender-driven, with men playing a dominant and capable role as leaders. Women, on the other hand, have faced a hardship in finding their place as leaders and if they have, they have gone through major barriers and challenges on their way to leadership. Gender differences and the double bind link have been considered drivers of the glass ceiling of leadership. Where higher thresholds of women leadership are presented, gender differences in leadership are less significant; however, where the glass ceiling or barriers to leadership are significant and are placed at lower thresholds, the gender differences in leadership are very wide. This study is on gender and leadership, specifically focusing on the relationship between gender differences and the ‘double bind’ being important drivers of the glass ceiling in leadership. Body It is important to understand first the concept of the glass ceiling. This term was first used in the 1980s mostly to refer to the barriers against women and also minorities in reaching leadership or corporate manager roles (Johns, 2013). Most governments have acknowledged that despite their best efforts to legally secure equal rights and opportunities for men and women in leadership roles, women and minorities still occupy only a small percentage of management positions and roles. Artificial barriers are still very much preventing them from gaining more ground as leaders (Johns, 2013). In the US, a Glass Ceiling Act was even established in order to impact how businesses are filling in management positions, how developmental leadership skills are being enhanced for advancement into these positions, the compensation programmes in the workplace, and the creation of annual awards for excellence. A Glass Ceiling Commission established in 1995 identified barriers against women securing management positions. These barriers included societal, political, and internal business practices and structures (Johns, 2013). Societal barriers included prejudice, cultural, and ethnicity-based differences. Governmental barriers include the lack of sustained monitoring for compliance, weak enforcement of provisions, as well as poor recruitment and outreach issues (Johns, 2013). Companies often prefer to promote the current employees they have, not wanting to add women, even those who are highly qualified into their pool of managers. Even when installed in managerial positions, these women are still subjected to barriers relating to the styles of gender communication, socialization practices, as well as behaviour (Rajah et al., 2011). Moreover, career course barriers also serve as barriers on women seeking managerial positions. These barriers include limited guidance and mentoring opportunities, dead-end positions, different assessment practices for men and women, and difficulties in accessing informal levels of communication (Zimmerman et al., 2008). The barriers discussed above are still persistent today. The social support system for instance prevents women from gaining leadership positions, especially in relation to their work-family conditions as governments are not providing institutional support for working mothers (Johns, 2013). Women therefore are significantly challenged in balancing the demands between work and home (US Congress Joint Economic Committee, n.d.). A report from the US Congress Joint Economic Committee (n.d.) also indicated that the US does not grant incentive for parents, especially women seeking parental leaves as much as other members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The US only grants as much as 12 weeks, while other countries grant up to 18 weeks of parental leave (Johns, 2013). Limited flexibility in work conditions is a major factor holding women back in their work advancement. American women ordinarily take on a primary role in relation to the caregiving and rearing of children. The child and early care system in the US is still however very much underdeveloped (Johns, 2013). Moreover, the role of women as caregivers also often covers the care of parents and other family members. It is also a lifetime commitment and expectation, with hardly any support from the rest of the family, the workplace, and even the government (Goleman and Boyatsis, 2008). As a result, women are often prompted to stop their work, take time out from their careers in order to provide full-time care as mothers and as caregivers. In the end, they often pay a huge price for taking time off, and for sometimes not giving their full devoted and commitment to their careers (Goleman and Boyatsis, 2008). In ‘off-ramping,’ they are also curtailed from accepting promotions or being considered for promotions; and as they decide to return to work, it becomes more difficult for them to be treated at par with their male colleagues and to regain the momentum they lost when they left their work (Johns, 2013). The wage gap between men and women is also very much significant, even where both may be occupying same leadership positions. Reports have been indicated on current discriminatory practices on wage mostly attributed to gender differences (Ely et al., 2011). In the healthcare setting, reports have also revealed that in 2006 alone, about 29% of the women were not provided with fair wages due to their gender. This was much lower than 2000 figures which were at 43% (Johns, 2013). More men (86%) than women (69%) believed that there is gender equity in the workplace. Women in the healthcare sector also express that they are still not made part of the informal networks in the workplace which make possible the promotions (Johns, 2013). Men still interact with other leaders under informal conditions to a much higher extent when compared to women. More men than men for example are likely to have lunch or after dinner drinks with their managers within a month (Chartered Management Institute, 2013). Sometimes, the invitations for these informal engagements are initiated by male managers, and they are likely to invite their fellow male workers, not so much their female employees. When promotion considerations are made, the managers often end up promoting those they are more informally familiar with (Bligh et al., 2011). Gaps in confidence and ambition between the genders have been considered a significant factor impacting on women and their move to leadership positions. In a study by the Institute of Leadership and Management (2011), female managers are often prevented from advancing in their careers because they have lower expectations about their careers. They do not have as much confidence and belief in themselves which causes lesser risks in considering specific and ambitious choices in their careers. In general, women are falling behind men about three years in terms of managerial positions (Institute of Leadership and Management, 2011). Men on the other hand already have high ambitions and career expectations from the very first. The study also indicated how women do not have as much clarity and decisiveness about their careers as compared to men. Women usually do not have sponsors either, who can support and promote their abilities to others in the organisation. In a study of several organisations (Wianye, 2011), it was indicated that women often underestimate the significant impact which sponsorship can have in their desire for managerial positions. This may be due to the perceptions on women, that moving forward via contacts of sponsors is not an appropriate weapon in their arsenal (Wianye, 2011). Some women and sometimes senior managers are also not too willing to engage in sponsorship agreements because of the risk of such relationship being perceived as sexual in nature. Gender stereotypes and the processes of communication also pose negative effects for women. These stereotypes cause a double bind where women are sometimes unfavourably viewed for showing too much or too little competitiveness or independence (Carli, 2006). For instance, women often have a less formal way of communicating with other people, sometimes it is less direct when compared with how men communicate. However, where these women manifest assertiveness and directness, qualities which are not part of the traditional perception of women, her likability in the organization is often diminished (Carli, 2006). The ability and skills of women are also not perceived in the same light as men’s abilities. Women’s skills and abilities, including their behaviour is often judged in a harsher light than men, with standards set higher for women managers and being critically evaluated more than their male counterparts (Morrison et al., 1987). The gender differences are firstly based on biological differences (Appelbaum et al., 2003). The primary idea is that that leadership is based on biology and is apparently inherent among males. In effect, effective leadership seems to be best under the male species. Most of the discussions limit leadership assessments to male respondents with the premise always equating men and leaders with each other (Appelbaum et al., 2003). Such premise, however, is biased. In fact, the implied presumption of the biological consideration may refer to the fact that women can easily attain leadership status as their male counterparts. Studies also suggest that a person’s gender is related specifically to the individual and shifts to the general idea of gender roles with the goal of associating leadership to qualities or behaviour which have been considered as male or female (Appelbaum et al., 2003). Different results can be explained as follows: gender role is a more viable predictor of leadership skills as compared to sex (Kent and Moss, 1994). Still, a new perspective to gender role emerges with three genders in consideration – male, female and androgynous. General masculine traits are often considered crucial in leadership. Individuals who express that they manifested androgynous behaviours without other feminine behaviours were considered as leaders at a higher degree when compared to any other quality defined (Kent and Moss, 1994). However, in relation to androgynous behaviour, it represents a balance in the male and female qualities. Obviously, based on a female point of view, androgyny is very much favourable. Those with masculine of androgynous qualities would likely be considered as preferred leaders when compared to individuals having undifferentiated feminine qualities (Kolb, 1999). The attitude relating to leadership is a major predictor in the rise of leadership (Kolb, 1999). However, under these conditions, women may be at a disadvantage because they are considered to be the more submissive and less dominant personality (Claes, 1999). Based on the sex role theory, being a man or a woman implies behaviours relating to the functions of one’s gender. However, this theory also considers the terms masculine and feminine, highlighting how the feminine qualities are often based on the socialization relations of the female roles (Claes, 1999). Accordingly, women gain a lot of sex role learning very early in their lives, and this can lead to the perception that leads to issues later, especially in their work settings. There is, in other words, a culture trap which unfolds. As such, the functions which women have been used to play, including their attitudes supported seems to imply a second class status (Kotter, 2001). This is even more crucial within the group setting as the members would likely choose leaders who are capable of manifesting the more favourable interests of the group. Attitudes toward leadership are considered a major determinant in evaluating and detecting leader emergence (Kolb, 1987). This is important if women would be able to secure leadership roles for themselves. Findings indicate that the particular element relating to attitude towards leadership may be what would lead group members to perceive individuals as leaders; however, masculinity is relevant in the overall consideration process (Kolb, 1997). Also related to attitude is the support gained from being a part of the informal system of feedback. In general, reduced mobility does not support pessimism among workers, regardless of gender, and implications of opportunity support engagement and general optimism (Cassirer and Reskin, 2000). There are some signs which would indicate that women have internalized such second class attitude, mostly in terms of their self-confidence often lower when compared to their male counterparts (Appelbaum et al., 2003). Adding self-confidence to the model in the emergence of leadership significantly improved its general emergence (Kolb, 1999). The deprivation theory calls for attention in relation to self-confidence because this theory has been used to explain why women are often satisfied with less, with securing lower hierarchical levels and lower salaries compared to men (Kirchmeyer, 1998). This acceptance may also imply lower self-confidence and also indicate how women often do not have as much as money as men, as much praise or reward for their skills (Appelbaum et al., 2003). While experience and masculine qualities are very much related with the group-evaluated leader emergence, neither quality is considered a major predictor (Kolb, 1997). Further study indicates that the assessment of attitude and self-confidence must still be assessed to determine predictive value in relation to leader emergence (Burke and Collins, 2001). Such scales are more predictive when compared to masculine qualities relating to leader emergence. These have the advantage of not relating to gender stereotypes. This may relate to the fact that women have to be in the career path long enough to secure the necessary work experience (Nohria and Khurana, 2010). Otherwise, they may be considered as limited in credibility in terms of leadership skills and potential. In an indirect sense, issues relating to attitude and self-confidence represent the corporate setting where women function. It is often under such condition that women are often called to perform well and are assessed accordingly (Haslam and Ryan, 2008). Women go through work settings where they may not feel welcome, and they may feel threatened by what is considered self-serving and dominant cultures. Corporations often support the stereotypical male qualities and reward policies which often comply with gender-based values (Appelbaum et al., 2003). As such, the masculine qualities of dominance, power, and being tough may be seen by more women in the sense that they are instructed to manifest different qualities and behaviour (Wicks and Bradshaw, 1999). Moreover, the status quo will not likely change in the limited time provided especially as corporations are build based on male-protective powers and masculine rewards values (Rigg and Sparrow, 1994). Also, gender-based stereotypes and the exclusive network of ‘old boys’ are major social forces which are unlikely to change overnight (Oakley, 2000). As can be seen in most conditions, there is often safety in numbers. Women are often the subject of stereotypical attributes when they only comprise about 15% of the numbers within the managerial levels (Appelbaum et al., 2003). Where women represent larger numbers in the higher echelons of management, they are now in a better position to implement change. In general, the women will be considered not as female leaders, but simply as managers or leaders, without the gender qualification (Jamieson, 1995). This would relate to the expanding evidence which indicates that business leadership is increasing more for women as women may be more motivated in gaining such leadership positions. Women entrepreneurs have discovered that the corporate setting has controlled their goals in securing and gaining new challenges (Moore and Buttner, 1997). In relation to gender Jacobs (1992) indicates that chances for employment in male-centric work have increased, however, the resistance of men to women entering such professions have led to women departing these jobs. Corporations may support or object to the goals of their employees wanting promotion. As they employ women in jobs which have no promotion possibilities, these employers decrease the chance for women gaining promotion (Appelbaum et al., 2003). They also prompt women to just give up on ever being promoted (Cassirer and Reskin, 2000). Corporations which do not support high-achieving women by not providing them promotion opportunities incur the risk of having these women seek work elsewhere and sometimes incur the risk of losing these people’s contribution to the human capital in the company. Even where society is very much keen on modern ideas including political correctness, there are still elements in the corporate world which are dominant to this day (Myerson and Fletcher, 2000). The ‘old boys’ network is one of these elements. This is the major barrier to women gaining leadership roles or positions. In fact, men are very much resistant to women gaining entry into this network. These ‘old boys’ have put up impediments for these women wanting entry into their exclusive boys club, often stalling and delaying women’s advancement in their organizations (Appelbaum et al., 2003). Within the cultural setting, they promote unity between the men, but represent women in a sexual light, often threatening and dividing them (Rigg and Sparrow, 1994). Alongside these ‘old boys’ power to secure these conditions is the fact that men still possess the power. For instance, the male managers who usually make decisions impacting on the promotion for women usually see qualities essential for leadership success as related to those often seen in men (Appelbaum et al., 2003). The fact that male leaders may often not consider female qualities crucial in guaranteeing managerial success is a negative element in the decisions of males relating to the career and job placement of women (Burke and Collins, 2001). It is also clear that the discussions on specific causal elements are diverse and complicated. It covers the realms beyond the characteristics of leaders as well as those directly associating with such leader. Even to fairly initiate and assess a leader’s power calls for the evaluation of the manager’s environment (Appelbaum et al., 2003). So long as others usually consider women’s accomplishments as unstable elements, to secure inaccurate conclusions on women’s achievements, and to believe that women do not have the necessary qualities to ensure efficient management and to support cross-sexuality impacting on relationships in the workplace, the success determinants for women will likely be different from men’s (Kirchmeyer, 1989). In order to break through the glass ceiling, there is a need to launch actions on different areas. The government, employers, schools, and the women themselves are crucial players in breaking through such ceiling. The government has different resources it can use (Rajah et al., 2011). It is the primary catalyst in securing gender equality in managerial positions mostly as it can increase awareness of the need for gender equality and the negative impact of gender biases on women, including their families, and society as a whole (Johns, et.al., 2013). Policies and laws can eliminate prejudicial practices and it can instead implement projects which can break down barriers to women leadership (Luscombe, 2010). Moreover, the monitoring and implementation of existing laws against gender biases must be specific and detailed in order to eliminate such barriers. The employers must also take a more active part towards eliminating such barriers to women leadership (Johns et al., 2003). Success in securing equity in leadership has been noted with common qualities including strong CEO support, specific to the needs of the company, inclusiveness, addressing stereotypes, highlighting accountability, evaluating progress, and being comprehensive (Barletta, 2006). Comprehensive programs which seek to eliminate the structural and corporate barriers to women’s leadership are very much important. These programs include the establishment of policies which would actively recruit women for female leadership positions (Johns et al., 2013). In order to manage structural issues, employers have to secure manageable work conditions as well as work-home life balance, including the establishment of career paths which would develop and promote these women. The establishment of mentorship programs in organizations is also an important pathway which can help women secure leadership positions (Johns et al., 2013). Conclusion New values which may sometimes be perceived as feminine values have often been seen in business. These values do not seem to match the authoritative style often seen in the traditional male-dominated workplace, as they are founded on consensual links and support different managerial processes in relation to communication, leadership, organization, as well as control. Under these conditions, the perception of women occupying either the dominant or the non-dominant role or the positive or the negative qualities relating to leadership are supporting the glass ceiling in leadership, making it difficult for women to secure any sort of foothold as leaders. The women in this case in local parlance would either be ditzy blonds or if they show any quality relating to leadership are labelled derogatorily as ‘bitches’. This has been the trend for many years even when measures to eliminate this practice have been set. As a result, women have found it difficult to gain leadership positions or to advance in their careers, or even to receive the same wages as their male counterparts. The need to address these issues in gender differences and leadership is a must; however, it requires a major commitment as well as major changes in the styles of management and leadership not just in private, but also in public institutions. Society also needs to be more supportive of women seeking leadership roles. Only with these adjustments can better outcomes for women seeking leadership roles be secured. References Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C., 2003. Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1), pp. 43-51. Barletta, M., 2006. Marketing to Women: How to Increase Your Share of the World’s Largest Market. 2nd ed. New York: Kaplan. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R., 2011. Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), pp. 1058-1077. Burke, S. & Collins, K., 2001. Gender differences in leadership styles and management skills. Women in Management Review, 16(5), pp. 244-56. Carli, L., 2006. Gender Issues in Workplace Groups: Effects of Gender and Communication on Social Influence. In Mary Barrett and Marilyn J. Davidson (Editors), Gender and Communication at Work. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Cassirer, N. & Reskin, B., 2000. High hopes: organizational position, employment experiences, and women’s and men’s promotion aspirations. Work and Occupations, 27(4), pp. 438-63. Claes, M-T., 1999. Women, men and management styles. International Labour Review, 138(4), pp. 431-46. Chartered Management Institute, 2013. Women in Leadership. London: CMI, pp. 1-16. Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M., 2011. Taking gender into account: theory and design for women's leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), pp. 474-493. Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R., 2008. Social intelligence and the biology of leadership. Growth: Journal ofthe Management Training Institute, 36(2), pp. 52-55. Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K., 2008. The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), pp. 530-546. Institute of Leadership and Management, 2011. Ambition and Gender at Work. Available at: http://www.i-l-m.com/downloads/resources/press/Ambition_and_Gender_at_Work.pdf [Accessed 05 December 2013]. Jacobs, J.A., 1992. Women’s entry into management: trends in earnings, authority, and values among salaried managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, pp. 282-301 Jamieson, K.H., 1995. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Johns, M., 2013. Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Structural, Cultural, and Organizational Barriers Preventing Women from Achieving Senior and Executive Positions. Perspectives in Health Information Management, pp. 1-11. Kent, R.L. & Moss, S.E., 1994. Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), pp. 1335-47. Kirchmeyer, C., 1998. Determinants of managerial career success: evidence and explanation of male/female differences. Journal of Management. Kolb, J., 1997. Are we still stereotyping leadership? A look at gender and other predictors of leader emergence. Small Group Research, 28(3), pp. 370-93. Kolb, J., 1999. The effect of gender role, attitude toward leadership, and self-confidence on leader emergence: implications for leadership development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(4), pp. 305-20. Kotter, J. P., 2001. What leaders really do? Harvard Business Review, 79(11), pp. 85-98. Luscombe, B., 2010. Woman Power: The Rise of the Sheconomy. Time Magazine. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2030913,00.html [Accessed 08 December 2013]. Moore, D.P. & Buttner, E.H., 1997. Review of Women entrepreneurs: moving beyond the glass ceiling. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), pp. 585-90. Morrison, A., White, R. & Van Velsor, E., 1987. Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America’s Corporations? New York: Addison-Wesley. Myerson, D. & Fletcher, J. 2000. A Modest Manifesto for Shattering the Glass Ceiling. Harvard Business Review. Available at:http://www2.massgeneral.org/facultydevelopment/owc/pdf/Modest%20Manifesto%20for%20Shattering%20the%20Glass%20Ceiling.pdf [Accessed 07 December 2013]. Nohria, N., & Khurana, R., 2010. Handbook of leadership theory and practice: An HBS centennial colloquium on advancing leadership. Harvard Business Press. Oakley, J.G., 2000. Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), pp. 321-34. Rajah, R., Song, Z., & Arvey, R. D., 2011. Emotionality and leadership: Taking stock of the past decade of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), pp. 1107-1119. Rigg, C. & Sparrow, J., 1994. Gender, diversity and working styles. Women in Management Review, 9(1), pp. 9-16. US Congress Joint Economic Committee, 2010. Invest in Women, Invest in America: A Comprehensive Review of Women in the U.S. Economy. Available at: http://jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c [Accessed 06 December 2013]. Wicks, D. & Bradshaw, P., 1999. Gendered organizational cultures in Canadian work organizations: implications for creating an equitable workplace. Management Decision, 37(4), pp. 372-80. Zimmermann, P., Wit, A., & Gill, R., 2008. The relative importance of leadership behaviours in virtual and face-to-face communication settings. Leadership, 4(3), pp. 321-337. Read More