Gender Segregation Becomes an Organizational Barrier - Essay Example

? Women have been participating in the workforce and achieving management positions but very few make it to the high levels as the “glass ceiling” does exist. The gender segregation becomes an organizational barrier that women, the “minority group” face in climbing hierarchies. Smith, Smith and Verner (2005) argue that having women in top positions has a positive impact on firm performance but women in every country are only a tiny fraction of those in senior positions (Cornelius & Skinner, 2005). Besides, there has been a reported 40% drop in women in senior management roles at UK FTSE 350 firms between 2002 and 2007 (BBC News, 2007). According to Equal Opportunities Commission only 10% of the UK’s FTSE 100 firms were women. The participation of women in senior business management has not increased. This paper explores the causes, the organizational barriers, how they are constructed, reproduced, manifest and their implications for the careers of minority groups – namely, women. The paper would strictly focus on the advantages of having women in top positions, how the barriers are constructed, to what extent women can be held responsible, and whether women have made efforts to come out of the glass ceiling. Research has been drawn from academic journals spanning two decades to give a wider perspective which would help to determine if changes have occurred over a period of time. Experiences of man and women differ and hence a board could benefit from diverse perspectives. It makes business sense for every organization to recruit from a diverse pool (Cornelius & Skinner, 2005). Women have a better understanding of certain issues and this could bring about creativity and innovation at the work place. Diversity can lend sustainability provided the organizations are prepared to go beyond discrimination. Diversity can benefit the organization in various ways such as culture, change and learning based engagement, they could learn to better manage inequality and difference. However, organizational culture is a major barrier to the progress of women into senior management positions because of the gender bias of the culture (Mann, 1995). The organizational structures and cultures have in-built power imbalances towards men. This has been so through generations because initially only men were found at the workplaces. The organizational structure now exploits the gender differences, contends Mann. Despite women in large numbers having entered the workforce and despite anti-discrimination, equal opportunity and affirmative action laws being enacted, the underlying cultures have not changed. Culture works against career progression for women which has become difficult to change even through legislation. Liff and Ward (2001) also find that culture plays a critical role in women’s under-representation in senior management positions. In a study of junior and senior managers in a UK high street bank, it was found that required behavior and characteristics were associated with success. Long working hours also contributed towards better chances of being in senior management positions. Mann also confirms that men are encouraged to spend longer working hours which make it difficult for women to match. Meetings too are scheduled at inaccessible hours, at inaccessible locations such as private clubs, and discussions during breaks are on subjects in which women would not be generally participative, such as football. These are intentional acts to ensure women are discouraged. Men develop a bonding because of shared experiences in sports or professional or social association and they use this “bonding” to work against women (Mann, 1995). This, in other words, is corporate politics at play to ensure women are not encouraged in senior management positions. Women have a desire to progress and possess the necessary educational qualifications (Cornelius & Skinner, 2005). In fact, women are supposed to be best qualified for the top management posts and to be on the board (Smith, Smith & Verner, 2005). However, women are unable to reach the positions of power because the organizations make it easier for men to acquire power than women (Mann, 1995). Women having a general distaste for politics are reluctant to engage in “politicking and power-mongering”. Power is acquired, maintained and exercised in organizations through defined mechanisms. Acker (2009) discusses the possible impact of gender imbalances at the top in most organizations. The efforts to eliminate the patterns of discrimination have failed. The absence of women at the top makes the life for women in lower ranks more difficult even though the wage gap reduces as women in top position increases. Thus breaking the “glass ceiling” may contribute to more general gender equality goals. However, for effective and permanent changes, women at the top have to go beyond interventions in individual cases. Their focus has to be on the larger economic and organizing processes that lead to inequalities. The “glass ceiling” should not be seen as the only obstacle towards career progression. Opportunities can occur at any level and in any form and the cumulative effect of such opportunities is the cause for lower representation of women in higher ranks. Cornelius and Skinner’s (2005) contention that despite women being efficient and qualified, they have been found “deficient” in management role could be one such opportunity referred to by Acker. They are often accused of allowing emotions to interfere their work whereas work should be their top priority. Other allegations are that women differ in their aspirations and expectations for career and their definition of success also differs. Women have also been “found” to change their life choices after reaching middle management. These again originate from the male employers and specifically meant to discourage women from entering the senior management positions. In addition, the gendered and sexualized assumptions still shape the class situation of women and men in different ways (Acker, 2009). Earlier, the managers were always men and the lower-level white collar workers were always women but this segregation was based on race. Even now the managerial ranks contain white women but the supervisory practices are still dominated by women. Gender and class are no longer integrated but the gendered and sexualized assumptions are barriers to higher management for women. Another possible barrier could be created by women themselves. Liff and Ward (2001) find that men and women may identify same issues but their decisions and how others interpret their decisions may differ. The findings of this study suggest that gender discrimination is not the only reason for under-representation of women in higher positions. Women’s orientation towards home and family could be a strong deterrent towards seeking higher positions by women themselves. Women were earlier considered victims who could not influence their own careers. However, it has now been suggested that women can succeed provided they understand the “rules”, they are determined to follow them. Most women, apparently, find it difficult to cope with the demands of the family but such allegations are only meant to distract the attention of the researchers. Women that have left job, is not because they were incompetent. This is evident because they moved on to other jobs which were equally demanding and achieved success in other organizations. These women had the drive and ambition and were prepared for the responsibilities that the jobs demanded. However, success, promotions and higher management positions depend on participation in informal networks. Women find themselves uncomfortable in such situations like participating in informal networks on which promotion depended. This could possibly be one of the mechanisms to keep women out of the process. Negative interpretations about their commitment to future responsibilities and higher positions are assessed on a general basis and not on individual basis. Assumptions are made that once a woman has had a child her commitment to work would reduce. The responsibility of men towards family and children also increases as they have children but the same principle is not applicable to men. As women are away for maternity leave, such assumptions are used to leave them soon after their return. These are stereotyped assumptions and any amount of efforts made by women to get their message across is futile. Women have found hiatus in their career and only when they have been assertive, they could get their way. This suggests that normal signals of being ambitious are insufficient. Women have to be assertive but then this is not the case with men. Women are given signals that if they decide to have children it would have far reaching consequence on their careers but the same messages are not conveyed to men. However, all these only reaffirm that organizational culture is as important as formal policies and procedures that influence women’s success in promotion. Based on the human capital theory, Singh, Terjesen and Vinnicombe (2008) contend that women can bring diversity to the board and they display transformational leadership styles. They are more likely to possess an MBA degree and they bring with them experience as directors on boards of small firms against men who are more likely to have corporate board experience. Women bring knowledge of female market segmentation and serve as role models for the younger women. Women directors bring a very different international profile to their boards. However, stereotypes of women being inefficient can mask the value that women can add to the board and to the organization. The new cohort of women directors have similar education, board and career experience as men and at a much lower age than men. While increasing the number of women on the board can provide diversity which can be utilized by firms, women have been increasingly facing the glass ceiling and recently, the glass cliff positions. Ryan and Haslam (2005) find that women are breaking the “glass ceiling” only to find themselves on a “glass cliff”. Women achieve high profile positions but their positions are risky. As suggested by Liff and Ward, the assumptions about women and their career intentions becomes a barrier. Ryan and Haslam contend that women’s leadership effectiveness is often perceived to be lower than men. Men in general remain unconvinced about the effectiveness of women supervisors and they generally prefer men as their superiors. Women are securing position on the board but there have been allegations that organizations with women on board underperformed. However, there have also been companies with all men on the board that have underperformed and hence holding women for underperformance is only an assumption. This is what the authors mean when they state that women find themselves on the cliff when they break the ceiling. The authors also argue that because the companies were underperforming women had been appointed on the board. Women were intentionally placed in such roles where negative consequences were anticipated. Hence, this is another mechanism to hold the women in negative light. There is ample evidence in management literature that suggests that the circumstances under which women are appointed in management positions, differs from the circumstances in which men are given such positions. Women can be found more in the service sectors than the industrial sectors. Moreover, organizations bring about a change in their board when the companies do not perform to expected standards, and not when the company is stable. A study of the FTSE 100 companies revealed that appointment of women was not responsible for the drop in performance. In fact, when women were appointed during economic downturn, the companies actually experienced a marked increase in share price after appointment. Moreover, in the months preceding the appointment of women, the companies had been underperforming, thereby suggesting that women are offered such challenging positions with the basic intention to dissuade them. This is the glass cliff that the authors refer to, as it places the women in a precarious situation. Ryan and Haslam (2007) further clarify that women are offered such positions because of the persistent stereotype that management is associated with being male. The authors refer to studies conducted by Schein which revealed that both men and women believe that men are more likely to possess the characteristics associated with management success. However, what is expected and required from a leader differs when the going is smooth to the requirements during the times of crises. Those who are ion the top positions during the times of crises are blamed for poor performance. This suggests that there is no implicit theory of what it means to be a leader. Women are offered position during the times of crises because women are believed to have certain characteristics that are not found in men. These include being more understanding, intuitive, creative, sophisticated, better understanding of the feelings of others, and cheerful. Some of these traits become essential during economic downturn. Because women possess these traits, they are more likely to find themselves on a glass cliff. Their positions of leadership are associated with greater risk and an increased possibility of failure, and hence more precarious. Women are usually taken in on the board when the company is underperforming and hence the chances of attracting negative publicity both from the media and the stock market are high. Thus, women are exposed to greater danger of being the subject of unfair criticism and blame for negative outcomes, compared to their male counterparts. Glass cliff appointments for women are likely due to several factors – sexism in the workplace, women’s lack of support networks, women being associated with crisis management and women not associated with being effective leaders (Ryan, Haslam & Postmes, 2007). The ambitious women are considered threats and hence given glass cliff positions. Another reason why women are appointed to glass cliff positions is because women are seen as more expendable and hence given the leadership position that are not decent or at least risky. Women are actually used as scapegoats by the decision makers by such appointments as they would be blames if things do not work out. Again, gender plays a great role in such glass cliff appointments. Another explanation given by the management is that women prefer such positions because they get less opportunity than their male counterparts and hence whatever comes their way, they accept it. However, even if women do so, it is because they recognize the unfairness, danger and prevalence of glass cliff as a barrier to their progress. The paper has explored the causes of the glass ceiling effect and the extent to which women are responsible for the situation, apart from the organizational culture and processes. The study finds that organizational culture, processes and politics play a critical role against women. Certain mechanisms are at play to ensure women do not get the same opportunities to prove their efficiency. While women can be found now in critical positions, women are often taken in when the going is not smooth, again with wrong intentions. They are granted leadership positions in under performing companies so that failure would be used as an excuse to not grant women in general, such leadership positions. Women in recent years, have been bringing with them rich international experience but it appears that men consider women as threats to their male-dominated workplace. Changing this mindset that women are not eligible for leadership positions, or that women cannot cope with the dual responsibility of work and family, is not difficult. It is merely the insecurity that men feel if women were to take over and prove better leaders than women. After all, women do posses certain characteristics necessary for leadership which men do not. The stereotypes remain as stereotypes simply because traditionally men have dominated the workplace and today they feel insecure. References Acker, J 2009, 'From glass ceiling to inequality regimes', Sociologie du travail, vol. 51, pp. 199-217 BBC. 2007, 'No women chiefs' in 38% of firms', retrieved Januray 9, 2010 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6428513.stm Cornelius, N & Skinner, D 2006, 'An alternative view through the glass ceiling', Women in Management Review, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 595-609 Liff, S & Ward, K 2001, 'Distorted views through the Glass Ceiling: The construction of women's understandings of promotion and senior management positions', Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 8. no. 1, pp. 19-36 Mann, S 1995, 'Politics and power in organizations: why women lose out', Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 9-15 Ryan, MK & Haslam, SA 2005, 'The Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women are Over-Represented in Precarious Leadership Positions', British Journal of Management, vol. 16, pp. 81-90 Ryan, MK & Haslam, SA 2007, 'THE GLASS CLIFF: EXPLORING THE DYNAMICS SURROUNDING THE APPOINTMENT OF WOMEN TO PRECARIOUS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS', Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 549-572 Ryan, MK & Haslam, SA & Postmes T 2007, 'Reactions to the glass cliff Gender differences in the explanations for the precariousness of women’s leadership positions', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 182-197 Singh, V Terjesen, S & Vinnicombe, S 2008, 'Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ?', European Management Journal, vol. 26, pp. 48-58 Smith, N Smith, V & Verner, M 2006, 'Do women in top management affect firm performance?' International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 569-593 Read More