Findings on Job Satisfaction - Essay Example

?Women in Senior Executive and Boardroom Positions: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis Introduction Only a slight difference has been observed between males’ and females’ aspiration; though women’s opportunity to occupy senior positions in organisations is more limited than men’s. Women aspire career growth, are similarly determined as men and prospects for career progression, mobility, development, and learning are of great importance (McCarthy, 2004). Unfortunately, women are less likely than men to occupy or progress to senior executive and boardroom positions in organisations. As argued by Howard and Wellins (2008) “in all major global regions, women are more likely than men to fall off the management ladder before reaching the top” (p. 6). They explained this through the theory of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors which involves an array of economic, organisational, and social aspects. Push factors refer to passive or unfulfilling jobs. On the other hand, the pull factors are life situations that force women to leave their jobs like health problems, family commitments, or caring obligations (Howard & Wellins, 2008). A recent study by Schneer and Reitman looked at the effects of career preference and outcomes for women in comparison to men in managerial positions (Bilimoria, 2007, p. 21). They discovered that the effect of gender differences on the work setting for women in comparison to men with MBA degrees was more pronounced in later than earlier career phases. Numerous researchers have observed that organisations are ‘gendered’, and hence view of career plans is expected to have more unfavourable effects for females than males (Fagan et al., 2012). Thus, what is most important is possibly not the quantity of work but the quality and nature of that work, particularly for career women. Another major phenomenon that has been given much emphasis recently is the issue of whether part-time job characterises unfavourable reduced work or favourable flexible work patterns for employees, particularly women. Several researchers report that women prefer or are more contented with part-time job than men, because this work arrangement offers flexibility (Burke & Mattis, 2005). Nevertheless, stages of part-time work have detrimental effects on pay, and females are more likely than males to engage in part-time jobs. This implies that earlier assumptions that career women with children can gain from part-time work arrangement without considerable negative impact on present and future career opportunities or outcomes could be flawed, especially in early stages of career (Durbin & Tomlinson, 2010). It is possible that these kinds of interruptions are not merely cutbacks in work time, but also signify a reduction or impediment in status that is disadvantageous for the women’s future career outcomes. Some claim that the higher probability of a women engaging in part-time work compared to men occupying part-time jobs signifies the likelihood of preserving or reinforcing the inferior standing of women in society (Liff & Ward, 2001). Findings on job satisfaction show that women who are voluntarily engaged in part-time jobs usually agree to weaker job security and lower pay in return for less stress and more favourable working arrangements. Mothers are usually more likely than childless women to work part-time because it facilitates reconciliation of domestic and career obligations (Durbin & Tomlinson, 2010). Mothers in the UK, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, and Austria are specifically likely to engage in part-time job (Rubery, 1998, 200). According to Wirth (2004), the inadequacy of quality, inexpensive childcare compels many women with children to accept part-time work arrangements. Women, across all sectors, are currently engaged in managerial work but are less likely to occupy higher level leadership positions, suggesting that obstacles to women’s career progression are still existing. The number of women occupying senior management and board positions across the globe are few compared to men (Wajcman, 1998). According to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, in 2008, “in the board room, women hold 14.8 percent of board seats in the USA Fortune 500 companies and 11.0 percent in the UK FTSE 100 companies” (Department for Communities, 2010, p. 5). Furthemore, according to the recent study of Development Dimensions International (DDI), women across the globe were more likely to engage in low-level managerial work, with the number of women in executive level jobs half that in senior managerial positions. An array of factors persist to influence the under-representation of women in senior executive and boardroom positions (Department for Communities, 2010). They may be generally classified as (Reid, Kerr, & Miller, 2003): (a) workplace dynamics, social capital, (b) work-life balance, (c) cultural issues, especially leadership opportunities and stereotypes, and (d) business-related aspects. Theoretical Analysis According to FTSE 100, in 2007 ,merely one in thirty senior executives is a woman, and generally, females make up only 11% of FTSE 100 senior executives (Vinnicombe, 2009, p. 152). Human capital theory offers a definite explanation of the continuous existence of barriers to senior executive and boardroom positions for women. Human capital theory argues that, due to an ever riskier and more unstable business environment, senior executives should be made up of people who can facilitate access to a wide array of resources. Integral resources comprise knowledge of geographic and serviceable market, physical capital, and legitimacy (Harriman, 1996, p. 191). In the 1990s, studies of senior executives and boardroom officials in several nations found out that women were commonly believed to lack the ability, experience, and knowledge needed from senior executives. Hence, human capital theory was applied to shed light on the under-representation of women in senior executive and boardroom positions, whether or not they do not have the human capital needed in such positions (Kanter, 1993). Human capital theory explains how a person’s investment in experiences, knowledge, competencies, and education boost productive and cognitive abilities. People who aim for boardroom positions have usually attained considerable human capital. Every senior executive brings distinctive human capital resources to the job (Davidson & Burke, 2000). According to Harriman (1996), new senior executives are chosen based on their specific human capital resources matching the current qualifications of the board. Human capital theory demonstrates that the selection of senior executives are derived from the human capital they can bring in to the organisation. Women have been occupying full-time positions for numerous years (Davies, 2011). Hence the relevant question is why women remain under-represented in senior executive and boardroom positions? Earlier studies show that senior executives and board directors prefer female board members with extensive experience in boardroom position, but there remains a belief that women with the ‘appropriate’ or ‘needed’ experience are very difficult to come by (Evetts, 2000). Nevertheless, current studies disprove several myths about female executives lacking the needed human capital; female executives seem to have acquired a broader range of experience than their male counterparts (Paludi, 2013). A quite surprising discovery is that nearly a quarter of newly appointed female executives from 2001 to 2004 already have experience in FTSE 100 board position. Almost a quarter of the women have prior leadership experience in the charity and voluntary sector, a third have senior level leadership experience in public organisations, and nearly half have prior experience in financial organisations (Harriman, 1996, p. 192). A large number of women occupy government advisory positions, and are board members of different organisations. In essence, human capital theory emphasises how certain groups are less eligible than others for particular jobs. Blackburn and colleagues present an accurate overview of the weaknesses of human capital theory, and underline particularly its circularity: “… we are told that women’s qualifications are worth less, and therefore are paid less. How do we know they are worth less? Because women are paid less” (Kirton & Greene, 2012, p. 63). Basically, human capital theory fails to give an explanation of the continuous underestimating of women’s work. Critics of human capital theory emphasises its tautological nature, merely arguing that people who have higher pay are more efficient (Vinnicombe, 2009). For these critics human capital theory fails to determine whether the pay disparity between low-paid women and well-compensated men is really an indication of the difference in their productivity or inefficiency. Likewise, the role of women’s preferences in determining the reason a huge number of determined and well educated young women fail to occupy top leadership positions has been intensely debated. Hakim’s preference theory draws on ‘person-centred’ findings on outlooks to show that several of the personal preferences of women for a particular form of domestic role—alongside their aspiration to engage in market employment mainly for job satisfaction instead of the pay it offers—largely influence their dedication to the labour market (Yeandle, 2009, p. 114). This theory argues that the attitudes or lifestyle preferences of women are a greater determinant of their labour market involvement than level of education (Yeandle, 2009, p. 144): Lifestyle preferences predict work rates, but [full-time] employment does not predict women’s lifestyle preferences and core values. Lifestyle preferences are not simply a rationalisation of employment decisions already made. The causal impact is essentially one way. Basically, Hakim’s preference theory has several major principles. First, in the latter part of the 20th century five significant changes in the labour market and social system have generated new prospects for women: (1) the growing significance of individual preferences, values, and attitides in lifestyle decisions; (2) the growth of employment opportunities for secondary earners; (3) the growth of white-collar work, which is more appealing and beneficial to women than the customary blue-collar work; (4) the equal-opportunity movement; and (5) the contraceptive revolution (Yeandle, 2009, p. 152). Hakim argues that these five developments do not essentially take place immediately, but all are required for ‘the new scenario’ that gives women the opportunity to freely choose between labour market participation and family responsibility (Hakim, 2004, p. 246). Since different women have different aspirations and preferences, the opportunity to freely choose between career and family will generate different market work patterns. Hakim categorises women’s lifestyle preferences and employment into three: ‘home-centred, work-centred, and adaptive’ (Hakim, 2004, p. 246). These separate types of women have distinct priorities. It is this that endows males, with their relatively compatible priorities, with a strong leverage and sheds light on the survival and strength of patriarchy (Hakim, 2000). Hakim (2004) believes that, although it is advisable for men and women to have the same prospects in the labour market, majority of women turn down a work-centred life. She claims that, due to the fact that women have a tendency to leave the labour market temporarily or permanently, they cannot perhaps attain the same position as do women and men who remain in full-time employment. Unfortunately, according to Cleveland and colleagues (2000), Hakim was not able to explain the cognitive aspect of individual preferences and, particularly, the concept of adaptive preferences. Even though she clearly supports choice, she perceives the existing alternatives narrowly. On the other hand, while human capital facilitates work outcomes and career growth, social capital has been associated with career achievement, specifically at top leadership positions. Social capital theory refers to the position of an individual in a set of connections and the resources it have, offered through or obtained from such set of connections (Gatrell & Swan, 2008). Social network systems facilitate access to important resources which promote career growth with regards to job satisfaction, promotions, and pay. Males and females have different job networks. For instance, an investigation of bank managers discovered that social capital is more integral to the promotion of women to higher leadership positions than to lower management levels (Oakley, 2000). The social networks of women have a tendency to satisfy more social than practical purposes when evaluated against men’s social networks (Wirth, 2001). The barring of women from such social networks hinders their capacity to move upward in the organisation, for instance promotion to senior executive positions. Research Evidence A large number of women have difficulties breaking the glass ceiling in senior executive and boardroom positions because they prefer to ‘opt out’ (Stone & Lovejoy, 2004). Opt-out advocates claim that women are making a decision that career progression is not worth the risk and cost in terms of adverse health impact, higher levels of stress, and reduced personal and family time (Stone, 2008). One perspective argues that women do not desire corporate authority as much as that of their male counterpart, and scrabbling to ascend the corporate ladder has become less attractive. However, detractors believe that this assumption is simply another way to hold women accountable for the shortage of female senior executives (Lovejoy & Stone, 2012). Even though several women are willingly opting out, many more truly aspire to climb the corporate ladder but are firmly hindered. A study of 103 women willingly abandoning their executive positions in Fortune 1000 firms discovered that corporate culture was mentioned as the primary reason for opting out (Stone, 2008, p. 292). The biggest challenge to female executives originate mostly from biased outlooks and a profoundly male-dominated corporate culture (Jones, 2012). Women have not occupied strategic management positions as rapidly as they ought to. Even though they comprise roughly 40% of the labour force, they only represent 6% of senior executive positions and roughly 20% of management (Reid et al., 2003, p. 54). In the public sector, female leaders are more likely to be found in non-strategic positions, and in administrative and staff positions. A number of women have broken through the glass ceiling at the top echelon. They are state leaders or corporate executives (Davies-Netzley, 1998). But at the same time, women are very much under-represented among elected representatives. In contrast, men continue to fill strategic management positions. Women who occupy senior level positions reveal that perceptions of them are similar to those of men in top management positions (Reid et al., 2003). Nevertheless, at lower senior level positions, women are likely to be assessed on the basis of male standards and are not constantly considered as men’s equals. Thus, women believe that for them to be considered as men’s equals they should work harder (Crompton & Lyonnette, 2011). A positive report is that the number of women penetrating the information and communications technology (ICT) industry is increasing. A 2003 study of women in thje ICT sector showed that a large number of women in the UK were starting to occupy more powerful positions in ICT (Rowley & Yukongdi, 2008, p. 6). However, a research carried out in the United States concludes that women may not essentially succeed in ICT because they are not advancing to management level positions in the industry. Hindrances involve the absence of career growth prospects and access to resources and/or social capital (Tomlinson et al., 2013). Apparently, there are findings revealing that more and more women are entering strategic occupations, like ICT. However, in spite of the success that women have attained, they still confront barriers to their career progression. Women report that they are frequently assigned to jobs that hold no prospect for top leadership positions, or jobs of lesser importance in terms of salary and qualifications (Rowley & Yukongdi, 2008). Thus, the jobs assigned to women lead them to career directions that do not give them the opportunity to occupy strategic positions. Women who occupy strategic positions experience career obstacles like absence of role models, absence of training opportunities, sexual harassment, and discrimination. Women who are unable to surpass these difficulties are likely to abandon the profession (Wirth, 2001). Consequently, the success of women in male-dominated organisations has been thwarted by these barriers in the workplace. Gender quotas generally have been applied as a tool of the gender equality movement, and organisations and governments across the globe are currently considering it as a means towards women’s career progression (Engelstad & Teigen, 2012). Those advocating the advantages of quotas claim that a greater gender balance on senior executive and boardroom positions uses more productively female competencies, which consequently generates greater productivity and efficiency. The quota law is viewed as integral to the attempt at redistributing important resources for the realisation of equality between gender (Engelstad & Teigen, 2012). Detractors of quota law cite justice from the perspective of owners’ autonomy and special managerial privileges in the sense that it seems unjust to limit their freedom to decide who will represent them on corporate boards by mandating a 40 percent to 60 percent distribution of each gender (Teigen, 2011). Furthermore, they challenge the likelihood of acquiring an adequate number of experienced and competent women to occupy the positions (Engelstad & Teigen, 2012). It may be reasonably assumed that the increasing number of women who attain higher levels of education should be manifested in greater female representation in senior exeutive and boardroom positions (Polachek, 1981). However, this is not the case. As reported by the European Parliament (2011) on female business leaders, the number of women in senior executive positions is presently growing very slowly each year (Paludi, 2013, p. 272): “At that rate it will take another 50 years before corporate boardrooms contain at least 40% of each gender.” Thus, as argued by Singh and colleagues (2002), it is important to mention that even though the distribution of gender in corporate boardooms has transformed rapidly in some countries since the law of gender quota, a gender hierarchy remains alive in the corporate boardroom. Conclusions According to numerous studies, progress has stalled in raising the proportion of women in senior executive and boardroom positions. This pattern may be explained through various relevant theories such human capital theory, hakim’s preference theory, and social capital. Evidence of continuous under-representation of women in corporate boardrooms has been reported in studies on working time patterns, the ‘opting-out’ phenomenon, strategic versus non-strategic roles, and gender quotas. The hindrances to female executives are the lack of experience in managerial positions, the absence of mentors or role models, work-life imbalance, segregation from social networks, absence of flexible working time arrangement, poor career planning, and gender stereotypes. Besides these hindrances, unaccommodating corporate culture has been discovered to worsen the under-representation of women in senior executive and boardroom positions in various organisations. References Bilimoria, D. (2007) Handbook on Women in Business and Management. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Burke, R. & Mattis, M. (2005) Supporting Women’s Career and Advancement: Challenges and Opportunities. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Cleveland, J. et al. (2000) Women and Men in Organisations: Sex and Gender Issues at Work. UK: Psychology Press. Crompton, R. & Lyonnette, C. (2011) “Women’s career success and work-life adaptation in the accountancy and medical professions in Britain”, Gender, work, and organisation, 18(2), 231-254. Davidson, M. & Burke, R. (2000) Women in Management: Current Research Issues, Volume 2. London: Sage. Davies, E. (2011) Women on boards: 5th report of session 2012-13: report: The Davies Report. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Davies-Netzley, S. (1998) “Women above the glass ceiling.” Gender and Society, 12(3), 339-355. Department for Communities, 2010, Women in Leadership Strategies for Change. [online] Available at: < http://www.communities.wa.gov.au/women/Resources/Documents/Women-in-leadership-strategies-for-change.pdf> [Accessed 4 May 2013]. Durbin, S. & Tomlinson, J. (2010) Female part-time managers: networks and career mobility. Work, employment, and society, 24(4), 621-640. Engelstad, F. & Teigen, M. (2012) Firms, Boards and Gender Quotas: Comparative Perspectives. UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Evetts, J. (2000) “Analysing Change in Women’s Careers: Culture, Structure, and Action Dimensions”, Gender, work, and organisation, 7(1), 57-67. Fagan, C. et al. (2012) Women on Corporate Boards and in Top Management: European Trends and Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gatrell, C. & Swan, E. (2008) Gender and Diversity in Management: A Concise Introduction. London: Sage. Hakim, C. (2000) Preference Theory. London: Blackwell. Hakim, C. (2004) Models of the Family in Modern Societies: Ideals and Realities. UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Harriman, A. (1996) Women Men Management. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Howard, A. & Wellins, R., 2008, Holding Women Back. [online] Available at: < http://www.in.gov/icw/files/GenderReport09.pdf> [Accessed 4 May 2013]. Jones, B. (2012) Women who Opt Out: The Debate over Working Mothers and Work-family Balance. New York: NYU Press. Kanter, R.M. (1993) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kirton, G. & Greene, A. (2012) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity. UK: Routledge. Liff, S. & Ward, K. (2001) “Distorted Views through the Glass Ceiling: The Construction of Women’s Understandings of their Promotion and Senior Management Positions”, Gender, Work, and Organisation, 8(1), 19-35. Lovejoy, M. & Stone, P. (2012) “Opting Back In?” Gender, Work and Organisation, 19(6), 632-53. McCarthy, H. (2004) Girlfriends in High Places: How Women’s Networks are Changing the Workplace. London: Demos. Oakley, J.G. (2000) “Gender-based Barriers to Senior Management Positions: Understanding the Scarcity of Female CEOs”, Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 321-334. Paludi, M. (2013) Women and Management: Global Issues and Promising Solutions. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Polachek, S.W. (1981) “Occupational Self-Selection: A Human Capital Approach to Sex Differences in Occupational Structure”, Review of Economics & Statistics LXIII, 60-69. Reid, M., Kerr, B., & Miller, W. (2003) Glass walls and glass ceilings: women’s representation in state and municipal bureaucracies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Rowley, C. & Yukongdi, V. (2008) The Changing Face of Women Managers in Asia. UK: Routledge. Rubery, J. (1998) Women and European Employment. UK: Routledge. Singh, V., Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002) “Gender and Impression Management: Playing the Promotion Game”, Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 77-89. Stone, P. (2008) Opting Out?: Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Thousand Oaks, CA: University of California Press. Stone, P. & Lovejoy, M. (2004) “Fast track women and the ‘choice’ to stay home”, In Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 62-83. Teigen, M. (2011) “Gender Quotas on Corporate Boards”, in K. Niskanen (ed.) Gender and Power in the Nordic Countries—with a focus on politics and business. Oslo: NIKK. Tomlinson, J. et al. (2013) “Structure, agency and the career progression of white women and BME individuals in the legal profession”, Human Relations, 66(4). Vinnicombe, S. (2009) Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Research and Practice. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Vinnicombe, S. & Sealy, R. (2013) The Female FTSE Board Report 2012. UK: Cranfield School of Management. Wajcman, J. (1998) Managing like a man: women and men in corporate management. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press. Wirth, L. (2001) Breaking through the Glass Ceiling: Women in Management. Geneva: International Labour Office. Wirth, L. (2004) Breaking through the glass ceiling: Women in Management Update 2004. Geneva: International Labour Office. Yeandle, S. (2009) Policy for a Change: Local Labour Market Analysis and Gender Equality. UK: The Policy Press. Read More