The Double Glass Ceiling:
An In-Depth Investigation and Analysis
Into The Challenges Faced by Women
When Seeking Promotion
To The Boardroom and
Beyond To The Executive Suite.
McCarthy Kelly & Burn Paula
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report analyses current research and employment data to establish whether there is evidence
to suggest that a glass ceiling really does exist and is still present within the modern day workplace.
It also proposes the idea, with relevant evidence, of the presence of a second glass ceiling which
prevents women from reaching the true positions of power and executive directorships.
Research released in October 2013 (The Official Board 2013) demonstrates the depth of this issue: of
the top 12 global economies China has the highest representation (17%) of female CEOs while the
UK and USA are firmly in the middle of the group with 6%. When comparing the Board of Director
positions for women, the range is 5% - 16%. These figures highlight the need for debate and
discussion in this field.
This analysis looks at key areas of theory: social role and identity theory, sex stereotyping and
unconscious discrimination, double bind hypothesis, family/work conflict and women’s confidence,
mentoring and networking. The ‘Old Boys Network’, and gender differences in leadership styles are
also examined, finishing with recommendations and proposals.
The conclusions reached from this analysis strongly indicate that Organisations must realise that, in a
modern, increasingly diverse, dynamic world, it is they who need to recognise the business benefits
of including the working - woman and her minority peers. Not least because of the research that
demonstrates the improved performance of those companies which embrace this diversity. Indeed,
in order to survive, it is ‘Business’ that must alter ingrained organisational cultures to facilitate rather
than discriminate against this increasingly important company asset in an ever-changing modern,
globalised economy.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 2
Introduction
Social role theory, gender stereotyping, family/work conflict, lack of mentoring, the backlash effect
and the ‘old boys network’ are all factors which make up the hypothetical ‘glass ceiling’ that women
face when trying to reach the most senior positions in their careers. This report will analyse available
current research and employment data to establish whether there is evidence to suggest that a glass
ceiling really does exist and, if so, is still present within the modern day workplace thus preventing
women from being promoted to the boardroom. It will also investigate the idea and evidence of the
presence of a second glass ceiling which is supposedly preventing women from reaching the true
positions of power and executive directorships.
Objectives
1) What is the ‘glass ceiling’?
2) Contemporary areas for review and discussion
• Social role and identity theory
• Gender stereotyping and unconscious discrimination
• The Backlash Effect
• Family/Work conflict
• Mentoring, Networking and the ‘Old Boy Network’
• Gender Differences
3) Does a second glass ceiling exist?
4) What can be done to crack the second glass ceiling?
What is the Glass Ceiling?
The term ‘glass ceiling’ was popularised in the 1980s (Hoobler, Wayne & Lemmon, 2009) following
Morrison, Randall & Velsor’s (1992) book publication: Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women
Reach the Top of America’s Largest Corporations?
The ‘glass ceiling’ can be described as an ‘invisible, but impenetrable barrier which prevents women
from reaching senior positions within organisations (Brewis & Linstead, 1999) as well as an
‘impermeable barrier that blocks the vertical mobility of women’ (Burgess & Tharenou, 2002) and is
known to be ‘very visible to those whose careers have been affected by it’ (Auster, 1993).
This phenomenon has been taken very seriously and studied profusely with findings attributing the
lack of women board members in Australia, Canada, USA, New Zealand and Israel to the glass ceiling
effect (Burgess & Tharenou, 2002). Prior to this research the US Congress passed the Civil Rights Act
of 1991 in order to combat the glass ceiling effects within the United States (Jordan, Clark &
Waldron, 2007). Other countries have taken similar actions such as enforcing quota laws, certificate
and pledge programmes, comply or explain requirements and mentoring/sponsorship and education
programmes (Branson, 2012).
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 3
In the UK specifically, Lord Davies (in February 2011) produced a report on female representation on
corporate boards which led to the UK Government’s commitment to a voluntary action plan
whereby members of the FTSE 100 should strive to ensure that their board is made up of at least
25% women (Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2013).
This initiative has proved to be successful in raising the number of women on boards to 17.3%, with
predictions of reaching the target by 2015 and reaching the European Union’s target of 40% by 2020
if 1/3 of all new appointments to boards go to women (Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2013). The current
Professional Boards Forum data (BoardWatch 2013) reports that women now represent 19% of
boardroom members, possibly signalling that the 25% target for 2015 could be reached.
Unfortunately the current rate of female appointments is 25%, not the 1/3 that Sealy & Vinnicombe
were anticipating. So, this is not yet the time for complacency.
Figure 1: Predicting future percentages of FTE 100 women on boards (Sealy &
Vinnicombe, 2013, p21)
However, with only 5.8% of executive directorships being held by women this year (Sealy &
Vinnicombe, 2013), could this be evidence of a second glass ceiling that women face even after
reaching board level (Li & Wearing, 2004)? Another question one must consider is: has the increase
of women on boards simply been down to the initiatives Governments have enforced, and therefore
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 4
are the current lack of female executive directors evidence for the genuine underlying reasons as to
why women have struggled to reach the top in the first place?
Contemporary areas for review and discussion
The following bullet points represent a variety of reasons as to why it is believed that women face
glass ceilings when seeking promotion.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social role and identity theory
Gender stereotyping and unconscious discrimination
Double Bind Hypothesis
Family-work conflict and women’s confidence
Mentoring and Networking and the ‘Old Boys Network’
Gender Differences in Leadership styles
These points will be discussed to establish:
a) Whether a glass ceiling exists? and
b) If women face a second glass ceiling after being promoted to the boardroom?
Social Role and Identity Theory
One of the reasons attributed to the ‘glass ceiling effect’ is the ‘social role theory’ as originally
proposed by Eagly (1987). This theory proposes that men and women act according to the social
roles given to them which are dictated by the way their genders are stereotyped. Eagly (2009, p.
644) believes that this theory originated from the division of labour “which reflects a biosocial
interaction between male and female physical attributes and the social structure”.
These stereotypical views assigned to genders can act as social norms which represent how we
believe others should act as well as personal dispositions which represent our beliefs in how we
should act (Boulouta, 2013). Interestingly, Pomerleau et al (1990) reviewing extensive studies
conducted in the 1980s, found empirical evidence that people develop gender- role expectations
well before the age of five with most enduring throughout life. Therefore, ‘social role theory’ (and
the cognitive mind-sets and cultural beliefs that come with it) is an important theory to take into
account when investigating how managers run their firms (Galaskiewicz, 1991).
Many studies of female social roles cross culturally (e.g. Dobbins 1985; Eagly & Karau 1991; Fondas
1997; Fox et al. 1985; Hanson & Mullis 1985), have found that women are associated with traits such
as caring, empathy and interest in their relationships with others. Although these behaviours are not
typical of a corporate board room, ‘social role theory’ does acknowledge that, in addition to these
roles, both men and women occupy multiple social roles (e.g. organisational role) which can
supersede gender specific roles depending on the situation (Boulouta, 2013).
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 5
Daily et al (2003) have also concluded that even though these traits are not common in most
boardrooms, it does not mean that they cannot be beneficial to the organisation as studies have
shown that the presence of female directors can enhance decision making.
Further study has also demonstrated a positive impact on qualitative tasks, strategic and corporate
social responsibility (CSR) controls (Burges & Tharenou 2002; Ibrahim & Angelidis 1994). It is
important to note here that following most corporate disasters where CSR has been completely
ignored, in-depth reports are conducted in order to recommend new actions to be taken to avoid
future scandals. For example The Higgs Review (2003) (following Enron and WorldCom financial
scandals) and the Tyson Report (2003) were conducted in the same year and both ‘highlighted the
potentially valuable contribution of female non-executive directors to the business community’ (Li &
Wearing, 2004) in terms of board independence. The fact that promotion of females to executive
positions was not mentioned or even considered could be evidence of a second glass ceiling.
In comparison to women, men are seen as more competitive, independent and autonomous
(Rudman & Glick, 2001). These traits are the currently expected norms in corporate boardrooms,
presumably because boardrooms have been dominated by men for many years. The idea of social
identity theory (Tajifel & Turner, 1986; Ashforth & Mael, 1989) links into this fact and can help
explain a deeper reason as to why women are still being excluded from top circles today due to
change-resistant phenomena (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2004).
This theory is based upon the idea that we define our membership of various groups (e.g. class,
gender and race) through the usage of social categories When this theory is applied to corporate
board rooms it helps to explain that, because executive directors are almost all white and male and
are defined by these characteristics, group boundaries are enforced leaving women in the ‘out
group’ with others who do not fit into the ‘white-male’ category. They therefore deduce that while
men seeking promotion to the board must simply demonstrate suitable desired behaviours, women
must ‘first break that subservient image of women holding little power in a male-dominated enclave’
which can be exceptionally challenging when the organisation is lacking female role- models.
This report would suggest that ‘social identity theory’ supports the existence of a second glass
ceiling. However, it also believes that as women become increasingly more visible in the board
room, accepted social identity will change and women will no longer be seen as the ‘out group’,
further suggesting that, over time, it would be possible for women to achieve the same progression
as men in the executive suite.
Gender Stereotyping and Subconscious Discrimination
Catalyst and Opportunity Now (2000) reported on views of 1188 senior women and 117 CEOs
regarding barriers to women’s advancement in the UK. Results showed that the number one reason
why 81% of women believed they were being kept from the top was stereotyping of women’s roles
and abilities (Catalyst and Opportunity Now, 2000). These results also concur with a study conducted
by Leonard (1996) who found that ‘male stereotyping’ of women is the top impediment when it
comes to women’s progression up the corporate ladder.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 6
In comparison Catalyst and Opportunity Now (2000) found that only 65% of CEOs believed this to be
a barrier to women’s advancement. This is an interesting point to note in that even though over half
of the CEOs interviewed agreed that sex stereotyping was a problem for women, it is clear that very
little action by these CEOs was taken at the time as 42% of FTSE 100 firms retained male only boards
(as demonstrated by Figure 2).
Figure 2: The FTSE 100 Company Statistics 1999-2000 (Singh, Vinnicombe & Johnson, 2000)
One explanation for the fact that 35% of CEOs did not see gender stereotyping as a challenge for
women reaching the boardroom could be due to subconscious stereotyping where the term ‘think
leader, think male’ (Schein, 1973, 1975) was coined. This idea has been supported in research
(Berthoin & Izraeli, 1993) where it has been noted that the fundamental challenge for women in
management within all technologically advanced countries is the ‘unrelenting stereotype that
“manager equals male”’ (Hoobler, Wayne & Lemmon, 2009).
To explain further, this is where employees, managers and even the top executives, immaterial of
their gender, have gender stereotypical views of what a CEO must look and act like (Smith, Smith &
Verner, 2013) which eradicates the vision of women holding this position. This idea links to ‘social
role theory’ (as discussed earlier) whereby women are seen as nurturing, communal, supportive and
expressive (Diekman & Eagly, 2000). And as Lewis (2001) and others (Liff & Ward, 2001; Littleton,
1997) find, these predominantly care- giving roles are in conflict with the typical perception of
leadership roles. Further, these characteristics are not currently rewarded in the labour market or by
organisations which may result in women’s careers suffering. Given the male middle class
dominance of current boardrooms, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that these attitudes
would be even more ingrained at these higher levels, thus re-enforcing the possibility of a second
glass ceiling.
Fryer (2007) and Bjerk (2008) explain the presence of a glass ceiling as ‘an equilibrium outcome in a
dynamic model’ (Smith, Smith & Verner, 2013) upon which one of the assumptions it is based is the
difficulties that women have when signalling their skills compared to men for various reasons. This
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 7
idea was expanded from Phelps’ (1972) theory of statistical discrimination whereby it is explained
that the majority of people making important promotion decisions are men, therefore women may
have more problems when signalling their skills as effectively or as frequently as their male peers.
However, it is interesting to see that in Bjerk’s (2008) model he finds that although there is a glass
ceiling at lower levels where women face statistical discrimination, once women succeed in climbing
the career ladder this statistical discrimination is no longer visible at the higher levels. This model
combined with Fryer’s (2007) idea that female executives can even face ‘belief-flipping’ (Smith,
Smith & Verner, 2013) where they are promoted more rapidly than their male peers therefore
suggests that not only is there not second glass ceiling but that women receive positive
discrimination past a certain management level. Although these researchers make good theoretical
arguments, in reality only 5.8% of executive positions in the FTSE 100 were held by women in 2013
(Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2013) disputing the previous research implications. This means that women
remain underrepresented in the true, executive positions of power within large organisations.
As discussed above, there is a range of both theoretical and empirical evidence showing that women
in the work place face gender stereotyping by males whether it is conscious or not (Brenner,
Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989; Jackson, Esses, & Burris, 2001). However, another interesting theory is
that women face gender stereotyping by other women, particularly in masculine organisational
cultures where they have overcome this discrimination to gain promotions and fulfil their career
ambitions (Derks et al. 2011).
Although it has been said that women in high organisational positions provide role- models for other
women, several studies have actually shown that these women may choose to oppose rather than
aid promotion opportunities for female colleagues (Ellmers et al., 2004; Stains et al,. 1974). This
controversial but established theory has been labelled the ‘Queen Bee syndrome’ (Stains et al.,
1974). There is much evidence in support of this theory showing that female employees are much
more critical of their female colleague’s assertiveness, career commitment and leadership skills in
comparison to their male counterparts’ (Ellemers et al., 2004; Garcia-Retamero & Lopez-Zafra, 2006;
Mathison, 1986; Parks-Stamm, Heilman, & Hearns, 2008).
These findings are also supported by Neegard et al. (2008) in Denmark, who found that female
managers were much more prone to having gender-stereotypical views whereas the majority of
male managers were much more gender-neutral. The implications of this study suggest that a
woman promoted to an executive position may actively discriminate against other female
appointments, insinuating that women are their own worst enemies, actively contributing to the
formation of a second glass ceiling.
Statistically however, when examining the percentage of female directors in the FTSE 100,
companies who have one or more female executives have an average of 24% of females on their
boards which is 6.7% higher when compared to the general average of 17.3% (Sealy and Vinnicombe,
2013). Therefore, although the ‘Queen Bee Syndrome’ may exist, it is important to note that the
increase of women in senior positions does lead to an overall increase of females on those boards
therefore the ‘role- model effect’ may override the ‘Queen Bee syndrome’.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 8
Finally, contradictory to statistical discrimination theory, it was found that more women in higher
executive level positions reported more obstacles in comparison to their female peers in lower
executive level positions and overall women experience more obstacles than men (Li & Wearing,
2004). These findings are consistent with gender stereotyping findings and highlight the very real
danger of a second glass ceiling preventing the majority of women having the opportunity of being
promoted into positions of real power (c.f. Li & Wearing, 2004).
Figure 3: FTSE 100 Ranking (Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2013, p8)
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 9
The Backlash Effect
As previously discussed women may face subconscious discrimination due to the female stereotype
assigned to them as being caring and nurturing (Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989; Jackson, Esses,
& Burris, 2001). Conversely, female managers who display so-called ‘masculine’ traits and
behaviours (e.g. aggressiveness, tough-mindedness, confidence and self-assurance) which are
theoretically what is expected of men, are negatively evaluated as they have violated their gender
role (Heilman et al., 1998). Even though such women are typically seen to be more competent than
their more ‘feminine’ peers, it has also been demonstrated that they are less skilled socially and are
therefore less likely to receive promotions (Rudman & Glick, 2001). This was also analysed by Kanter
(1977) who found that women who attempted to emulate male management traits were regarded
as being too aggressive, leading to male and female colleague antipathy, leaving these women very
isolated and therefore in a difficult position.
This idea of a double bind faced by women whereby they are socially and economically sanctioned
for being ‘agentic’ has been titled the ‘backlash effect’ (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Conversely,
research has shown that this effect may not take place in all situations (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007)
which could be due to the idea of self-monitoring (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986) which is where
‘individuals accurately assess social situations and project situationally appropriate responses’
(O’Neill & O’Reilly, 2011). To add to this, self-monitoring and work-related outcomes have been
significantly linked to job performance and advancement ability (Day et al., 2002; Kilduff & Day,
1994). This has been supported by O’Neill & O’Reilly (2011) in their study of MBA students (please
see the below graph) who found that self-monitoring is a promising solution to the subconscious
discrimination that ‘agentic’ women face due to the violation of their female stereotype.
Figure 4: Two-way interaction of masculinity and self-monitoring on promotions for women
(O’Neill & O’Reilly, 2011)
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 10
Therefore women who are naturally ‘agentic’ could hugely benefit through self-monitoring as it has
been shown that high self-monitors are more likely to emerge as leaders (Ellis, 1988) which would in
effect allow for easier promotion and a reduction in the ‘glass ceiling effect’.
Family-Work Conflict
It is widely accepted that the lack of women in senior, corporate positions is due to conflict between
family and career; and that women feel the need to choose between their career and family (Cutler
& Jackson, 2002). Nieva (1985) found that some women avoid promotion in order to evade the extra
stress from balancing family and work. In further research Stautberg (1987) found that some
employers were resistant to promoting women, assuming that women would put their families first
therefore slacking in their work duties. However, as it can be seen, these studies are fairly outdated.
Therefore they may not have much significance in today’s modern workplace where current UK
Government policy is to encourage all new mothers back to work as quickly as possible.
Parker (2009) found that ¾ of women he surveyed felt that work-family balance was difficult to
maintain and wished that they could work part-time to help facilitate balancing the two roles (as
demonstrated by the below graph). It is also worth noting that a significant minority of fathers
would also like to have this option, suggesting all organisations would benefit from greater flexibility.
Figure 5: Percentages of parents who prefer to work either full or part time (Parker, 2009)
To add to this, as divorce rates continue to rise and many women find themselves the breadwinner
and primary caregiver therefore increasing stress, pursuing a senior corporate position becomes
untenable (Cutler & Jackson, 2002). Earnings figures (Economist, 2009) also show that working
mothers earn significantly less than childless women, who, in turn, have been found to have salaries
more closely correlated to men’s.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 11
Therefore it could be concluded that working mothers fail to ‘provide themselves with the
opportunity to break through the glass ceiling due to opting out to meet their family responsibilities’
(Carnes & Radojevich-Kelley, 2011). However, this extra family related stress in the workplace could
be related to culture as Spector et al. (2004) found that in Anglo based cultures, longer working
hours did effect work-family stress, while in China it was found that marriage and children lead to
higher job satisfaction and psychological well-being. Possibly an explanation for this could be that
Chinese culture expects dual income families, and spouses are more supportive of each other’s
career ambitions. Conversely, in Western culture, there is still a ‘male breadwinner’ preconception,
demoting the importance of a ‘wife’s’ career (Schoen & Weinick, 1993). Spousal support has been
shown to be one of the biggest influencers for a working women’s career (Gilbert, 1988; VannoyHiller & Philliber, 1991).
More recent research by Greenhaus (2000) found that when both family and work roles were
integrated they actually enhanced each other rather than causing more stress. This finding is also
supported by Ford, Heinen and Langkamer (2007) who found that support from both work and
family domains related positively to cross-domain satisfaction.
Women who are successful in balancing their work and family life tend to redefine the structural and
personal roles that have been assigned to them by the workplace and society (Frone, 2003).
Examples of this would be where women learn to combine both roles by taking their children on
business trips or occasionally taking their children to the office which allows the child to understand
what their mother is doing while she is away from them. Also these women seem to understand that
they do not have to do it all (e.g. housework, childcare and a career) and therefore outsource some
of the work, for example they may hire a cleaning company or a nanny (Cheung & Halpern, 2010).
Another interesting aspect to examine in connection to family/work conflict is that of pregnancy and
maternity leave and the effects that it has on colleagues’ perceptions of the new mother to be.
Results from one study found that supervisors lowered their performance ratings of female
managers after pregnancy, a subliminal stereotype trigger of expectant women becoming irrational
and overly emotional (Halpert , Wilson & Hickman, 1993). Another study found that co-workers
expect pregnant women to be easy to negotiate with, nice and gentle (Corse, 1990), characteristics
that are completely detrimental for an employee seeking to make it to the top in today’s corporate
culture. The idea of the maternal wall (Williams, 2005) emulates the ‘glass ceiling effect’ and one
related phenomena is the perception that certain jobs (typically low paid and simple) are suitable for
mothers and the high earning, senior roles are not (Heilman, 1983) resulting in a lack of
organisational fit which is regarded as a high predictor of promotional value (Hoobler, Wayne &
Lemmon, 2009).
The study conducted by Hobbler, Wayne & Lemmon (2009) added to the debate around this
phenomenon as they found that managers categorised women as having a greater family/work
conflict, even after family responsibilities and women’s own perceptions of the conflict were
controlled. This meant that managers would view employees as having a poorer organisational fit,
affecting their chances of promotion.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 12
This is exceptionally interesting given that Hobbler et al, (2009) found that female employees
actually experience less family/work conflict than their male peers indicating that managers were
penalising the wrong sex! They also established that women attending courses regarding family and
work life balance (often provided by their employers) are seen to be even less competent by
managers as they are inadvertently re-enforcing the stereotype of women struggling to fulfil both
roles competently.
Although managers perceive women to be incapable of juggling both the role of the mother and a
career Byron (2005) found that (through the conduction of a meta-analysis on work-family conflict)
gender has a near-zero relationship to family interference with work, concluding that men and
women appear to have similar levels of work interference with family and vice-versa. This supports
Hobbler et al’s (2009) proposition that this is a management problem, and that significant,
subconscious stereotyping is a clear indicator of a very real glass ceiling that women need to
conquer.
Mentoring, Networking and the ‘Old Boy Network’
It has been said that male managers are the ‘gate keepers of the upper echelons of management’
(Duehr & Bono, 2006) and 66% of women would agree that exclusion from informal networks is a
major barrier to their accession to the most senior of positions (Catalyst and Opportunity Now,
2000). These informal networks are historically known as the ‘old boy network’ where the ‘economic
elite are grounded in bureaucratic power, ownership and social capital’ (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989;
Windolf, 1998). If women wish to join this elite group of executives it has been said that they must
demonstrate to the wider network (consisting of the ‘old boys’) that they can deliver more than the
initial job description (Sing & Vinnicombe, 2004) which could include the availability to socialise out
of hours, presenting a potential issue for women who use that time for family.
The ‘old boy network’ is a long standing, informal system where high worth males deliberately
exclude less influential males and females in order to retain power advantages through strategic
friendships and alliances (Oakley, 2000). As mentioned earlier, in order for women to be accepted by
this group they must over compensate for their gender by continuously proving their worth to male
senior executives. Rosener (1995) found that executives freely admitted that this was a necessity for
women wanting to rise to higher ranks within their organisations. This clearly discriminatory
behaviour allows male executives to unite in order to preserve their dominant circle at the top
therefore, during downsizing, they remain protected as women executives are often the first to be
let go (Gordon, 1992).
Perhaps the reason senior males wish to retain this network is because they feel threatened by
women? This report suggests that the increase of senior women would lead to more thorough
questioning and a finer examination of corporate social responsibility, ethics and morals at board
level, which in effect, would surely lead to the reduction of CEO compensation (Oakley, 2000) and
the increase of tighter rules and procedures. Overall, the ‘old boys’ would no longer be able to count
on their network to rescue them in ‘sticky’ situations but would be fully responsible for their
mistakes.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 13
Roth (2007) evaluated the role and continued existence of the ‘old boy’ network in investment
banking providing some interesting insights. Wall Street executives were notoriously known for
smoke-filled rooms and strippers, clearly highlighting why women were so easily excluded from this
exclusive network. In the early 2000’s financial firms made efforts to distil this barrier to women
through the implementation of paid maternity leave and sexual harassment policies. Citigroup,
Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley even appeared in the 2006 Working Mother 100
Best Companies. These efforts could be attributed to the fact that firms wished to uphold their
public image but it must not be forgotten that Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley have
each paid more than $100million dollars in order to settle sex discrimination cases out of court
(Roth, 2007).
Less than ten years ago Allison Schiffelin gained $12 million dollars from Morgan Stanley due to her
exclusion from company functions (otherwise known as the ‘old boy’ network) due to her gender
which led to a denial of equitable pay and promotions (Roth, 2007). Although times have moved on
one can question as to how diluted these ‘old boys’ networks are and, even if they are no longer
present, does this mean that the prejudiced views that senior males once held have been eradicated
for good? Or is this evidence that a second glass ceiling is present in corporate culture today?
The survival of the ‘old boy’ network can be greatly attributed to male CEO’s and Board Chairmen’s
outdated views on the idea that women are unqualified for directorship (Burke, 1997). Russell
Reynolds Associates (from Singh & Vinnicombe, 2004) conducted a survey on chairmen’s opinions on
gender and ethnic minority representation on boards which covered 68% of FTSE 200 chairmen. Two
quotes from chairmen were: “a bit of nationality (mix) is good news, gender and ethnicity do not
mean a damn”, “It is important in the perception of the public only”. It was also found that six out of
ten chairmen wished to select a future female non-executive director from a pool of those who were
either CEO or chairman at a similar sized company.
This demonstrates a clear glass ceiling that women face considering that there are currently only
three female CEOs and one female chairmen in the FTSE 100 (Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2013) especially
when it is noted that many of the male NEDs in the FTSE 100 have neither held the position of CEO
or chairman previously (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2004).
One of the main recommendations to help women overcome the barrier of the ‘old boy’ network is
through mentoring (Gamba & Kleiner, 2001) which is where employees are given support and
guidance by experienced, senior members of management. Research (Ibarra, Carter & Silva, 2010)
has actually demonstrated that women receive more mentorship overall in comparison to their male
peers therefore it is confusing as to why women are clearly still the minority in the board room
especially in terms of executive directorships. One explanation for this is the fact that males tend to
receive a significantly greater amount of sponsorship from their mentors than women (Ibarra, Carter
& Silva, 2010). Sponsorship refers to the actions taken by mentors to put their mentees in contact
with the right people and employ the right personal strategies that allow them direct access to the
boardroom.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 14
This could be due to the fact that women are still seen as ‘risky’ appointments by male-dominated
boards (Ibarra, Carter & Silva, 2010) stemming back to the idea of subconscious discrimination and
the ‘old boy’ network, which clearly demonstrates another layer to the glass ceiling that women
must crack if they wish to make it to the top. However, it is not all bad news as companies such as
IBM Europe have designed a sponsorship program for senior women whereby if they are not
promoted to executive level within a year then their mentors are held responsible and are seen as
the failures rather than the candidate (Ibarra, Carter & Silva, 2010). This refreshing approach taken
by IBM Europe reassures the idea that organisations are making efforts to break down the ‘old boy’
network and give women a fairer chance at success whether it is for public image or company
values.
Gender Differences
This section of the report will investigate the potential gender differences in characteristics and
leadership styles that influence the female’s promotion opportunities. Differences in gender stem
back to early man, when the female role was to be a mother and gatherer, while the male was a
hunter and provider for their family. This eventually led to the development of gender stereotypes
(Babcock & Lascheber, 2003).
These gender stereotypes have been continually reinforced over time. For much of the 1900s
women were controlled by men as their father was responsible for their wellbeing until she was
married off when the husband would take control of her and her assets (Parcheta, Kaifi & Khanfar,
2013). This could explain why men and women pursue different careers. As recently as 2001, 99% of
secretaries, 91% of nurses and 98% of childcare workers were women whereas 98% of construction
workers, 97% of engineers and 87.5% of corporate officers in the Fortune 500 were men (Babcock &
Lascheber, 2003).
It is also well documented that there are twice as many female part- time workers as there are male
(United States Department of Labour, 2007). This helps to explain why men are promoted more
quickly. They are more willing to relocate and are able to work longer hours (Skoloda, 2005) because
their wives often take care of the household duties and children (Parcheta, Kaifi & Khanfar, 2013).
This is supported by Elmuti et al. (2003) who found that the majority of men in executive positions
are married. However, over half the women in these positions are single and do not have any
children. These findings provide evidence of a barrier that married women and mothers face when
seeking promotions due to their family commitments and restrictions.
Although most arguments thus far have been in support of a glass ceiling there is interesting
evidence to suggest that men are simply more skilled when it comes to making money and bringing
in business. Mueller (2007) found that female- run accountancy firms made 30% less than their male
counterparts. As these were self-employed individuals it cannot be argued that a glass ceiling exists
in this case. Therefore is the pay gap in this instance due to characteristic differences in gender?
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 15
Leaderless group research shows that women are more likely to engage in interpersonal or social
behaviours than men who tend to engage in more task driven behaviours (Bartol & Martin, 1986;
Wheelan & Verdi, 1992).
In addition to this it has been found that women are especially concerned with interpersonal
relationships when they believe these may impact upon their career development (Gallos, 1989;
London & Wohlers, 1991). These findings agree with the idea that women have a lower locus of
control compared to men, meaning that they believe their outcomes are controlled by others rather
than themselves (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). This may in turn signify that women are too
dependent on others for their promotion whereas they should take matters into their own hands
through making the right connections, displaying the correct behaviours and being more demanding
as men with a higher locus of control would do.
An interesting finding in pre-career expectations (Schweiter et al., 2011) demonstrates that, overall,
women have lower career expectations than men before even starting work (Hogue, Dubois & FoxCardamone, 2010). This could denote that women are setting themselves up for failure before they
have even commenced their career journey. However, research has shown that the modern young
women are more ‘agentic’, assertive and have higher levels of self-esteem than previous generations
(Twenge & Campbell, 2008) suggesting that there are more similarities between themselves and
their male counterparts.
This new ‘breed’ of woman would suggest that there is an increase of women in the pipeline for
senior positions in large corporations which has been demonstrated by the increase of female
middle managers over the past ten years (Daily, Certo & Dalton, 1999). This increase of women in
the pipeline should in theory lead to an increase of women in top positions (Mariani, 2008; Soe &
Yakura, 2008) and quantitative research has demonstrated that the numbers of women in these
positions has risen over the past ten years (Jhunjhunwala, 2012). Yet there still appears to be a lack
of women on boards globally and especially in executive and chair positions (Sealy & Vinnicombe,
2013). Therefore it could be argued that even with the increase of potential women available for the
top jobs they are still coming up against a glass ceiling which is significantly hindering their progress
to the top.
Research (Lyness & Thompson, 1997) has shown that there are actually more similarities than
differences in female and male executives in particular regard to their work attitudes and
organisational outcomes. Lyness & Thompson, (1997) reported a lack of gender difference in
performance rating which they explained could be due to the unusually high competency of the
women in the study. Perhaps they suggested this because they have been subjected to subconscious
gender stereotyping, causing them to believe that women are less competent than they actually are.
Competence, along with hard work, has been said to be the main contributor to success for women
in executive positions in the Fortune 500 (Woody, 1991). This is supported by Heilman et al. (1989)
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 16
who found that successful female managers (otherwise known as competent) where characterised
by fewer stereotypic attributes of women and more attributes which were associated with men and
their roles as managers. Lyness & Thompson (1997) suggested that their findings were a result of the
fact that the female executives they studied had already broken through the glass ceiling and were
therefore no longer subjected to intense scrutiny due to their gender. Considering their remarkable
findings it would be interesting to investigate further as to how these women managed to break
through the notorious glass ceiling.
Much literature has covered the idea that men and women differ in leadership styles which is one of
the reasons attributed to the glass ceiling (Kimball, 1995). A leading contributor in this field is Alice
Eagly, Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University, who has conducted much primary
research and published many articles within this area. One of her studies, conducted with colleagues
(Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001), found that within experimental settings people tend to genderstereotype strangers’ leadership styles (e.g. women are more focussed on interpersonal
relationships and men on tasks). However, they concluded that when social behaviour is regulated
by leadership roles within organisational settings then ‘it should primarily reflect the influence of
these other roles and therefore lose much of its gender-stereotypic character’ (Eagly & JohannesenSchmidt, 2001).
This finding is supported by Bartol (1978) who found that there were very little, if any, differences in
leadership styles of men and women in comparative business settings. Dobbins & Platz (1986)
further support these findings with evidence from a meta-analysis with results showing that gender
did not exert a significant influence on leadership styles except when conducted in laboratory
settings. Although this research is outdated, one would presume that if any change were to occur
then women would become even more similar to men in their leadership styles. Therefore it could
be argued that gender differences in leadership styles are not responsible for the glass ceiling
women continue to face in their corporate careers.
Does a second glass ceiling exist?
Due to the extremely low numbers of women in executive positions worldwide and especially in the
UK (Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2013) it can be argued that a second glass ceiling does exist. The most
prominent reasons for this as discussed in the report are the ‘old boys’ networks which restrict
women from entering top circles (a crucial requirement for executives) and subconscious
discrimination not only by men but also by women (as examined in the ‘Queen Bee effect’).
Although there are no clear gender differences in leadership style (Bartol, 1978) this research would
suggest that it is the outdated views of many chairmen who are connected to the ‘old boys’
networks which prevent women from being promoted to the most executive positions. Of particular
interest is the lack of any evidence supporting family/work conflict as an issue for women aiming for
senior positions. Rather it is shown to be a perception by their bosses which can cause subconscious
stereotyping holding women back from reaching their true potential (Hobbler, Wayne & Lemmon,
2009).
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 17
Recommendations – What can women do to break through?
This report will now provide recommendations for both the individual woman and the organisation
aiming to promote women as to what steps can be taken to help facilitate a career path to the
executive suite.
Individual Recommendations
•
Networking and sponsorship: – Research has shown that one of the main differences
between men and women are their abilities to network. Women must proactively seek to
engage in more networking opportunities with influential people from their organisation if
they wish to be thought of for promotion. In terms of sponsorship, if a woman is assigned a
mentor she must ensure this is someone who will support her and introduce her to
appropriate peers and role models. The mentor must support her and needs to recognise
her promotional capabilities and the relevant skills and attributes while encouraging
professional development to enhance them.
•
More locus of self-control: – Similarly to the point above women must realise that the power
lies in their hands rather than those of others. Therefore they must ensure that they ask for
promotions or guidance concerning how to be promoted to the top positions if they wish to
attain them. American women have shown they have a higher locus of self-control in
comparison to British women, which they claim has allowed them to overcome barriers that
women normally face (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2004).
•
Self-monitoring combined with ‘agentic’ characteristics:– Finally, women who are naturally
more ‘agentic’ must ensure that they self-monitor their characteristics in the workplace if
they wish to overcome opposition from both men and women. It can be noted that this is
easier said than done. However, these women can partake in personal development courses
to allow an easier uptake of self-monitoring.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 18
Organisational Recommendations
•
Stereotype awareness training – It has been said that simply informing managers and key
decision makers of subconscious stereotyping will raise awareness and therefore reduce its
occurrence (Hobbler, Wayne & Lemmon, 2009). Therefore, to be truly effective, the
implementation of comprehensive training schemes within organisations or with
organisational psychology consultants needs to be embedded within the organisational
culture.
•
Chairmen must change outdated views: – In order to reduce the influence of the ‘old boys’
networks excluding women from top positions, it is imperative that chairmen must change
their own outdated views and adapt to be able to accept and support women aiming for the
top. For this to be effective organisations must not accept chairmen on their boards who are
against diversity in the boardroom and sanctions must be placed upon those who are
discriminatory. However, to ensure that companies do not reach this stage, chairmen should
be provided with training which allows them to see the untapped potential in their female
colleagues.
•
More sponsorship for women: – Sponsorship for women competing for top positions must
be increased to ensure that women have their voices heard on the board before promotion.
This can be enforced through a system such as the one IBM have employed whereby
mentors are sanctioned if their mentees are not promoted to the board within a certain
period of time (forcing them to provide sponsorship for them).
•
A change of culture: – Finally, a change of boardroom culture must take place to ensure a
more supportive environment for women allowing them to feel more confident in
themselves when initially applying for such positions.
Conclusion
The main drive to promoting more women onto boards is to improve business performance.
Greater diversity, research has shown, can lead to more innovative business decisions, less excessive
risk taking and overall better decision making (Lansing & Chandra, 2012). And, although it was
concluded in 1994 that women no longer face a glass ceiling (Powell & Butterfield, 1994), the
statistical evidence would suggest otherwise (Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2013). This, combined with
research on subconscious stereotyping and the ‘old boys’networks, despite research claiming that
there are no gender differences in leadership style and ability (Bartol, 1978), demonstrates that
there is clearly a second glass ceiling preventing women earning promotion to the executive suite.
There are a number of initiatives that both individual women and organisations can take to help
overcome these hurdles as previously discussed.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 19
However, the most important detail still remains: organisations must realise that in a modern,
increasingly diverse, dynamic world, it is they who are in the wrong. They need to recognise the
business benefits of including the working woman and her minority peers.
Therefore, in order to survive, it is ‘Business’ that must alter ingrained organisational cultures to
facilitate rather than discriminate against this increasingly important company asset in an everincreasingly modern, globalised economy.
Finally, although this report has examined statistical evidence that supports the idea of a second
glass ceiling, due to the limited academic research available on this phenomenon, it is suggested that
additional research should be carried out to investigate this subject further.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 20
References
Ashfroth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989) Social Identity Theory and the Organisation. Academy of Management Review,
14, 20-39.
Auster, E. R. (1993) Demystifying the Glass Ceiling: Organizational and Interpersonal Dynamics of Gender Bias.
Business and the Contemporary World, 5, 47-68.
Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003) Women don’t ask Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton: Princeton
University.
Bartol, K. M. (1978) The sex structure of organizations: A search for possible causes. Academy of Management
Review, 5, 805-81.
Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1986) Women and men in task groups. In: Ashmore, D. R. & Del Boca, K. F. (eds.) The
social psychology of female-male relations. New York, Academic Press. pp. 259-310.
Berthoin, A. A., & Izraeli, D. N. (1993) A global comparison of women in management: Women managers in their
homelands and as expatriates. In: Fageson, E. (eds.) Women in management: Trends, Issues, and challenges in
managerial diversity. Newbury Park, CA, Sage. pp. 52-96.
Bjerk, D. (2008) Glass ceiling or tick floors? Statistical discrimination in a dynamic model of hiring and promotion.
Economic Journal. 118 (530), 961-982.
BoardWatch (2013) Professional Boards Forum: http://www.boardsforum.co.uk/boardwatch.html
Boulouta, I. (2013) Hidden Connections: The Link Between Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social
Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 185-197.
Branson, D. M. (2012) Initiatives to Place Women on Corporate Boards of Directors--A Global Snapshot. Journal of
Corporation Law, 37 (4), 793-814.
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989) The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite
management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 662.
Brewis, J., & Linstead, S. (1999) Gender and Management. In: Fulop, L. & Linstead, S. (eds) Management: A Critical
Text., Melbourne, Macmillan. p. 52.
Burges, Z., & Tharenou, P. (2002) Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics,
37(1), 39–49.
Burke, J. R. (1997) Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: A Needed Resource. Journal of Business Ethics. 16,
909-915.
Byron, K. (2005) A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 67, 169-198.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 21
Carnes, J. W., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. (2011). The Effects of the Glass Ceiling On Women in the Workforce: Where
are they and where are they going?. Review of Management Innovation & Creativity. 4(10), 70-79.
Catalyst and Opportunity Now. (2000) Breaking the Barriers: Women in Senior Management in the UK, Business in
the Community, London.
Cheung, M. F., & Halpern, F. D., (2010) Women at the Top: Powerful Leaders Define Success as Work and Family in
a Culture of Gender. American Psychologist, 65 (3), 182-193.
Corse, S. J. (1990) Pregnant Managers and Their Subordinates: The Effects of Gender Expectations on Hierarchical
Relationships. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, 25.
Cutler, M. M., & Jackson, L. A., (2002) A “Glass Ceiling” or Work/Family Conflicts?. Journal of Business & Economic
Studies, 8(2), 74-82.
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. (2003) Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of
Management Journal, 28, 371–382.
Daily, M. C., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, R. D. (1999) A decade of corporate women: some progress in the boardroom,
none in the executive suite. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 93-99.
Day, D. D., Schleicher, D. J., Unkless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002) Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic
investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 390-401.
Derks, B., Ellemers, N., Laar, v, C., & Groot, d, K. (2011) Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 519-534.
Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000) Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present and
future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171-1188.
Dobbins, G. (1985) Effects of gender on leaders’ responses to poor performance: An attributional interpretation.
Academy of Management Journal, 28, 587–598.
Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986) Sex differences in leadership: How real are they? Academy of Management
Review, 11, 118-127.
Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006) Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?. Personnel
Psychology, 59, 815-846.
Eagly, A. (1987) Sex differences in social behaviour: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. (2009) The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender.
American Psychologist, 64, 644–658.
Eagly, A., & Karau, S. J. (1991) Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 22
Eagly, H. A., & Johannesen-Schmidt, C. M. (2001) The Leadership Styles of Women and Men. Journal of Social
Issues, 57 (4), 781-797.
Ellemers, N., Van Den Heuvel, H., De Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004) The underrepresentation of women
in science: Differential commitment or the Queen Bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 315–
338.
Ellis, R. J. (1988) Self-monitoring and leader emergence in group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14,
681-693.
Elmuti, D., Lehman, J., Harmon, D., & Lu, X. (2003) Inequality between genders in the executive suite in corporate
American: Moral and ethical issues. Equal Opportunities International, 22(2), 40-58.
Fondas, N. (1997) Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings. Academy of
Management Review, 22, 257–282.
Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007) Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of
cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57–80.
Fox, M., Gibbs, M., & Auerbach, D. (1985) Age and gender dimensions of friendship. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 11, 59–68.
Frone, M. R. (2003) Work–family balance. In: Quick, C. J. & Tetrick, E. L. (eds.) Handbook of occupational health
psychology. Washington DC, American Psychological Association. pp. 143–162.
Fryer, R. G. (2007) Belief flipping in a dynamic model of statistical discrimination. Journal of Public Economics. 91
(5-6), 1151-1166.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1991) Making corporate actors accountable: Institution-building in Minneapolis–St. Paul. In:
Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, J. P. (eds.) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
Gallos, J. V. (1989) Exploring women's development: Implications for career theory, practice, and research. In:
Arthur, B. M., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, S. B. (eds.) Handbook of career theory Cambridge, Cambridge University. pp.
110-132.
Gamba, M., & Kleiner, H. B., (2001) The Old Boys’ Network Today. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy. 21 (8-10), 101-106.
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Lopez-Zafra, E. (2006) Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments:
Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55(1), 51.
Gilbert, L. A. (1988) Sharing it all: The rewards and struggles of two-career families. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Gordon, M. (1992) Discrimination at the Top. Working Woman, 68-72.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 23
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Halpert, J., Wilson, M., and Hickman, J. Pregnancy as a Source of Bias in Performance Appraisals. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 1993, 14, 649.
Hanson, R., & Mullis, R. L. (1985) Age and gender differences in empathy and moral reasoning among adolescents.
Child Study Journal, 15, 181–188.
Heilman, M. E. (1983) Sex Bias in Work Settings: The Lack of Fit Model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5,
269–298.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007) Why are women penalised for success at male tasks? The implied
communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 82-92.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. E., & Simon, M. C. (1998) Has anything changed? Current characterisations
of men, women and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. E, & Simon, M.C. (1989) Has anything changed? Current characterizations of
men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.
Higgs Review (2003) Review of the Role and Effectiveness of Non-executive Directors. Department of Trade and
Industry, London, UK.
Hogue, Mary, Cathy L.Z. Dubois, and Lee Fox-Cardamone. (2010). Gender Differences in Pay Expectations: The
Roles of Job Intention and Self-View. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34 (2), 215-227.
Hobbler, M. J., Wayne, J. S., & Lemmon, G. (2009) Bosses’ Perceptions of Family-Work Conflict and Women’s
Promotability: Glass Ceiling Effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (5), 939-957.
Ibarra, H., Carter, M. N., & Silva, C. (2010) Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business
Review. September. 81-85.
Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (1994) Effect of board members’ gender on corporate social responsiveness
orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10, 35–43.
Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. (2001) Contemporary sexism and discrimination: The importance of
respect for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(1), 48.
Jhunjhunwala, S. (2012) Women on Boards - The Numbers (A Review of Global Statistics). Indian Journal Of
Corporate Governance, 5, 1, pp. 76-89.
Jordan, E. C., Clark, J. S., & Waldron, A. M. (2007) Gender Bias and Compensation in the Executive Suite of the
Fortune 100. Journal of Organisational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 11 (1), 19-29.
Kanter, R. M. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 24
Kiduff, M., & Day, D. D.. (1994) Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047-1060.
Kimball, M. M. (1995) Feminist visions of gender similarities and differences. New York, Haworth.
Lansing, P. & Chandra, S. (2012) Quota Systems as a Means to Promote Women into Corporate
Boardrooms. Employee Relations Law Journal, 38, 3, pp. 3-14.
Leonard, B. (1996) Long hours, hard work can break the glass ceiling. HR Magazine, 41 (4), 4.
Lewis, S. (2001) Restructuring workplace cultures: The ultimate work-family challenge?. Women in Management
Review. 16 (1), 21-29.
Li, A. C., & Wearing, B. (2004) Between glass ceiling: Female non-executive directors in UK quoted companies.
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 1 (4), 355-371.
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 and Organisation. 8 (1), 19-36.
Littleton, C. A. (1997) Reconstruction sexual equality. In: Meyers, T. D. (eds.) Feminist social thought: A reader.
New York, Routledge. pp 715-734.
London, M., & Wohlers. A. J. (1991) Agreement between subordinate and self-ratings in upward feedback.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 375-390.
Lyness, S. K., & Thompson, E. D. (1997) Above the Glass Ceiling? A Comparison of Matched Samples of Female and
Male Executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (3), 339 – 375.
Mariani, D. M. (2008) A Gendered Pipeline? The Advancement of State Legislators to Congress in Five States.
Politics and Gender, 4 (2), 285-308.
Mathison, D. L. (1986) Sex differences in the perception of assertiveness among female managers. Journal of Social
Psychology, 126(5), 599.
Morrison, A. M., Randall, W. P., & Velsor, V. E. (1992) Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can women reach the top of
America’s largest corporations?. Rading, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Mueller, S. L. (2007) Gender-based income disparity among self-employed professionals. Journal of Enterprising
Communities, 1(4).
Neegard, H., Mette, H., Henning, M., John, P. U., & Madsen, T. M. (2008) Revisiting the think manager-think male
syndrome in an egalitarian culture. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Conference. Anaheim. California,
USA.
Nieva, V. F., (1985) Work and Family Linkages. Women and Work: An Annual Review. In: Garwood, L., Stromberg
H. A., & Gutek, B. (eds.)Volume 1, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications. pp. 162-190.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 25
’Neill, A. O., & O’Reilly, A. C. (2011) Reducing the backlash effect: Self-monitoring and women’s promotions. Journal
of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 84, 825-832.
Oakley, G. J., (2000) Gender-based Barriers to Senior Management Positions: Understanding the Scarcity of Female
CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics. 27, 321-334.
Parcheta, N., Kaifi, A. B., & Khanfar, M. N. (2013) Gender Inequality in the Workforce: A Human Resource
Management Quandary. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 4 (3), 240-248.
Parker, K. (1 Oct 2009). The harried life of a working mother. Pew Social Trends [Online] Available from:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1360/working-women-conflicted-but-few-favor-return-totraditional-roles [Accessed
8th August 2013]
Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., & Hearns, K. A. (2008) Motivated to penalize: Women’s strategic rejection of
successful women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 237.
Phelps, E. S. (1972) The statistical theory of racism and sexism. American Economic Review. 62 (4), 659-661.
Pomerleau, A., Bolduc, D., Malcuit, G., & Cossete, L. (1990) Pink or blue: Environmental gender stereotypes in the
first two years of life. Sex Roles, 22, 359-367.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield. A. D. (1994), Investigating the ‘glass ceiling’ phenomenon: An empirical study of actual
promotions to top management. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 68-86.
Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989) Gender and Power in organisations: A Longitudinal Perspective. Psychology
Bulletin, 105, 51-88.
Rosener, J. B. (1995) America's Competitive Secret: Utilizing Women as a Management Strategy. New York, Oxford
University Press.
Roth, M. L., (2207) Women on Wall Street: Despite Diversity Measures, Wall Street Remains Vulnerable to Sex
Discrimination Charges. Academy of Management Perspectives. 24-35.
Rudman, A. L., & Glick, P. (2001) Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women. Journal of
Social Issues, 57, 743-762.
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008) Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organisations.
Research in Organisational Behaviour, 28, 61-79.
Schoen, R., & Weinick, R. M. (1993) Partner choice in marriage and cohabitations. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 55, 408–414.
Schweitzer, L., Ng, E., Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2011) Exploring the Career Pipeline: Gender Difference in Pre-Career
Expectations. Industrial Relations, 66 (3), 422-444.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 26
Sealy, R., Vinnicombe, S. (2013) The Female FTSE Board Report 2013. Cranfield University School of Management.
Report number. 1.
Singh, V., Vinnicombe, S., & Johnson, P. (2001) Women Directors on Top UK Boards. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 9 (3), 206- 216.
Singh, V., & Vinnicombe, S. (2004) Why so few women directors in top UK boardrooms? Evidence and Theoretical
explanations. Corporate Governance. 12 (4), 479-488.
Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2008) Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and
men differ?. European Management Journal, 26 (1), 48-58.
Skoloda, K. (25 April 2005) Reaching Out to Today’s `Multiminding’ Woman. Brandweek, 46(17) pp. 28-29.
Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2013) Why are so few females promoted into CEO and Vice President positions?
Danish Empirical evidence, 1997-2007. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 66 (2), 380-408.
Soe, Elaine, and Elaine K. Yakura. (2008) What’s Wrong with the Pipeline? Assumptions about Gender and Culture
in IT Work. Women’s Studies, 37 (3), 176-201.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., & Lu. L. (2004) A cross-national
comparative study of work–family stressors, working hours, and well-being: China and Latin America versus the
Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119–142.
Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. (1974) The Queen Bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7(8), 55.
Stautberg, S. S., (1987) Status Report: The Corporation and Trends in Family Issues. Human Resources
Management, 26, 277-290.
Synder, M., & Gangstead, S. (1986) On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (1), 125-139.
Tajifel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986) The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour. In: Worchel, S. & Austin, G. W.
(eds.) Psychology of Intergroup relations. Chicago, Nelson-Hall.
The Economist. (30 Dec 2009). We did it. The Economist. [Online] Available from:
http://www.economist.com/node/15174489 [Accessed 8th August 2013]
Twenge, M. J., & Campbell, M. S. (2008) Generational Differences in Psychological Traits and their Impact on the
Workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23 (8), 862-877.
Tyson, L. (2003). The Tyson Report on the Recruitment and Development of Non-executive Directors. London
Business School, London, UK.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 27
United States Department of Labor. (2007) Employment Status of Women and Men in 2007. Women’s
Bureau[Online] Available from: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling.pdf. [Accessed
8th August 2013]
Vannoy-Hiller, D., & Philliber, W. W. (1991) Equal partners: Successful women in marriage. Newbury Park, Sage.
Wheelan, S. A., & Verdi, A. F. (1992) Differences in male and female patterns of communication in groups: A
methodological artifact? Sex Roles, 27, M5.
Williams, J., (2005) The Glass Ceiling and the Maternal Wall in Academia. New Directions for Higher Education. 130,
91-105.
Windolf, P. (1998) Elite Networks in Germany and Britain. Sociology, 32, 321-353.
Woody, B. (1991) Executive women: Models of corporate success. Wellesley, Wellesley College Center for Research
on Women.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 28
AUTHORS:
Kelly McCarthy
A recent graduate from BPP University [BSc (Hons) Business Studies with Psychology]; Kelly first
became interested in the representation of females on company boards following recent media
publications outlining the significant shortage of women in senior positions on a global scale. Whilst
Kelly is just beginning her career (Business Intelligence Officer at Corporate Executive Board) she
intends to continue research into this field with the aim of positively influencing corporate culture
allowing females (like herself) to one day be sitting equally alongside male colleagues in executive
suites globally.
Paula Burn MEd
Currently Head of Quality Assurance and Enhancement for BPP Business School, Paula moved into
education as a mathematics teacher in 2002, before becoming a higher education professional in
2009. Prior to this, she had a successful career in Investment Banking, where as a female director
for Dresdner Kleinwort Benson, she first became interested in the ’politics’ of female promotion
prospects.
A BPP BUSINESS SCHOOL WORKING PAPER – DECEMBER 2013
BPP.COM
Page: 29