Modern Day Women... - Metropolitan State University of Denver

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders

Modern Day Women

An analysis of women in the workforce and women as leaders

Allison L. Brake

Metropolitan State University

May 2015


The Glass Ceiling

Modern day women face a struggle that has never been encountered before. This current day struggle is often described as “having it all”. Having it all is an idea that a woman can have a family and a successful career. However, this goal isn’t exactly obtainable for all women. In fact, few women are able to even obtain a high ranking leadership position. The glass ceiling, an invisible barrier that keeps women from reaching the top is to blame. There are many barriers that make up the glass ceiling. This thesis seeks to understand those barriers and how they can be broken.

The glass ceiling is used to describe the invisible barrier that ultimately keeps women from reaching the top positions. The term was coined by two Wall Street Journal reporters

Hymowitz and Schellhardt in 1986. The two reporters used the term in articles about the challenges women in the workforce faced (Boyd, 2012). Even female dominated professions see the effects of the glass ceiling. The glass ceiling allows women to see the upper positions but not obtain them simply because, they are women. While the overall involvement of women in the work force has increased significantly, the same numbers are not reflected up top. Eagly and

Carli (2007) call the glass ceiling a labyrinth, one that is filled with challenges along the way, not just close to the top.

The glass ceiling is considered to be a metaphor for discrimination. It is the discrimination that keeps women from obtaining authority. This is a global problem, where women are kept in lower-level and lower authority leadership positions than men (Powell &

Graves, 2003). There are three reasons that women are cited to be affected by the glass ceiling.

These reasons include human capital, gender differences and prejudice.


Where we were

Women in the United Stated States have come a long way in the work force. It would be wrong to say that women aren’t lucky in today’s world, because we are. The number of women in the overall workforce has drastically increased from 34 percent in 1950 to 60 percent in 2000.

Women are actually credited for the expansion of the United States work force

(Tossi,2002,pp.18-23).

While it wasn’t the start of women in the workforce, World War II made an enormous contribution for women in the workplace. Women took place of the men who were being drafted into the war. Although the men were gone their families still had to be financially taken care of, which required women to acquire jobs. Men, of course, had to serve their country-and, women had to serve their families. It is because of women that the economy didn’t nosedive and most families were not pushed out of their homes. The trend of women working didn’t stop when the men came back from the service. Most women did return to their feminine roles as housewife and homemaker some did continue to work (Tossi,2002,pp.18-23).

Even though women had successfully performed “male” jobs in absence of men during

WWII, the 1960s women still did not have the rights they have today. Traditionally women’s roles in the American households were drastically different than their roles in modern day

America. Most women were expected to settle down with a young man, start a family, and do household chores. Only 38 percent of women held an occupation in 1960 and most of 38 percent of women were confined to jobs that were considered to be “female” occupations. Such jobs included teachers, secretaries, food service workers and nurses(Tossi,2002,pp.18-23). Women who worked in more professional fields were even more limited. Six percent of the country’s

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders doctors were female and three percent of the lawyers were female followed by one percent of the country’s engineers. Because of the sexist views of the times women were not typically allowed into education programs. They were often looked over for job opportunities or promotions as they were expected to become pregnant and then wouldn’t be able to fulfill the duties needed for such employments.

Women who were almost forced into work in the absence of men surprisingly liked the independence and the sense of self-worth. Women began to feel unfulfilled with their lives as just mothers or homemakers and desired to at least have the option to work if they wanted or needed to (Tossi, 2002, pp.18-23). Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique (1963) shocked the nation by disproving the idea that women were content to serve as homemakers. “I'm desperate. I begin to feel I have no personality. I'm a server of food and a putter-on of pants and a bed maker, somebody who can be called on when you want something,” wrote Friedan.

Friedan(1963) called on all women to seek fulfillment outside of the home by seeking higher education, acquiring careers-not just “female jobs” and looking for other fulfilling opportunities that would allow the woman to feel like more than a housewife. She is credited with sparking the second wave of the American Feminist movement.

The first wave was previously in the 1920s when women fought for their right to vote alongside their male counterparts. The second movement had everything to do with the way women were expected and allowed to live their lives. They were seeking more ways to be able to feel appreciated and helpful in society. The group did not have one specific leader it was a combination of women. This movement paved the way for women to have greater access to the work force (Rampton, 2014)


About 20 years after World War II, the American economy expanded extensively. High living standards and economic growth placed a higher than ever demand on labor. This was tremendously beneficial for the feminist movement because there were too many jobs to be done and women would simply have to fill them in order for them to get done. Nearly two-thirds of all of the new jobs from the expansion went to women (Collins, 2009,pp.194-196). Although women were allowed to hold occupations, they were still confined to low paying, clerical work.

In the 1970s access to birth control allowed women to finally take control over their bodies and careers. By being able to prevent pregnancy or plan when to become pregnant, it was easier for women to build careers without having to quit because of an unplanned pregnancy and it also alleviated some of the assumptions that hiring a woman would be a risk because of such unplanned pregnancies. Since birth control pills were available many women began to seek training for more elite and long-term jobs. The amount of women who began to enroll into higher education increased significantly by 47 percent (Collins, 2009, pp.194-196).

As social norms continue to evolve, women are allowed more opportunities. The fact that more women stay single for longer is a reason thought to have allowed women to grow in the work force. Also women, who do decide to marry, do so later in life and postpone having children until later years later. The increase in childcare has allowed women to go back to work earlier than before as well as increasing jobs due to childcare necessity which in turn allowed for more women to enter the workforce.

The statistics support the idea that women are visible and make up a large portion of the work force. Each decade measured closes the ratio gap of men to women in the work place. In

1980 and 1990, the difference was 26 percentage points and 19 percentage points, respectively.


In 2000, the difference was 15 percentage points. It is projected that, during the 2000–2050 period, the men-women participation rate difference will decrease even further, to about 10 percentage points in 2050 ( ( Tossi , 2002, pp. 18-19)

Current Day Problem:

Society, including men and women, has come a long way. Considering the fact that just a little over 50 years ago women weren’t allowed to hold significant professions and if they were allowed they weren’t given the opportunities that men were given. The general public is currently moving forward to the idea of women being as predominate in the workforce as men which is a colossal step in the right direction and by no means should be understated. The career choices of women are nowhere near as limited as they were 50 years ago which is allowing women to have more options than they previously were given. However, the problem of gender bias in the work place still persists and it is continuing to be a severe problem for the future of women wanting to make their way into the professional world.

The problem is that, generally speaking, women are not making it to the top of any profession and if they are it is a small percentage when compared to the numbers of men in the same positions. Women are still are having to choose between having a successful and satisfying career and the personal fulfillment of rearing a family and are thought of a liability when compared to hiring a man because of the probabilities of a woman starting a family and needing to take time from her job(Sandberg,2010).

The following numbers paint a clear picture as to where women fall in major companies.

In our own government there are 190 heads of state, only nine of which are women. In the world

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders merely 13 percent of the people currently working in parliament are women. Also in the corporate sector simply 16 percent of women have board seats, which are defined as C level jobs or mediocre at best. Even the stereotypical idea that the non-profit organization world, such as

UNICEF, would have more women is wrong. Only 20 percent of women are at the top (Jensen,

2013, pp. 22-24)

The issue of women not making it into the superior rankings of professions is not a new problem our culture has been facing. In 2009 an organization named the White House Project, which was established in 1998, released a study “The White House Project: Benchmarking

Women’s Leadership.” The goal of the association was to increase female representation in politics, businesses and American Institutions. The study overlooked over ten different industries ranging from entertainment to politics and draws many conclusions to the idea that women are severely underrepresented in strong leadership areas (Lennon, 2012, pp.7-12).

The reason women are often cited as being underrepresented in high leadership roles is simply because our culture has the notion that women do not have the skill set and knowledge base and higher education to lead like men do. There definitely are many known differences between the ways men choose to lead and how women perform their duties but by no means has there ever been proof that women just can’t lead (Eagly, 2013).

Can women lead?

The topic of women and leadership has been researched by many scholars and organizations. Many generalizations have been made about women and the way they lead. Alice

Sargent was one of the first scholars to look into the idea of women leaders. Sargent referred to informal surveys and personal experience. Sargent’s book “The Androgynous Manager” (1981)

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders presented the idea of the time that if a woman wanted to be successful in a male-dominated corporate environment then they must fit with the androgynous style of the time. The appropriate style at the time was an androgynous blend that combined the best of both male and female traits

(Sargent, 1981). Sargent concluded that women, are less hierarchical and categorized, more cooperative and collaborative, and more oriented to enhancing others’ self-worth (Eagly , 2013, pp. 4-5)This means that women choose to ensure that everyone succeeds, not just themselves and lead with more of a maternal and protective touch.

Sargent’s book was primarily written for practicing managers. Social Scientists have maintained their belief that there are no reliable differences in the way men and women lead.

Participants of the research studies have been shown to have a difference in leadership style among the sexes if the role is an unnatural setting for the participant (Eagly & Johnson, 1990).

Since there are some women who do hold top leadership roles, it is true that women can lead and should not be looked at as though they are incapable of doing so. There are currently many effective women leaders such as Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer of

Facebook. She is current day proof that women can indeed be in leadership positions. Other strong leaders include Hilary Clinton, who will be campaigning for the 2016 election and previously campaigned against current President Barrack Obama. Also previous leaders like

Andrea Jung, the CEO of Avon and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto are all proof that women have and can be effective leaders when given the opportunities.

Leadership Styles

Leadership studies have concluded that there are differences in gender and leadership

(Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2007). The differences however, are small. Eagly and


Johannesen concluded that women led in a more democratic manner and their male counterparts have the tendency to lead in more of a commanding manner. The study found that women were more democratic in roles that were less dominated by men. Women tend to adapt culturally to women behaviors when the work place is not dominated by men.

Studies have shown that women are better received when they use democratic leadership styles. It is a common stereotype that women tend to combine male leadership traits with those of women. Studies found that when women lead in a directive manner, they were not favored.

Women were also shown to be disliked when occupying a job that is typically considered to be a masculine job. A masculine job is considered to be a military leader or factory manager

(Northouse, 2013).

It has also been found that women tend to have styles of transformational leadership, more than men do. Transformational leaders tend to inspire followers to go above and beyond.

They also invest in the skills of their followers and create good relationships with them. The study also showed that women tend to offer more reward based incentives while male leaders tend to offer more threat based incentives. The men were seen to have been less-effective with their approach (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). The results of this study have been confirmed by two other large studies (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003;

Desvaux &Devillard, 2008).

Along with the style of women and their leadership roles, their effectiveness has also been measured. It is believed that women are more effective because of their leadership style. It is believed that women are more likely than men to adopt collaborative and empowering leadership styles. Men are considered to be disadvantaged because their leadership styles include

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders more command-and-control behaviors and the assertion of power (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker

& Woehr, 2014).

Women were also found to be more effective in positions of leadership that were associated with their gender. Women were found to be more effective in middle management positions and less effective in a male dominated position like the military (Eagly, Karau &

Makhijani, 1995). Women do experience slight disadvantages in masculine leader roles but can experience advantages in female dominated roles (Northouse, 2013).

Human Capital Differences

One belief is that women have less human capital investment in education, training and work experience than their male counterpart (Eagly &Carli, 2007). The pipeline problem is popular among male CEOs. The pipeline is basically this idea that there are not enough qualified women, since women are believed to not have as much education as men. About two-thirds of male chief executive officers believe that the lag is due to the fact that women have not been in the workforce long enough for natural career progression to occur (Rhode, 2003).

Women continue to earn degrees at a higher rate than men. Women earn 57 percent of the bachelors degrees, 60 percent of the masters degrees and more than half of the doctorate degrees

(Lennon, 2012). There has not been any evidence that the reason women do not reach the top is because they haven’t been in the workplace long enough for progression to occur.

It is true however, that women do have less experience in the workforce then men typically do. Women tend to assume more domestic responsibility than a man. Nearly half of the women, who work full-time, go home to do housework. Only 20 percent of men are found to do the same (Covert, 2014.) The idea behind women doing most of the housework comes from the

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders idea that women are caregivers to their young. Women are biologically inclined to take care of children, and it is believed that domestic duties are a part of that. There is no biological evidence to there being a reason that women are inclined to take over more household duties.

The reasoning behind women being the one to take care of domestic duties is due to the way children are socialized. Typically children are taught to do chores. A study yielded some interesting results about how children are socialized with household chores. Jens Bonke (2010), conducted studies to determine whether or not girls are more active than boys when it comes to household chores. It was found that girls did two more hours of housework than the boys. The boys however, had more time to play. The study also concluded that two out of three girls had to complete household chores, while only three out of four boys had to complete chores.

The gap in equality is also apparent for even children. The study found that even though girl’s do most of the housework, they do not get equal pay for it. This study proves a societal norm that children are taught young, that housework falls on the girl’s shoulders and boys learn that girls will clean up after them.

Child rearing is also a responsibility of women and is also a personal fulfillment for women. An argument for women lacking the appropriate experience to move up in the work place is that they often opted out early in order to raise children. A Harvard study examined

Deloitte & Touche, a consulting company (Upton & Steinman,1996). Men and women were both hired for the company at the same rate 10 years before the study had taken place. Despite the fact that women and men were hired at the same rate, ten years later there were fewer female partner candidates than men. 10 percent of the partner candidates at the time were female. Cook, the company’s CEO had believed that most of the women had opted out of moving up to pursue

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders raising children. However, the actual numbers were different than what was perceived. It was determined that 70 percent of the women who left the firm, were employed full-time a year later.

Those women simply left to pursue opportunities. Fewer than 10 percent of the women who left were found to have left to raise young children (Kanter & Roessner, 1999).

Cook is not alone is his initial beliefs that women opted out to care for children. This thought is a common trend among our past and present day society. Even some of the best and brightest have fallen into this line of thinking. Even students who graduated from Harvard business school, in a study, believed that women chose to care for children over their careers.

They believed that this perceived choice was the sole reason that women do not make it to the upper ranks of businesses. 77 percent of the graduates had believed that women opting out, was the reason that they had failed to achieve high positions in their careers. This generalization is not just a thought of men, women believe the same thing. It was found that 73 percent of men and 83 percent of women believed that women prioritize their family life over their career life

(Kanter & Roessner, 1999).

While there is no solid evidence that supports that women are more likely to quit then men, there is solid evidence that women experience greater losses than men do after quitting

(Keith & McWilliams, 1999). The idea that raising children has a negative impact on a women’s wages overall is known as the wage penalty (Budig & Hodges, 2010). Women are constantly forced to juggle their home responsibilities with their children and work responsibilities. Women either have to try and do it all or make tough choices. Some women have to give up work all together or choose a part time track. Women who are lucky enough to have access to paid leave from work to handle parenting responsibilities have a bit more flexibility than those who do not have the option to do so. However, even those women are affected once they return back to

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders work. Women who take a leave of absence for a pregnancy are often faced with a difficult return.

They are often reentered into the work place at a lower position then they left. The conclusion is drawn that women often select themselves for the “mommy-track”. By selecting themselves for this track they choose positions and responsibilities that do not have the potential to turn into leadership positions (Eagly & Carli, 2012). There has been no research to confirm this; it is just merely popular belief.

Women are presented with the struggle of lacking opportunities for development. Since the majority of leadership is made up of men, it is potential that there is prejudice that doesn’t allow women the opportunities they need to grow within the work place. Since men make up the majority of management, women often are left out of key networks. Research has shown that men have more of a chance to be sent to outside training activates and receive training in general.

They also are more likely to obtain financial support for specialized trainings (Powell & Grave,

2003). Women and men may be promoted to similar levels but men will have more opportunities within those levels. Men are often given international responsibilities or negotiation roles, which are vital to promotions. Meanwhile, women are often scattered in less visible positions that do not lead to top ranking positions. Something that is important for one to become a CEO is international experience. However, women are not internationally represented so their chances are even more limited. Women, who are lucky enough to achieve a top position, are often given positions that have more risk and higher chances of criticism (Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, &

Bongiorno, 2011).

In summary, there is no evidence that women do not have the proper amount of education to be deserving of higher roles. The numbers are actually showing the opposite. There is also little support for the idea that women quit their jobs more often than men. However, there is

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders support for the idea that women take on more domestic duties than men and because of that they experience more career interruptions. It has been proven that women do not receive as many developmental opportunities or formal training.

Gender Differences

Another argument that is used to explain why women are not in the top roles is simply because males and females are different. The idea is that there is a gender difference between men and women’s commitment to paid employment. This is a direct factor of the way society prescribes the difference in sexes. The idea that men are to nature and women are to nurture is at play. By overstating biological sex differences, sex differentiation lends legitimacy to women's and men's concentration in different activities (Padavic and Reskin, 2002). Men are known to be responsible for work outside the home while women are responsible for domestic work. This is where the idea that women are less dedicated to their careers comes from. Research has proved however that both men and women actually consider their paid employment roles as secondary compared to their roles as parents (Biebly & Biebly, 1988).

A significant difference between men and women is the fact that men are more likely to promote themselves for a position of power. Women however, often take on informal leadership roles. Women are more likely than men to serve in a facilitator or organizer position. Reviews of the research have determined that it is unfavorable for women to self-promote and that there is often social backlash for such promotion (Rudman & Glick, 2011). Women who self-promote are seen as less hirable and less socially attractive (Rudman, 1998).

Men are advantage when it comes to leadership opportunities simply because they are more likely to ask for what they want. Top leadership positions are achieved by having the

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders access to the right resources, experience and people. A study was completed that analyzed the difference between salary negotiations in men and women. In industries in which salaries were ambiguous, women accepted salary offers that were ten percent lower than the men. It was determined that women did not negotiate their starting salaries and men did (Bowles, Babcock &

McGinn, 2005).

Gender stereotypes have a big impact on negations and the pay gap. “Men traditionally managed the public realm and women the private in our culture, men have tended to hold higher social and economic status within the broader society than women” (Ridgeway and Bourg

2004).Since men are associated as being paid higher than women, this is often what happens. It is because of their social status that men are expected to be more competent than women and in charge of women. These prescribed stereotypes create the male and female identities. Men should be more assertive and self-interested. They should claim value for themselves. Women however are prescribed to be more agreeable (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky 2002).

Many sources show that women lack the power to negotiate because they systematically underestimate themselves and their abilities. According to Professor Adrian Furnham (2008) of

University College of London, men tend to overestimate their abilities and intelligence while women do the opposite. However, men and women tend to have similar IQs. Furnham calls it male hubris and female humility. Men tend to be more confident than women and this plays to their advantage in the work place and in asking for promotions. The Women and Politics

Institute found that women are much less likely than men to think that they are qualified to run for office, even though they share similar levels of political exposure and experience. It was also found that women were more likely to not consider themselves qualified to run as a candidate.


However, men are twice as likely to think that they are qualified to run. Women underestimating themselves and men over estimating themselves are a reason to blame for wage gaps and leadership inequalities (Raymond, 2008).

It is claimed that women just don’t have the right traits to lead like men do. These traits include intelligence, social skills and the ability to persuade. Women have been proven to be more transformational and democratic led (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Although there are notable differences in leadership styles between men and women such as integrity, assertiveness and risk taking, these differences are equally as beneficially to women as they are to men.

In summary, there is no valid evidence that suggests women are less committed to their jobs or even less effective as leaders. There is however, evidence that suggests women are less likely to promote themselves and often do the opposite and under estimate themselves. Gender differences are not a valid argument as to why women shouldn’t be leaders.

Prejudice:

Prejudice is another explanation for the leadership gap. Prejudice against women comes from the roots of societal thinking. It is the idea that women take care and men take charge.

These stereotypes are hard to get away from. These stereotypes describe how men and women ought to be. Even something as simple as seeing a gender on a job application, can impact expectations of an applicant. Goldin and Rouse (2000) used a case study involving symphony orchestras to illustrate this point. The symphony orchestras were made up of mostly males in the

1970s and 80s. However, when every applicant was asked to audition behind a curtain, more

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders females were able to join the orchestra. Just knowing the sex of the person auditioning had a huge impact on the expectations of the player.

Women leaders face prejudice because of the qualities associated with men and women.

In order to lead properly a female must be tough but not too masculine. If a women is assertive and dominate she is automatically dubbed as manly or a lesbian. These qualities hurt the credentials of women leaders because they can be perceived as not female enough.

Gender prejudices make it difficult for women to obtain top positions. Even established leaders struggle with these discriminations. Hillary Clinton was found to be a victim of such biases in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Johns Hopkins University found that the gender bias of the media caused Clinton to lose the Democratic nomination for president. All of the women who have had the courage to run for president faced the same biases as Clinton. It was found that male candidates had twice as many stories in the media and those stories were longer than the female candidates. This has been a continuing trend. “The research also found that journalists have favored male politicians over their female counterparts for 136 years” (Harper,

2008). Clinton’s 2008 campaign confirmed the fact that sexism does still exist and has a huge impact on society.

Kanter (1977) proposed the idea that one tends to search for an image of them when making a decision of choosing a leader. Biases against women hurt the chances women have to be chosen for a leadership position or to be provided with mentorship opportunities. Since men dominate all of the high leadership positions, it is safe to say the boys club is alive and well. This

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders is a problem because it means that when these leaders do step down or mentor someone, they are more likely to choose someone that reminds them of themselves. It is highly unlikely that a man who is a leader will find an image of themselves in a woman.

In attempt to prove that the same prejudice can take place in current day, average setting, a mock resume was sent out to a property management company. Apartment Management consultants had 46 Colorado properties at the time of study. 138 leasing consultant positions were included in the company’s budget, to be spread across all of the Colorado properties. A leasing consultant is similar to a secretary. However, a leasing consultant must be warm and welcoming in order to generate sales. Being warm and welcoming is often a trait of a woman. 92 of the 138 leasing consultants at the time of the study were female. 66.6 percent of the leasing consultants were female. There are many factors as to why the company had significantly more females than males.

The company is always looking to hire and train leasing consultants to quickly fill and cover positions. In order to gage the level of prejudice associated with males and females, two resumes were created. Both of the resumes consisted of a fair level of qualities. One candidate was a female, Josey, and one was a male, Aaron. The candidates had associate degrees, were bilingual and had call center service experience. In order to avoid any testing errors both resumes were sent within a couple of days from each other and from different emails. The generic emails were sent to all six male regional and hiring managers for the company.


The study found that the female candidate was invited for an interview by three of the regional managers. The male candidate was invited by one. The resumes had the same credentials just a different sex. Josey was contacted for an interview within two days of her resume being submitted. Aaron wasn’t contacted for a week and one day (Brake, 2015)

When the study was concluded the regional managers who had requested interviews were questioned as to why. The three managers who asked Josey to interview felt that her customer service experience would be a good fit for a leasing job. The only regional who contacted Aaron did so because he had not heard back from Josey. While there is no reason to believe foul-play, there is reason to believe prejudice in this situation. It was clear that Josey would be a better fit for a leasing job that requires one to be warm and welcoming than Aaron would be. While this was never directly stated, the numbers speak loud and clear (Brake, 2015)

The problem with gender stereotypes is that they affect everyone. These biases affect perceptions and the women themselves. It is because of the biases held by our former and current day society that women react in two ways. One way that women combat these biases is by simply conforming to them. This is dangerous for the future of women because by assimilating to the stereotypes, the progress made is set back. Women can also take the opposite approach and disprove the stereotypes. It is important for women to rise above and prove the gender prejudice wrong; however vengefulness doesn’t always prove the point of leadership. The two should not be confused.

Motives for removing the barrier:


There are many worth-while reasons to remove the barriers that keep women out of the upper echelons of companies and leadership roles. By allowing women the opportunity to advance professionally, we allow the pool of talented candidates to grow. This will allow for greater success for organizations.

Women have already proven that they can indeed lead and be successful as leaders in top companies. Even minority women who have double the struggle have managed to make it to the top and succeed. Ursula Burns became the first women CEO of Xerox in 2009. Xerox is a $14 billion dollar company. Marillyn A. Hewson, is the CEO of the worlds’ largest defense company,

Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is worth more than 44 billion dollars. Indra Nooyi, is the

CEO of Pepsico, a company responsible for brands like Tropicana, Frito-Lay and Quaker. The company is worth $126 billion. Women are already in these leadership opportunities and succeeding with billion dollar companies, so it doesn’t make sense why other women are kept from the same opportunities (Catalyst, 2015).

Good leaders yield a good profit for companies. Studies have proven that women yield great profits. Studies examining Fortune 500 and 1000 corporations and broader samples of U. S. and European companies, found that the higher the percentage of women in such positions, the better the financial outcomes (Carter, Simkins, & Simpson, 2003). There have been many studies done to prove that women run companies better. However, there have been no firm results. There are many factors that go into determining a corporate’s performance. Some of the factors include the pool of women, and how many men are in management roles (Eagly 2013).


Although it will take more studies to really understand if there is a better outcome with women as leaders, there have been studies that show that diversity is successful. Functional diversity is bringing people with different skills and knowledge together. Functional diversity has been found to overall be affective for organizations (Catalyst, 2015).

Allowing women to lead will also contribute more to ethical and innovative organizations. The attitudes of women assist in these changes to the organization. Research has found that women tend to support things that have human interest or value. Women are more considered with other’s general welfare than men are. “In U.S. attitudinal surveys, women endorse socially compassionate social policies and moral practices that uphold marriage, the family, and organized religion” (Eagly, Diekman, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Koenig, 2004).

Norwegian companies who were required to have 40 percent of women on their boards saw an impact in smaller work force reductions. It is believed that this was due to the fact that women are more concerned with their employee’s welfare (Catalyst, 2015). Matsa and Miller found (2012) that women-owned private firms in the United States were less likely than firms owned by men to lay off workers during a period of financial stresses. Women’s concerns for workers and their families are the reason attributed to the results that were found.

It has been shown that women are more likely to support ethical business practices. This has been shown to lead to greater corporate responsibility and positive outcomes. Women are less likely to pay bribes compared to men. Even politics have benefited as women were less likely to be involved with political corruption (Dollar, Fisman, & Gatti, 2001).


It is important for the future successes of companies to allow women the opportunities to lead. It is within their best interest to do so. Women who have broken through the glass ceiling have proven to be effective leaders. Not to mention the probability that women who run companies will lead with more corporate responsibility, which is a must for any company or political organization.

Solutions:

In order to change the barriers that hold women back from reaching top leadership positions, the mindset of society has to be changed. Companies need to take the initiative to implement ways that women can be included and grow as leaders. Jane Nelson, a director of

Harvard Kennedy’s social responsibility initiative believes that “companies need to have a strategic framework for gender diversity, with goals, targets, sponsors, and support networks, and with clear leadership from the top” (Giang, 2014).

Nelson has also come up with a three step outline that companies across the globe should put into place in order to advance women in leadership positions. By implementing these steps, companies can foster the growth of women.

Nelson cites the first step as “engage more strategically with women in your business or associated with your supply chain”. This basically means that a company should find ways to recruit and retain women. There are many ways that companies can work with suppliers and

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders partners to engage women and work them into their company structures. Several organizations have set goals to engage women (Giang, 2014).

In 2010 the Coca-Cola Company set a goal to empower 500 million women across their global market by 2020. The campaign is known as 5by20. By 2013, the company had already reached 550,000 women. These women range from farmers to retailers. The common goal is to give women opportunities to lead world-wide which leads to stronger communities and families

(Nelson, 2014).

Companies are even making commitments to improve opportunities for women where women are still mostly oppressed. GE partnered with Saudi Aramco and Tata Consultancy

Services to launch the first all-female business process services center in the country, starting with 400 graduates and aiming to engage about 3,000. Rio Tanto has created goals to make 20 percent of its upper management female by 2015. These companies are leading in the right direction by engaging women, but every company needs to follow this trend (Nelson, 2014).

The second step of Nelson’s outline is to enable. “Enable women by providing funds and resources where it matters (Nelson, 2014). A problem seen is that women do not have the same access to trainings as men do. By enabling women to grow as leaders, the unfair access will become a thing of the past. Women should be enabled to build human capital and leadership qualities.

Intel used its company power to close the internet gap among females in Africa. They set a goal to enable 5 million African-American women by 2016. The She Will Connect project

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders provides technology training for women who would not otherwise see it. In Africa 43 percent fewer women have access to the internet than men (Nelson, 2014).

Goldman Sachs, developed a 10,000 women initiative. The goal was to reach aspiring entrepreneurs in developing countries. The women were given access to business training and business networks to foster their success. 10,000 women from 43 different countries graduated from the program and on average increased their revenues five times. By investing money into needed education programs, women were allowed the opportunity to gain capital.

Finally, Nelson believes that companies need to advocate. Companies, especially big companies are vital to closing the gender because of the power they have. Companies who want to remain competitive will need to be the ones who lead to close the gender leadership gap. Some companies use marketing as a platform to women’s issues and others commission research to help understand women’s empowerment (Nelson, 2014).

Nelson’s three step plan should be implemented by all companies, globally. While there are many changes that need to be made to the corporate world, there is hope as some companies have already begun to pave the way. It is a corporate company’s social responsibility to implement ways that women can be empowered.

While companies are implementing different polices to focus on mentoring women, these are simply not enough. Sheryl Sandberg, a woman who has navigated through the barriers that

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders come to being a top woman leader believes that woman should own their own success. Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook is a role model for aspiring women leaders everywhere.

Sandberg acknowledges that there are very few women in the upper ranks of leadership and that the numbers are not growing. Sandberg believes that it is important for companies to impact women through programs but that also women need to take control. She cites the low leadership numbers as women dropping out, as in dropping out of the work force. In order to change the numbers, women have to be kept in the workforce. Sandberg (2010) offers three messages to those who want to stay in the work place.

The first piece of advice Sandberg offers aspiring women leaders is to sit at the table.

Studies have shown that women underestimate their abilities. Men take credit for their success while women credit their successes to other factors or just simply luck. It has also been found that women do not negotiate for themselves. Sandberg believes that women will not be successful if they don’t even believe they deserve their success.

Sandberg also cites an experiment completed by a professor at Columbia University.

There was a Harvard case study on Heidi Roizen. Roizen, is a company operator in the Silicon

Valley who used her contacts to become successful (McGinn & Tempest, 2010) The professor changed the name from Heidi to Howard and then surveyed the students. He found that the students did believe that both were competent. However, it was determined that Heidi was probably out for herself. Success and likeability are positively correlated for men but the opposite for women. This study proves the point that women have to make sacrifices to be leaders just because they are female. Women need to sit at the table because women need to be

Modern Day Women-‐Why we have too few women leaders seen. In order for the promotions and opportunities to happen, women have to sit at the table and believe that they deserve to be there.

One of the biggest barriers to women moving up the chain is the balance of work and home responsibilities. Sandberg argues that women should make their partner, a real partner.

Typically if one of the parents needs to stay and take care of children or domestic responsibilities, the woman is the one who quits work or pursues something part time. Domestic duties should be split between both partners, so both have the opportunity for success and involvement with children. It is important for both men and women to be personally fulfilled and mentally fulfilled.

Sandberg’s third piece of advice for women to stay in the work force is “don’t leave before you leave”. Sandberg believes that from the moment women think of raising a family she mentally checks out of her career. Often women think about personal fulfillment early. It is because of this that they stop volunteering for projects or stepping up to challenges. As Sandberg calls it, they quietly lean back. Women who lean back are often passed up for promotions. A job should be challenging yet rewarding. The problem is that women are leaning back because they are thinking about decisions like childbirth too far in advance. Therefore, they are passed up for opportunities. This often leads them to a job that is unfulfilling which offers even more encouragement for them to stay home with their children. Sandberg believes that up until the day a woman leaves for maternity leave, she needs to keep her foot on the gas pedal and continue to raise her hand at every opportunity.


Historically women have fought for the rights that so many woman today take for granted. The women leaders of the past have paved the way for modern day women to achieve success. A modern day woman is a woman who can have it all, personal fulfillment and a career.

It is up to current day women to push past barriers and fight for their place among the upper ranks of corporations and jobs. Not all hope is lost as some women have already made their way up to the top leadership roles, but we are not there yet.

References:


Antonakis, J., Avolio, B., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295. Retrieved April 13, 2015, from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Antonakis/publication/223747166_Context_and_leade rship_an_examination_of_the_nine-factor_fullrange_leadership_theory_using_the_Multifactor_Leadership_Questionnaire/links/0deec5239856

9d6f6b000000.pdf

Bielby, D., & Bielby, W. (1988). She Works Hard for the Money: Household

Responsibilities and the Allocation of Work Effort. American Journal Of Sociology, 93(5), 1031. doi:10.1086/228863

Bonke, J. (2010). Children's Housework-Are girl's more active than boys?. International

Journal Of Time Use Research, 7(1), 1-17.

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers:Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 951–965.

Boyd, K. (2012). Glass Ceiling. In Encyclopedia of Race, Ethinicity, and Society.

Retrieved from https://edge.sagepub.com/system/files/15_GlassCeiling.pdf


Budig, Michelle J. and Melissa J. Hodges. 2010. "Differences in disadvantage: variation in the motherhood penalty across white women's earnings distribution." American Sociological

Review 75(5):705-728.

Catalyst. Women CEOs of the S&P 500. New York: Catalyst, April 3, 2015

Collins, G. (2009). Civil Rights. In When everything changed: The amazing journey of

American women from 1960 to the present (pp. 106-149). New York: Little, Brown and

Company.

Covert, B. (2014). Why It Matters That Women Do Most of the Housework. The Nation, pp. 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/blog/179592/why-it-matters-women-do-mosthousework

Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Leadership and gender. In J. Antonakis & D. Day

(Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 417-476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carter, D.A.; B.J. Simkins. and W.G. Simpson (2003), “Corporate Governance, Board

Diversity and Firm Value”, The Financial Review, 38:33-53


Desvaux,G., & Devillard, S. (2008). Women matter 2. Paris, France: McKinsey &

Company. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/paris/home/womenmatter/pdfs/women_matter_oct2008_eng lish.pdf

Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti. R. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government.

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26, 423–429. doi:10.1016/S0167-

2681(01)00169-X

Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Koenig, A. M. (2004).

Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 796–816. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.796

Eagly, A., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & Van Engen, M. (2003). Transformational,

Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women and

Men. Phycological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591. Retrieved March 6, 2015, from Psycnet.

Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis.

Phycological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256.


Eagly, A., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2007). Handbook on Women in Business and

Management (pp. 279-303). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., and Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125-145.

Eagly, A. (2013). Women as leaders. Leadership Style Versus Leaders Values and

Attitudes, 4-11. Retrieved March 5, 2015, from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/conferences/2013w50-research-symposium/Documents/eagly.pdf

Giang, V. (2014). 3 CONCRETE STEPS COMPANIES SHOULD TAKE TO FOSTER

GENDER BALANCE IN LEADERSHIP. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/3034070/strong-female-lead/3-concrete-steps-companies-shouldtake-to-foster-gender-balance-in-leader

Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind”

Auditions on Female Musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4), 715-741. doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.715

Harper, J. (2008). 'Gender bias' did in Clinton?. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/06/gender-bias-did-in-clinton/


Harvard Business Review,. (1996). Deloitte & Touche Consultanting Group. Watertown

MA: Harvard Business Review.

Jensen, L. (Ed.). (2013). The Millennium Goals Report 2013. United Nations, Goal 3:

Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women, 18-23. Retrieved April 2, 2015, from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf

Kanter, Rosabeth M., and Jane Roessner. "Deloitte & Touche (A): A Hole in the

Pipeline." Harvard Business School Case 300-012, September 1999. (Revised May 2003.)

Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Keith, Kristen and Abagail McWilliams. 1999. "The returns to mobility and job search by gender." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 52(3):460-477.

Kray, L., Galinsky, A., & Thompson, L. (2002). Reversing the Gender Gap in

Negotiations: An Exploration of Stereotype Regeneration. Organizational Behavior And Human

Decision Processes, 87(2), 386-410. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2979

Lennon, T. (2012). Benchmarking Women's Leadership. University of Denver-

Colorado's Women's College, 7-12. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from http://www.womenscollege.du.edu/media/documents/BenchmarkingWomensLeadershipintheUS.

pdf


Matsa, D. A., & Miller, A. R. (2012). Workforce reductions at women-owned businesses in the United States. Working paper, Northwestern University. Available at SSRN 1973762

(2012).

McGinn, Kathleen L., and Nicole Tempest. "Heidi Roizen." Harvard Business School

Case 800-228, January 2000. (Revised April 2010.)

Nelson, J. (2014). GIVING WOMEN A SEAT AT THE ECONOMIC TABLE. Ideas

Lab. Retrieved from http://www.ideaslaboratory.com/post/93343738483/giving-women-a-seatat-the-economic-table

Northouse, P. (2004). Women and Leadership. In Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Padavic, I., & Reskin, B. (2002). Women and men at work. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge

Press.

Paustian-Underdahl, S., Walker, L., & Woehr, D. (2014). Gender and Perceptions of

Leadership Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis of Contextual Moderators. Psychological Bulletin,

99(6), 1129-1145. Retrieved April 2, 2015, from APA PsycNET.


Powell, G. N., & Graves, L. M. (2003). Women and Men in Management (3rd edition).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raymond, J. (2008). Men, Women and IQ. Newsweek, p. 1.

Ridgeway, C. L., & Bourg, C. (2004). Gender as status: An expectation states theory approach. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp.

217-241). New York: Guliford Press.

Rhode, D. (2003). The difference "difference" makes. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Law and

Politics.

Ryan, M., Haslam, S., Hersby, M., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis–think female:

The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype. Journal Of

Applied Psychology, 96(3), 470-484. doi:10.1037/a0022133

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 629–645.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers.


Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.

Sandberg, S. (2010). Why we have too few women leaders. Presentation,

TEDWOMEN2010.

Sargent, A. (1981). The androgynous manager. New York, N.Y.: AMACOM.

Tossi, M. (2002). A century of change: The U.S. labor force, 1950–2050. Monthly Labor

Review, 18-23. Retrieved February 23, 2015, from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

Modern Day Women... - Metropolitan State University of Denver

Related documents

Products

Support

Modern Day Women... - Metropolitan State University of Denver

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib