The United States has experienced significant historical impact from gender roles. From the early days of the Puritans to influential figures in business, politics, and leadership who have propelled the nation to global superpower status, there has been an unfortunate persistence of unequal treatment towards women in positions of leadership.
Over the past century, women have become influential in different domains such as business, politics, and education. Mary Kay, Condalisa Rice, and Irene Rosenfied are prominent examples of these women. Additionally, American corporations like Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, Avon, and Google have seen an increase in female leaders taking on CEO and Vice President roles. This leads to questions about gender inequality in leadership positions and the factors contributing to this.
It is important to thoroughly examine the research in this paper to accurately evaluate the evidence regarding whether women experience differential treatment in leadership positions. This analysis also includes exploring efforts to address this inequality and ethically considering relevant issues. According to the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (FGCC), the concept of a glass ceiling refers to an invisible barrier that prevents minorities and women from progressing to higher levels in corporate hierarchies, regardless of their qualifications or achievements (FGCC 4).
In American history, women have frequently been considered inferior citizens and had their physical and intellectual freedoms limited compared to men. Despite the country’s self-proclaimed values of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, these ideals are constrained for women in lower social strata.
The idea of gender equality in the workplace emerged in the 1960s, a period characterized by important social movements such as the Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Liberation Movement, and Youth Revolt. The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination in employment based on gender. Its purpose was to offer women chances for advancing their careers after obtaining appropriate education or work experience. Nevertheless, many companies showed resistance to considering women for top-level managerial roles and instead imposed small obstacles.
During the 1970s, research on women in the workforce emerged as they started taking on managerial roles, occupying approximately 16 percent of management positions in the United States (Delvin 24). Although not officially termed until the 1980s, the federal government had already acknowledged two significant aspects associated with this phenomenon (Naff 507). One aspect addressed barriers that impeded women’s progress, while the other focused on how these obstacles affected their advancement.
Multiple factors, such as education, work experience, gender, and life experience, had a significant impact on the situation. Additionally, the second dimension focused on women’s personal perspectives regarding their treatment in the workplace (507). Unfortunately, many Americans mistakenly believe that gender discrimination is no longer prevalent in the twenty-first century. However, this perception is incorrect. In July 1999, Hewlett Packard—a highly regarded computer company that was ranked second globally at that time—appointed a woman as their president and chief executive officer.
Gregory (5) states that the appointment of a female CEO at Hewlett-Packard was seen as evidence of women breaking through the glass ceiling, a barrier that hindered their advancement to higher management positions. It is worth noting that Hewlett-Packard was only the third company in the Fortune 500 to have a woman in such a prominent leadership role. Although this appointment challenged the concept of the glass ceiling, it would be an exaggeration to claim that it was entirely eliminated.
According to the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, white males hold a majority of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 and Fortune 500 companies. In contrast, women and minorities are underrepresented in these roles, despite their substantial presence in the population and workforce.
The claim that the glass ceiling has been completely broken by a few women being appointed to senior positions in Fortune 500 companies is not just absurd but also shows arrogance. The limited freedom women have is closely linked to economic and political factors. It should not be surprising to most Americans that a society mostly run by men has made little attempt to support women. Moreover, the American legal system, which predominantly reflects male ideologies, fails to adequately recognize and tackle the importance and needs of women’s issues.
It is important to analyze research that supports and opposes the concept of the glass ceiling. Research supporting the glass ceiling phenomenon includes a research journal by David Cotter and his colleagues from various universities. They argue that certain criteria must be met to prove the existence of the glass ceiling, which they refer to as inequalities rather than discriminations. The first inequality required is “a gender or racial difference that cannot be accounted for by other job-related attributes of the employee” (Cotter 657).
The glass ceiling can be seen as the remaining race-related discrepancy in employment, even after considering factors such as education, experience, skills, motivation, and other job-related qualities. While this concept is acknowledged in research, it is challenging to conduct thorough studies on it due to the difficulty of identifying all relevant characteristics for a job.
The second inequality that needs to be fulfilled is referred to as “A gender or racial difference that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome” (658). The professors were discussing how, as individuals progress in their careers and reach higher positions such as CEO or CFO, gender plays a more significant role in determining their chances of earning a higher income. In other words, the impact of gender on the probability of earning over $100,000 becomes more pronounced compared to its effect on the likelihood of earning over $30,000.
This issue is widespread in different fields, including business, politics, science, and education. Another important aspect of inequality that requires attention is the unequal opportunities for gender and racial advancement to higher positions. This criterion highlights that it’s not just about the current representation of each gender or race in senior roles but also about the obstacles individuals might encounter based on their gender when seeking promotions and fair compensation tied to their performance.
If a promotion test is conducted and it is proven that the company gives more promotions and higher wages to men compared to women, then there is a glass ceiling present in that company or industry, which would amount to discrimination. The ultimate requirement for inequality is “a gender or racial inequality that grows throughout a person’s career” (661). This test examines the trend of seeing fewer women than men in career paths over time, and expects that for women, these paths should be less steep.
The text suggests that women have limited opportunities for gaining more work experiences due to their gender. If a business, school, corporation, or political environment meets any of the four criteria mentioned, it can be concluded that a glass ceiling has been established for that particular entity. The term “glass ceiling” is used to describe invisible barriers, analogous to glass, which prevent women and minorities from reaching elite positions that they can see but cannot attain, like a ceiling. These “glass ceilings” unfortunately hinder women and minorities from obtaining high-level and influential positions in society. In Katherine Naff’s article “Through the Glass Ceiling: Prospects for the Advancement of Women in the Federal Civil Service,” she presents statistical and empirical data from the Center for Personal Data File, demonstrating the existence of a glass ceiling within the workforce.
The Center for Personal Data File (CPDF) conducted research on the glass ceiling and found evidence supporting its existence. However, they also discovered that its effects may not be as widespread as previously believed. The findings from CPDF’s research highlight a leveling out of the distribution of men and women in senior executive positions between 1974 and 1990.
The number of women in higher-level positions has increased significantly by five times during this time period. However, they still only represent 11 percent of the top jobs. In 1990, there was a doubling of women in professional and administrative roles, but they continue to dominate 80 percent of clerical jobs (Naff 507). Promotion rates analysis shows that men and women were promoted at similar rates across all grades, except for two specific cases. These exceptions are limited to entry-level positions within professional companies, suggesting the presence of an undefined glass ceiling.
During the focus group discussion, it was determined that various factors influence career advancement. These factors include experience, education, relocation, time commitment to the job, and family responsibilities. Experience and education are considered as human capital among these factors. For instance, having more seniority or spending more time in a specific role enhances promotion opportunities for all employees. Moreover, higher levels of education also contribute to career development.
In the government sector specifically, women face challenges in relation to these two factors when aiming for higher positions. On average, women have served for 10.3 years while men have served for 13.6 years.
Regarding education, there is a correlation between its level of advancement and the limited variation in promotion opportunities (508). The survey also emphasized another crucial aspect for career advancement: the amount of professional connections an individual has established throughout their career. Notably, women tend to impede their progress by hesitating to relocate, unlike men. Most studies indicate that relocations occur when employees actively seek better job prospects in different locations (510).
Many argue that the glass ceiling is not solely linked to gender when it comes to advancement. Instead, it is believed that women play a part in the lower promotion rate by being unwilling to educate themselves, gain experience within a company, or pursue higher positions in different regions. Moreover, the number of hours worked per week is seen as a critical factor, with research indicating that 24 percent of women work an average of 46 or more hours.
According to the research, women with children are less inclined to pursue certain jobs due to a perceived paternalistic attitude. This highlights how workplace requirements contribute to the glass ceiling for women. Moreover, having children further amplifies the chances of women being disregarded for significant career opportunities and promotions, as it is assumed that distractions may hinder their ability to focus on job responsibilities.
The author argues that women’s progress has been slower than men’s due to factors like lower experience and education levels. The author also states that women encounter a barrier called the glass ceiling, where they are assessed based on visible and easily measurable factors such as relocation frequency or time spent working. This kind of evaluation can lead to qualified female employees being ignored for job opportunities. Studies indicate that this overlooked majority will mainly consist of women.
Subjective discrimination is the perception of experiencing discrimination, which can result in low self-esteem, withdrawal, resignation, and poor work performance (512). In a study, women were surveyed about their belief that their managers and organizations see them as incapable of performing their jobs until they prove themselves. About one third of the participants acknowledged holding this belief (513). Moreover, research suggests that women encounter a glass ceiling due to factors like weight, appearance, and race.
According to a study conducted by Katherine Haskins and Edward Ransford titled “The Relationship between Weight and Career Payoffs among Women,” research indicates that weight is connected to income and is especially related to occupational positions, particularly in male-dominated fields (Haskins 296). The study emphasizes that women who meet certain weight and attractiveness standards are more inclined to attain higher-level job roles, even if they have equivalent or better qualifications compared to overweight women.
Workplace discrimination impacts women from different ethnic backgrounds, such as Asian or African American women, who have a reduced likelihood of finding employment compared to white women. In corporate environments, the representation of African American women in board seats is only 1 percent, while white women hold nearly 12 percent of these influential executive positions. Additionally, African Americans performing identical job responsibilities and tasks earn around 21 percent less than their white colleagues.
Despite a decrease in discrimination against African Americans and other races in American society, bias remains widespread. This is particularly noticeable for women in the corporate world who encounter obstacles due to a predominantly male workforce. Regrettably, throughout history, women have faced hindrances preventing them from attaining high-level executive roles solely based on their gender. It is imperative that this unjust practice be corrected.
We will examine agencies and programs in organizations that seek to address and rectify the historical injustices faced by women in our nations. However, a significant number of Americans hold an opposing perspective, feeling dissatisfied with the persistent reminder of the glass ceiling and the strive for gender equality.
There are some who argue that the concept of a glass ceiling no longer holds true in our modern society. They claim that it was only relevant during the 1950s to 1970s when women had limited career options such as nurse, teacher, administrative assistant, etc. These individuals believe that now women have the freedom to choose any career they desire, and the idea of a glass ceiling is simply an excuse for not being qualified for certain positions that they apply for. Tracy Coenen, a CPA, MBA, CFE, and author who specializes in fraud examinations and financial investigations, agrees with this viewpoint and asserts that the glass ceiling is a mythical notion that no longer exists.
According to the article titled “The Mythical ‘Glass Ceiling’ for Women,” the author argues that the idea of a glass ceiling is no longer relevant and is merely an excuse. The author believes it is not worth spending time on this issue as it is rarely a problem anymore. However, women are actively challenging and overcoming the barriers that prevent them from reaching top-level positions in businesses.
“The Strategic Management Journal highlights that the representation of women on corporate boards is continuously increasing, with Catalyst reporting that women currently hold 10.6 percent of large firm board seats.” Bullard and Wright acknowledge the issue of the glass ceiling, but they also acknowledge the significant progress women have made in securing top administrative positions. They note that women are increasingly avoiding, rather than breaking, the glass ceiling, and that men and women are becoming more similar in terms of educational levels, graduate degrees, salary levels, and hours worked per week (Bullard 198). Women are now meeting the same criteria as men and are becoming highly competitive for the same job positions. Religion also plays a major role in shaping the social upbringing of many individuals in our country, regardless of whether they are Christian or not. The glass ceiling is not limited to the business, educational, and political sectors, but is also present in the church.”
In many churches, women face discrimination and are restricted to submissive roles alongside their husbands. They are denied opportunities to become pastors and are limited to serving in Sunday school for young people. The number of women in clergy or pastoral positions is significantly low, leading some to argue that these occupations are considered partly feminine.
According to Jimi Adams’ essay titled “Stained Glass makes the Ceiling Visible: Organizational Opposition to Women in Congregational Leadership,” he states that the majority of clergy in the United States are still men. This is supported by the U.S. Bureau of Census, which reports that 85.7 percent of clergy members are men (Adams 80). It is alarming to consider that women have a slightly higher involvement in religious congregational participation and leadership in churches, and have even surpassed men in enrolling into seminary programs.
Seminaries are excluding women and limiting their education to classes related to homemaking, while men are allowed to take a wider range of classes. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is an example of a seminary that enforces gender inequality in education. They believe that neglecting traditional gender roles will have negative consequences for families, churches, and society as a whole. Resolving the issue of gender discrimination in the religious sector may be challenging due to entrenched beliefs, but women can overcome outdated beliefs in the business world. However, steps are being taken to address this issue and laws exist to ensure equal rights for women.
The United States has started to acknowledge its chauvinistic mindset, a process that began when women fought for suffrage rights in the early 1920s. One particular milestone was the Civil Right Act of 1964, which prohibited workplace sex discrimination. Additionally, this legislation established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an organization dedicated to combatting workplace discrimination. The act also implemented affirmative action, which aims to include women, blacks, and individuals from other racial or ethnic minorities into the fabric of American society (Weiss 94).
The Glass Ceiling is gradually being dismantled by another tool known as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. This tool serves as the primary means to combat sex discrimination in education. As per the law, it states that, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (Galles). While many women were treated fairly, NCAA sports programs had to meet stricter compliance requirements by offering an equal number of women’s sports as men’s sports.
The Family Leave Act, enacted in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, addressed the issue of women with children being disadvantaged and overlooked for positions. It allowed workers, including women, to take time off to care for a child, parent, or spouse during a medical emergency. However, this Act faced criticism and opposition from businesses who claimed they could not afford the added expense and that it could unintentionally lead to discrimination against lower paid workers (Zimmerman 10).
However, this legislation permitted women to take required time off for childbirth and still be eligible for promotions upon their return to work. Numerous other bills, acts, and committees have been subsequently enacted and established to persistently combat the barrier of career advancement for women. The responsibility for ensuring equal opportunities in executive roles now rests not only with Americans and businessmen, but also with the women who are fighting for their right to work in higher positions.
It is now the responsibility of individuals to educate themselves, gain work experience, and actively pursue high-level positions. The only obstacle preventing them from moving forward is their own self-perception. The ethical analysis of the glass ceiling raises the question of whether it is acceptable to treat women differently based on their gender and prevent them from attaining high-level executive and leadership positions in various fields such as business, politics, church, and school.
The ideology of the glass ceiling must be examined to determine if it violates ethical absolutes. After careful examination and research, it can be confidently stated that the glass ceiling constitutes discrimination, as it denies economic opportunities based on a trivial difference like gender. In addition to breaching ethical standards, the glass ceiling also contravenes laws and regulations implemented to combat gender-based discrimination rather than considering one’s experience.
A teleological test suggests that organizations and institutions that establish barriers for their female employees by setting glass ceilings are ultimately inviting scrutiny from federally regulated committees, such as the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. On the other hand, a deontological test highlights that corporations have an obligation to maintain and provide equal employment opportunities to all individuals, irrespective of their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
According to a utilitarian perspective, the best course of action for companies, organizations, and institutions is to provide equal opportunities for women and minorities to advance within their ranks. This not only aligns with moral principles but also fulfills ethical obligations. It is clear that the glass ceiling, which involves both ethical transgressions and legal violations, should not be practiced by businesses, organizations, or religious institutions.
In conclusion, the glass ceiling still exists in our economic society, but it is gradually diminishing. With the increasing number of women obtaining high-level executive positions in the corporate world and climbing up the corporate ladder, more opportunities will arise. As people become more accepting of diversity, women of different races will also have better chances. Overall, women will be treated differently, leading to corporate success being achieved through various means.
Women must carefully consider the glass ceiling as they strive for career advancement, as it still exists in various domains such as jobs, schools, churches, and society. Women should persistently fight to dismantle this barrier and achieve their career aspirations. However, despite their determination, the glass ceiling remains pervasive in our society, which is completely unethical as it restricts women from obtaining the same job opportunities as men.
Denying women the right to higher-level positions based on their race, appearance, or gender restricts their access to the same opportunities as men. It would be erroneous to assert that the glass ceiling has disappeared, as many women still face distinct treatment compared to men. Although this form of discrimination may be discreet to some, it is undeniable that denying women employment solely because of their gender will not be overlooked.
