Tai and Sims, If Employees Do Not See the Glass Ceiling, Does It Exist

7/31/2019 Tai and Sims, If Employees Do Not See the Glass Ceiling, Does It Exist

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tai-and-sims-if-employees-do-not-see-the-glass-ceiling-does-it-exist 1/13

If Employees Do Not See The Glass Ceiling, Does It Still Exist?

An-Ju (Rizona) Tai

Doctoral Candidate, Nova Southeastern University

No. 10 Alley 356, Sec. 2 Chang Shung Road

Changhwa City, Taiwan [email protected]

and

Randi L. Sims, Ph.D.

Professor [email protected]

Nova Southeastern University

3301 College Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314954-262-8134

954-262-3936 fax

Paper submitted to the HR & Careers Divisionof the Midwest Academy of Management




Abstract

In recent years, there has been increasing concern that gender bias has prevented

women from advancing as rapidly and as frequently as men into management positions.Although the number of women managers has increased, they may experience difficulty

moving into upper management positions. The purpose of our research was to study

employee gender and the positions held in high technology companies. A number of variables were considered which were tested to uncover the perception of a glass ceiling

which may affect female employees' opportunities for advancement. Using a sample of 318

full-time employees from seven different high-technology companies, the results indicated

that position held was significantly different for male and female employees. The resultsalso indicated that neither male nor female employees appeared to notice the apparent glass

ceiling within their companies. Implications are discussed and recommendations provided.

Key Words: Gender Bias in Position, Glass Ceiling, High Technology Company

2




In recent years, there has been increasing concern that gender bias has preventedwomen from advancing as rapidly and as frequently as men into management positions.

Although the number of women managers has increased, they may experience difficulty

moving into upper management positions (Hymnowitz & Schellhart, 1986). Since its beginnings in the early 1970s with the emergence of “women in management” (Henning &

Jardim, 1977, p. 2), the study of women in management has become a well-recognized and

important field. Institutional discourse of gender equality is commonly accepted, but menstill continue to achieve positions with more authority and higher rewards (Jacobs, 1995).

Even though they have higher academic qualifications and professional experience, women

managers tend to earn less than their male colleagues. It is a true particularly at higher

levels (Jacobs, 1995; Wajcman, 1999).

Women are underrepresented in management positions in comparison to men all over

the world (Schein, 2001) and the rate of upward movement is low for women within the

managerial ranks (Powell, 1999). Estimates report that only around 10% of management positions are held by women (Deal & Stevenson, 1998), and 21.3% of technicians are

women (Wu, 2000). An increased interest in promotion decision justice is illustrated byfrequent discussion of the glass ceiling, the invisible barrier that prevents women and

minorities from advancing into higher levels in organizations (Morrison, White, & Van

Velsor, 1987). The evidence of a glass ceiling for women is abundant (Davidson & Cooper,1992).

While statistics show that the number of women holding administrative and

managerial positions has risen dramatically (U.S. Department of Labor, 1996), informationalso suggests the overall market is still showing signs of a glass ceiling for women (U.S.

Department of Labor, 1995). Extensive investigation of sex segregation in the workplace

indicated that women have not found job opportunities equivalent to those of their malecounterparts (Jacobs, 1995). Women’s distribution across hierarchical levels within

organizations still tends to be unjust relative to men (Morrison, White, & Van Velsor,

1987). In addition, Lyness and Thompson (1997) reported that although a great deal has been published about the shortage of women in top management positions, women still

face invisible barriers in being accepted and recognized for their work as managers.

Empirical studies by Brett and Stroh (1999) related the glass ceiling concept to theslow progression of women’s versus men’s careers. Their research gathered one thousand

surveys of women and men in management who were relocated by twenty Fortune 500

firms. The result found that women are far behind men in terms of salary, mobility, andadvancement opportunities. The results were virtually the same in the earlier research

reported by Stroh, Brett and Reilly (1992). Even for women doing all tasks, their career

advancement is still behind men in management. Researchers concluded that women coulddo little in overcoming both discrimination and glass ceiling barriers.

3



Research findings confirm that many of the women who are rejected for upper

management positions are as intelligent or competent as men entering the workforce

(White, 1992). In addition, even though women are now graduating in higher numbers thanmen from educational institutions (Fagenson & Jackson, 1994), “the poor representation of

women at senior management level continues” (Hind & Baruch, 1997, p. 276). Research

appears to suggest that glass ceilings, rather than a lack of qualifications, limit women'sadvancement into the upper levels of management (Lyness & Thompson, 2000).

As members of a relatively new industry, high-technology companies do not have thesame long history of male-dominance in management positions. High-technology

companies came into existence after the women’s labor movement, equal opportunity laws,

and even the emergence of women in management as a field of research. If women were to

break through the glass ceiling in any industry, it might well be that industry which doesnot have a long tradition of upper management positions filled exclusively by men. Thus,

this paper considers this industry separately from more traditional manufacturing or

service-related industries with long histories of male-only management ranks. Thus, the

following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Employee gender does not impact the position held in high-technologycompanies.

This study also considers employee perceptions about equitable treatment andopportunities within their high-technology organizations in terms of promotion. Equity

theory, as conceptualized by John S. Adams (1965), attempts to predict human behavior on

the basis of perceived equitable treatment. This is determined when one person compares

him/herself to another person (Adams, 1965). These comparisons may include how theemployee is treated in terms of promotion and pay, but also in how the employee perceived

he/she is treated in terms of being given opportunities to learn about advancement

opportunities and to prepare for them. This preparation for advancement may take manyforms, such as: working with mentors, registering for company sponsored training and

workshops, and participation in high visibility committee work. Equity theory offers an

especially appreciative approach to understanding and predicting employees’ attitudes insuch a setting. Equity is judged on the basis of “whether one individual is treated fairly in

comparison with other people” (Vecchio, 1982, p. 103). The women’s movement and

organized of labor are both explications of how women in the United States go about

gaining rights and representation (Adams, 1965). Also, perception is a key in determiningthe context of equity theory. It is with regard to these perceptions that women often

“experience discrimination” (Lipsey, et al., 1990, p. 394). These perceptions may include

feelings that the work environment is organized in such a way that barriers are in place that prevent advancement. Such barriers may include exclusions from key meetings or social

activities with higher management (i.e. golf, club memberships) and the good old boys’

network. Women may believe that they have to work harder than their male counterpartsand may be required to do more than men, even while working to maintain family

obligations. Although formally represented in governments, women are not represented at

4



the levels where real political and economic decisions are being made (Corrin, 1992). Yet,

there appears to be relatively little recent complaining by women in these situations. It may

be that women are unaware of these inequities within their organizations. Since blatantdiscrimination is easily targeted for redress, perhaps appearances are such that employees

are under the impression that gender is not a deciding factor when it comes time for

promotion. Thus the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2: Feelings of equitable treatment differ by employee gender in high technology

companies.

H3: Perceived barriers to advancement differ by employee gender in high technologycompanies.

H4: Perceived facilitators to advancement differ by employee gender in hightechnology companies.

Method

Sample

A total of 700 surveys were distributed to 100 employees in each of seven hightechnology companies. Completed surveys were returned by 318 full-time employees, a

response rate of 45%. Of the completed surveys, 177 (56%) were returned by male

employees and 141 (44%) were returned by female employees. The average age did notdiffer by gender (mean = 36 years, s.d. 8.6).

Procedures

The researcher personally distributed 200 surveys directly to the employees, waitedfor their return and collected them. Of the 500 mailed surveys, 118 were completed and

returned over a three-week period.

Measures

Sorensen’s Job Equity Scale. Sorensen (1985) conducted a study which included a

component of the equity theory. In that study, six items assessed job distributive justice.

The purpose of these questions was to measure the job equity construct. For example, oneitem asked: “To what extent are you fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities that

you have?” Five response categories were used for each item ranging from 5 (rewards are

very fairly distributed) to 1 (rewards are not distributed at all fairly). The Cronbach’s alphareported for our sample was 0.82. This result is somewhat lower than previous research,

which reported an alpha of 0.95, and 0.94 (Sorensen, 1985; Brooke & Price, 1989).

Although somewhat lower, the alpha obtained is still within the acceptable range (Sims,

2000).

5



Career Advancement. Two measures assess career advancement, perceived barriersand perceived facilitators to career advancement (Lyness & Thompson, 2000). The scales

examine the extent to which women and men executives follow the same path up the

corporate ladder. The quality of agreement for the Perceived Barriers to AdvancementScale of twenty-six items was measured on five point response formats ranging from 1 (no

problem at all) to 5 (a very serious problem). A sample item is “Not knowing what the

criteria are for advancement.” The Cronbach’s alpha reported for our sample ranged from

0.77 for difficulty in getting geographic mobility opportunities to 0.87 for difficulty gettingdevelopmental assignments. This result is somewhat higher than previous research, which

reported an alpha of 0.69 and 0.84 (Lyness & Thompson, 2000; Hair, et al, 1998).

The quality of agreement for the Perceived Facilitators to Advancement Scale of

twenty-one items was similarly measured by response formats ranging from 1 (not a

facilitator) to 5 (a very important facilitator). One sample item is “Developing relationshipswith senior managers.” The Cronbach’s alpha reported for our sample ranged from 0.84

for developing relationships to 0.89 for development assignments. This result is consistent

with previous research, which reported an alpha of 0.70 and 0.90 (Lyness & Thompson,2000; Hair, et al, 1998).

Results

Promotion opportunities are often tied to experience and education. As such, testing

was conducted to ensure that the sample of male and female employees gathered did not

differ significantly based on these characteristics. The results indicate that average tenurefor male employees in the sample (mean = 5.86; s.d. = 5.33) did not differ significantly

from average tenure for female employees in the sample (mean = 5.55; s.d. 4.29; t = 0.57; p

= 0.57). In addition, the results indicate that there were no significant differences (χ² =2.106; df = 4; p = 0.716) in reported education for male and female employees in the

sample, see Table 1).

Table 1Education Level and Gender

Chi-square and Cross Tabulation

Educational Level Male Female Totals

High School or Less 7 10 17

Some College 16 12 28

Bachelor's Degree 44 39 83Master's Degree 83 61 144

Doctorate Degree 27 19 46

Totals 177 141 318

χ² = 2.106; df = 4; p = 0.716

Hypothesis 1 proposed that there would be a relationship between gender and position

6



held in high technology companies. The Chi-square test was used to determine if there

were gender differences related to position level. The results indicated that there were

significant differences (χ² = 11.468; p = 0.009) in the positions held by male and femaleemployees with significantly more female respondents holding supervisory positions and

significantly more male respondents holding middle/upper management positions.

Therefore, hypothesis 1, “Employee gender does not impact the position held in hightechnology companies.” is rejected (See Table 2).

Table 2Gender and Position Level

Chi-square and Cross Tabulation

Position Level Male Female Totals

Employee 124 94 218

Supervisor 12 23 35

Lower Management 14 14 28

Middle/Upper Management 27 10 37Totals 177 141 318

χ² = 11.468; d.f. = 3; p = 0.009

Hypothesis 2 proposed that feelings of equitable treatment would differ by

employee gender in high technology companies. A t-test of two means was conducted todetermine if there were significant differences in feelings of equity based on employee

gender. The results indicated that no significant differences (t = -0.462; p = 0.644) existed

in reported feelings of equity based on gender. Therefore, hypothesis 2, “Feelings of equitable treatment differ by employee gender in high technology companies,” is rejected

(see Table 3).

Table 3

Gender and Employee Attitudes

Descriptive Statistics, t-tests

Gender Mean (s.d.)

Male Female t p

Feelings of Equity 2.39 (0.70) 2.42 (0.62) -0.462 0.644

Perceived Barriers to Advancement 2.34 (0.71) 2.27 (0.68) 0.862 0.389

Perceived Facilitators to Advancement 3.05 (0.77) 3.00 (0.85) 0.529 0.597

Sample Size 177 141

Hypothesis 3 proposed that perceived barriers to advancement would differ by

employee gender in high technology companies. A t-test of two means was conducted todetermine if there were significant differences in perceived barriers to advancement based

on employee gender. The results indicated that no significant differences (t = 0.862; p =

7



0.389) existed in reported perceived barriers to advancement based on gender. Therefore,

hypothesis 3, “Perceived barriers to advancement differ by gender in high-technology

companies,” is rejected (see Table 3).

Hypothesis 4 proposed that perceived facilitators to advancement would differ by

employee gender in high technology companies. A t-test of two means was conducted todetermine if there were significant differences in perceived facilitators to advancement

based on employee gender. The results indicated that no significant differences (t = 0.529;

p = 0.597) existed in reported perceived facilitators to advancement based on gender.Therefore, hypothesis 4, “Perceived facilitators to advancement differ by gender in high-

technology companies,” is rejected (see Table 3).

Discussion

Women within the sample have the same levels of education and experience, both of

which are related to promotion. Yet, women in the study sample were less likely to hold

upper management positions. This study found an interesting phenomenon. Women andmen were both being promoted, but the level of promotion achieved was different. Women

only achieved lower level management positions, whereas men achieved upper level positions. These findings support previous research about women in management (Brett &

Stroh, 1999). Gender participation in job performance supports the advancement of men

more than women (Konrad & Cannings, 1997). Morrison, White, and Van Velsor (1987)stated that the distribution of women across hierarchical levels within organizations still

tends to be unequally distributed in favor of men. It is difficult to move from entry, to

middle or to upper levels (Lewis & Fagenson, 1995). In short, women face almost

insurmountable barriers in gaining promotions to upper level managerial positions(Morrison, et al., 1987). This finding was exactly the same within the companies studied,

now 17 years later. Women within the sample occupied greater numbers of supervisory

positions, but held few upper management positions.

Stewman and Konda (1983) argued that a woman must wait longer for a promotion,

which is a significant factor in gender difference. Although the Stewman and Konda studywas completed in 1983, the issues raised continue to be relevant. Similarly, arguing on

gender variations in job experiences, Ohlott, Ruderman, and McCauley (1994) found

women had different developmental experiences than men due to obstacles in their work.

The implication for management presented by the results of this hypothesis is that

women have faced the problems attempting to advance to senior management. It is shown

in this study that female supervisors outnumber male supervisors. The movement of women to higher levels may constrained by the limited number of positions available

toward the top of hierarchies. However, proportionately, there are fewer middle and upper

management positions held by women. We noted that the most frequent barrier perceived by women to attaining aspired managerial positions was competition. The company offers

few high-level positions, but many talented and competent people compete for these

8



positions. It may also be that hidden biases exist towards the promotion of women to higher

management levels in high technology companies. They are hidden because women are

reporting no differences in perceived barriers to advancement. Management should paymore attention to eliminating the glass ceiling effect. Job levels, promotional opportunities,

and pay issues for women in the organizations should be addressed.

Alternately, perhaps there are external barriers to advancement to upper management.

Today, women in management do not have the same experiences in terms of mobility,

which will enable them to ultimately compete for the upper level positions (Carr-Ruffino,1993). In addition, family conflict and obligations (getting married, having children,

wanting to spend more time with their families), and interpersonal role conflict may all be

external barriers to advancement. This study did not consider these issues. This possible

explanation is an area worthy of future research.

It is recommended that gender difference obstacles might be resolved by counselors or

mentors who see the potential developmental benefits of gender equity. Hence,

organizational efforts to move women into higher management ranks may not be as easy asdeveloping their internal contributions. Management should pay more attention to equal

opportunity and building the relationships between female and male employees. Managersshould have full authority, integrative leadership, and rely on personnel to get the work

done according to time, cost and quality considerations. Successful organizational

development requires highly competent people with significant experience and extensivetechnical knowledge. One important focus must be on developing employee feelings of

equity in all organizations.

Hypothesis 3, which proposed that there were significant differences in perceived barriers to advancement based on gender in high technology companies, was rejected. A

possible reason is that employees came from the same position level in their organization.

This finding is contrary to many studies using other industries, which reported significantcorrelations between barriers to advancement and gender difference (Lyness & Thompson,

2000). Many women felt that barriers had increased with greater competition over

diminishing managerial posts (Collinson & Collinson, 1997).

One reason for this finding of no gender differences in perceived barriers to

advancement may be that people are on the same capability level in high technology

companies. This interpretation does not mean that the glass ceiling does not exist inside theorganizations. We know that women are not being promoted at the same rate as men, yet

women have the same education and experience as their male counterparts. We also know

that women do not appear to see any differences in how they are treated. It may be thatthere are differences in treatment, but they are so subtle that these biases are overlooked.

Hypothesis 4, which proposed that there were significant differences in perceivedfacilitators to advancement based on gender in high technology companies, was rejected.

The results indicate no differences between males and females. It is possible that

9



controlling factors such as hours worked, and experience in this study contributed to this

finding. This finding supports previous research from Morrison (1992) that the glass ceiling

is a factually significant problem, but it may not have much influence on perceivedfacilitators of advancement within organizational barriers. Klenke (1996) argued that as

women are promoted to higher levels, there is increased pressure on them to perform

harder than their male colleagues. It may be that human resources personnel do much toimprove training programs, and specific job skill acquisition in corporations. Some women

are delaying marriage, and families are smaller. Because careers are important, women with

good positions, or those focused on their career, are less likely to drop out of the workforcefor long durations when having children. This situation cannot be ignored. This study did

not consider these issues and they are interesting topics worthy for future research.

In this study, the results show women are obtaining the necessary education and work experience required to obtain higher management positions in the future. The educational

level of the female employees is quite high in this sample. Women and men have developed

this awareness and will ultimately challenge the status quo. This awareness should become

an important priority management educator if women are to fulfill their potential, both as professionals and as managers. Better educated women have a definite advantage. Our

results do show that men have greater opportunities to overcome barriers to career advancement than women do in the high technology companies studied. Although feelings

of equality are prevalent among women in the sample organizations, women who have the

same education and experience are not rewarded with advancement comparably to menwithin their companies.

In conclusion, the high technology industry has been formed in this generation and is

progressing rapidly in concepts and thought. The high technology company is a modernfirm. As such, it requires conceptual innovative to implement new programs. Supervisors

and managers lead high technology companies in a different manner than experienced by

companies operating in many other industries. This difference is probably a major reasonwhy employees within high technology companies do not perceive the apparent glass

ceiling.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances

in experimental social psychology, pp. 267-299. New York: Academic Press.

Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. K. (1999). Women in management: How far have we come

and what needs to be done as we approach 2000? Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4),

392-398.

Brooke, P. P., Jr., & Price, J. L. (1989). The determinants of employee absenteeism:

An empirical test of a causal model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 1-19.

Carr-Rufino, N. (1993). The promotable women (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

10



Publishing Company.

Collinson, D., & Collinson, M. (1997). Delayering managers: Time spacesurveillance and its gendered effects. Organizational, 4(3), 375-407.

Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work. Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.

Corrin, C. (1992). Superwomen and the double burden. London, Scarlet Press.

Davidson, M., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Shattering the glass ceiling: the women

manager. Paul Chapman, London.

Deal, J., & Stevenson, M. (1998). Perceptions of male and female managers in the

1990s: Plus ca change. Sex Roles, 38, 287-300.

Fagenson, E. A., & Jackson, J. (1994). The status of women managers in the UnitedState, in Adler, N. J., & Izreaeli, D. N. (Eds). Competitive frontiers: Women managers in a

global economy. Blackwell, Cambridge. MA, pp. 388-404.

Hair, Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate

data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall.

Henning, M. & Jardim, A. (1977). The Managerial Women. New York: Pocket

Books.

Hind, P., & Baruch, Y. (1997). Gender variations in perceptions of performanceappraisal. Women in Management Review, 12, 276-89.

Hymnowitz, C., & Schellhart, T. D. (1986, March 24). The glass ceiling: Why

women can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from top jobs. The Wall

Street Journal, 4, 10-40.

Jacobs, J. A. (1995). Women’s entry into management: Trends in earnings,

authority, and values among salaried managers. Gender Inequality at Work. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.152-77.

Klenke, K. (1996). Women and leadership: A contextual perspective. New York:

Springer.

Konrad, A., & Cannings, K. (1997). The effect of gender role congruence and

11



statistical discrimination on managerial advancement. Human Relations, 50, 1305-1328.

Lewis, A. E., & Fagenson, E. A. (1995). Strategies for developing womenmanagers: How well do they fulfill their objectives? Journal of Management Development ,

14(2), 39-53.

Lipsey, R. G., Steiner, P. O., Purvis, D., & Courant, P. N. (1990). Economics. New

York: Harper & Row.

Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of

matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359-

375.

Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female

and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86-101.

Morrison, A. M. (1992). New solutions to the same old glass ceiling. Women in Management Review, 7 (4), 15-19.

Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E., & the Center for Creative

Leadership. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America’s

largest corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994). Gender differences inmanager’s developmental job experience. Academy of Management Executive, 4, 46-67.

Powell, G. N. (1999). Reflections on the glass ceiling: Recent trends and future prospects. In Powell, G. N. (Ed.), Handbook of Gender & Work. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in

management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675-688.

Sims, R. L. (2000). Bivariate data analysis. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New

York.

Sorensen, W. B. (1985). A causal model of organizational commitment.

Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

Stewman, S., & Konda, S. L. (1983). Careers and organizational labor markets:Demographic models of organizational behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 637-

85.

12



Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. (1992). All the right stuff: A comparison

of female and male managers career progression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 251-

260.

U. S. Department of Labor. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the

nation's capital. The Environmental Scan: A fact-finding report on the federal glass ceilingcommission. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Labor (1996, January). Employed persons by occupation, race

and sex. Employment and Earnings: 171. Washington, DC: Department of Labor.

Vechio, R. P. (1982). “Predicting worker performance in inequitablesettings.” Academy of Management Journal, 7 (1), 103-10.

Wajcman, J. (1999). Managing like a man, women and men in corporatemanagement. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

White, J. (1992). A few good women: Breaking the barriers to top management.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wu, D. (2000). Issues and strategies in the complementation of the laws protecting

women’s employment rights. Paper presented at the International Seminar on the Legal

Protection of Women’s Employment Rights, Shanghai, April.

13

Tai and Sims, If Employees Do Not See the Glass Ceiling, Does It Exist

Documents

Transcript of Tai and Sims, If Employees Do Not See the Glass Ceiling, Does It Exist