LEADERSHIP/WOMEN SPECIAL... For Women Leaders Glass Ceiling a Clear Challenge

LEADERSHIP For Women Leaders  Glass Ceiling a Clear Challenge 

Inadequate workplace policies and unequal family responsibilities have made it difficult for women to make a mark in US corporations, hailed as the land of equal opportunity

n 1999, when Carly Fiorina assumed leadership of Hewlett-Packard, she announced: “I hope that we are at the point that everyone has figured out that there is not a glass ceiling”. Seven years later, in a memoir chronicling her highly public ouster from HP, Fiorina recounted endless examples of the sexism she had earlier denied. That about-face well captures America’s contemporary ambivalence about women and leadership. A cottage industry of studies makes clear that women’s under-representation in leadership positions is at least partly attributable to traditional gender expectations and practices. Initially, the hope was that filling the pipeline would take care of the problem, but it is now clear that time alone is not the answer. For more than two decades, women have been earning about one-third of the MBAs awarded in the US, yet they constitute only 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs and 8% of top leadership positions. These statistics point to the barriers women face in gaining leadership roles, but as Fiorina’s experience suggests, traditional gender expectations and practices also shape people’s experiences even after they reach the top. A fundamental challenge to women’s leadership arises from the mismatch between the qualities traditionally associated with leaders and those traditionally associated with women. The assertive, authoritative and dominant behaviours that people link with leadership tend not to be viewed as attractive in women. Although attitudes toward women as a group are generally positive, even more positive than attitudes
toward men, these views do not hold for women who occupy traditionally male roles, especially when they excel in those roles. When women achieve in distinctly male arenas, they are seen as competent but are less well liked than equally successful men. By the same token, when women performing traditionally male roles are seen as nice, they are liked but not respected. In short, women, unlike men, face trade-offs between competence and likeability in traditionally male roles. In leadership contexts, these biases play out on several levels: in the ways that organizations structure leadership paths and positions, in the ways that people perceive women leaders, and in the ways that women leaders perceive themselves and what they must do to succeed. At each level, a woman’s qualifications for leadership are called into question.
Structural Barriers
Differential structures of opportunity and power block women’s access and advancement to leadership positions. For example, men’s predominance in positions of organizational power, together with difference in the composition of men’s and women’s social and professional networks, gives men greater access to information and support. Women in traditionally male-dominated setting often have difficulty breaking into ‘old boys’ loop of advice and professional development opportunities. Isolation and exclusion are particularly likely for women of colour. The problem of exclusion is compounded by organizational structures and practices that tend to reflect and support men’s experiences. For example, women are disadvantaged by the convergence of their biological and professional clocks and by the escalating time demands of leadership positions. The increasing pace and competitiveness of organizational life, coupled with technological advances, have created a culture of constant accessibility and blurred the boundaries of home and work. Although technology has made it easier for a woman to work from home, it has also made it harder not to. Excessive hours are a major reason that many highly qualified women step off the leadership track. Although men have assumed an increasing share of household responsibilities over the last quarter century, women continue to shoulder the major burden. Women put in about twice as much time on childcare as men. In one representative survey of high-achieving women, four of 10 felt their husbands created more domestic work than they contributed. In another study involving well-educated professional women who had left the paid workforce, two-thirds cited their husbands’ role as a reason for the decision, including their lack of support in childcare and other domestic tasks, and their expectation that wives should be the ones to cut back on employment. Unlike most male leaders, most aspiring female leaders lack the support of spouses who are fulltime homemakers or who are working only part-time. Women with families also face more constraints on travel and relocation than similarly situated men. Until the home becomes an equal opportunity employer, women will pay the price in the world outside it. Employment policies reflect and further reinforce gender differences in family roles and responsibilities. Most American workplaces fail to offer the same paid parental leave to fathers as to mothers, and few men take any extended period of time away from jobs for family reasons. Related problems stem from the lack of flexible schedules, meaningful part-time positions and affordable quality childcare. Although women in top managerial and professional positions often are in workplaces that offer reduced or flexi-time arrangements, few of these women take advantage of them. Most believe, with reason, that any limitation in hours or availability would jeopardize their
careers, and that they would end up working more than their status and compensation justified. These inadequate workplace policies and unequal family responsibilities help account for gender differences in paid leadership positions. Almost 20% of women with graduate or professional degrees have stepped out of the labour force, compared with only 5% of similarly credentialed men. In organizations with few if any women in positions of power, gender is particularly salient and negatively affects women lower in the ranks, despite balanced representation at those levels.
Attitudinal Barriers
Women are becoming more like men in their career aspirations and achievements and are more willing to see themselves as having characteristics associated with authority. So, too, recent theories of leadership have stressed the importance of interpersonal qualities commonly attributed to women, such as co-operation, collaboration and interpersonal sensitivity. An emerging body of scholarship suggests that the most effective style of leadership in today’s world is ‘transformational’. Leaders who take this approach emphasize gaining the trust and confidence of followers and empowering them to develop their own potential. Meta-analyses of studies involving thousands of leaders suggest that women are somewhat more transformational than men, especially in providing support for subordinates. Yet despite these trends, the legacy of traditional gender stereotypes remains. Women have long suffered from a double standard and double bind in the exercise of authority. They are thought too aggressive or not aggressive enough, and what appears assertive in a man appears abrasive in a woman. As noted above, women who conform to traditional feminine stereotypes are often liked but not respected: they are judged too soft, emotional and unassertive to make tough calls and project the necessary ‘presence’ in positions of authority. By contrast, women who adopt more masculine traits are often respected but not liked: they are seen as domineering, strident and cold. Self-promoting behaviour that appears self-confident or entrepreneurial in men often looks pushy and ‘unfeminine’ in women. In effect, women face a trade-off between competence and likeability in circumstances where effective leadership requires both. Recent research suggests that two co-existing and complementary forms of sexism—one benevolent and the other one hostile—lie at the root of this dilemma. Benevolent sexism is “a subjectively favourable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrace conventional roles” and is used to reward women who conform to traditional gender role expectations. Hostile sexism is “antipathy toward women who are viewed as usurping men’s power” and is used to punish women who challenge the status quo. Taken together, these prejudices reflect ambivalence about women, promoting polarized responses to them. This double bind helps account for why women continue to be rated lower than men on most of the qualities associated with leadership. People more readily credit men with leadership ability and more readily accept men as leaders. More Americans prefer a male to a female boss, and women have a stronger preference than men. The presence of a few highly regarded women at the top creates the illusion that the glass ceiling has been shattered for everyone else. But when superstars fail or opt out, their departures attract particular notice and reinforce stereotypes about women’s lesser capabilities and commitment.
(Excerpted by permission from
Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, published by Harvard Business Press)

ET120811