the glassceiling effect

“ The Glass Ceiling Effect –
A fiction or Truth”
““TheThe
Glass CeilingGlass Ceiling
Effect –Effect –
A Fiction or Truth”A Fiction or Truth”
1

Executive SummaryExecutive Summary
We are in motion, and the world has changed. This new
era of economic dynamism and possibility marks the end of the old
era of stable mass production. We have moved from the farm to the
assembly line, and are en route from the assembly line to the
computer. Information technologies, combined with global trade
and worldwide investment, have shifted the economic ground we
stand on.
However, women are still concentrated in the most
precarious forms of work and tend to be clustered at lower levels
and in less vital areas. Is this a consequence of some external
barriers that exist at workplace and society or is it a matter of
choice that women do not want to reach the top of the corporate
ladder? This project provides an insight about the various barriers
that impede a female executive from climbing the corporate ladder
i.e. the glass ceiling effect.
The term “Glass ceiling” means the artificial
barriers that exist within organizations, which block women
from attaining senior executive positions.
The glass ceiling is a term for barriers to advancement
that exist but may not be seen, i.e. they are invisible or
transparent, like glass. The barriers are covert rather than overt,
having to do with attitude or unwritten practices rather than written
policy. The glass ceiling includes things like excluding women from
2

meetings where key decisions are made, or not providing mentors
or connections within the organization, or subtly sabotaging or
undervaluing women's contributions, ignoring ideas that could lead
to advancement, limiting opportunities for leadership development,
nominating inferior men for promotions and awards and never
nominating qualified women, etc. None of these practices can be
found in written company policies, but they are commonplace
behind the scenes, and they certainly prevent women from
advancing. And these practices are extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to break through. Hence, the "glass ceiling" term.
The Glass Ceiling effect has been around for
approximately 50 years. Women have achieved higher levels of
education than ever before but still continue to face gender
disparity. Various laws have been passed in this effect which has
hardly been implemented.
However, women are now stepping out and moving into
the traditional man’s shoes. These women have carved a niche for
themselves in what is believed to be predominantly male domain.
It also argued that women contribute to their own
inability to break through the glass ceiling in subtle ways stemming
from personality attributes, social conditioning and learned
management styles.
This project is therefore undertaken in order to come to a
consensus whether glass ceiling is a fiction or truth……………
3

Chapter – 1Chapter – 1
IntroductionIntroduction
4

GENESISGENESIS
The term “Glass Ceiling” first came into use in 1986 when
two Wall Street Journal reporters coined the phrase to describe the
invisible barrier that blocks women from the top jobs in corporate
America.
The Glass Ceiling, in its simplest form, is the theory that
women do not advance into senior management or executive
positions. It is a barrier that has been in place since women started
redefining their roles in the family since World War II when their
husbands were forced to leave the home and go fight in the war. At
this time, the wife went to work while the husband was at war to
support the family. At the end of the war, this new trend did not
cease. Women received this era as a time of choice. Although the
majority of women, at this time, chose not to continue working
when the war ended, a percentage remained in the workforce. This
change in the culture and structure was not accepted on a positive
note. Women faced multiple barriers to promotions. The Glass
Ceiling is certainly an issue that engenders a great deal of
emotion……………
Most of the history upto about 1987 can be believed. At
about that time, the concept of the “Glass Ceiling” was created, the
term came into wide usage, and the Glass Ceiling took off as a
political issue. As with virtually any political issue, the masters of
political spin soon took over and have been making political hay
5

(and a great deal of money through grants and consulting fees)
ever since.
In the 1980s, not very many older (i.e. age 40+) women
had a college education and still fewer had an advanced degree in
business, so it was reasonable that very few women had the
education, maturity, and experience to be upper level executives at
business firms. At about that time, however, groups like NOW and
the Feminist Majority Foundation began to demand 50-50 as the
only “fair” representation for women. This was done in spite of the
fact that men who were qualified by education, maturity, and
experience outnumbered qualified women by a ratio somewhere in
excess of 100:1.
The ratio of 50:50 is not supported by logic, but 100:1
does not seem to be fair to women either. Hence, a conclusion was
made that be it male or female, it takes an MBA and 25 years of
experience to be considered for an upper management position. The
Glass Ceiling Research Center matched the percentage of women
graduating with an MBA or other advanced management degree in a
given year (for example, 1955) to the percentage of women on top
management teams 25 years later (in our example, 1980). From
there the math was simple. If the percentage of women in the
executive suit in any year was less than the percentage graduating
with an appropriate degree 25 years earlier, then a case could be
made that some type of gender-based discrimination may have
occurred along the way.
The results found were astonishing. For every single year
since 1980, the percentage of women in upper management
exceeded what would be expected. The expectation was exceeded
by a ratio of at least 2:1 and in some years as high as 4:1. What
6

this means is that a woman with an MBA and 25 years of experience
has historically been between two and four times as likely to be
promoted to the executive suit as per similarly prepared male
counterpart. This has been true for every year since before 1980,
which was long before the Glass Ceiling became an issue.
At the current time, about 33% of MBAs are women, and
women constitute about 18% of upper management teams (defined
as the top 20 executives in a Fortune 500 company). That
percentage is growing every year, because more and more women
with the appropriate education are gaining the experience and
maturity to reach leadership levels.
Since the earliest years of this century women have
sought equal opportunities in education, the labor force, and the
eyes of the law. This monograph has shown that in most of those
areas women have achieved that equality. They are well
represented in the professions, and they continue to enter fields of
study that were previously dominated by men. Women are starting
their own businesses in record numbers and winning elective offices
throughout the country. Laws barring discrimination against women
are on the books and enforced. All those gain clearly belie the
image of women as victims struggling against discrimination in the
workplace.
The personal choices women have made are perhaps the
most important and least appreciated factor in women’s economic
progress over the years. Decisions to enter previously male-
dominated fields of education and employment, to marry and bear
children later in life, to join the work force, and to leave the work
force to raise children have all had an enormous effect on whether
women can achieve total parity with men. Some of those choices,
7

such as leaving the work force for a time to raise children, can have
a negative effect on women’s total lifetime earnings; others, such
as entering previously all-male fields, have led to remarkable gains
for women in the work force.
THREE LEVELS OF THE GLASSTHREE LEVELS OF THE GLASS
CEILINGCEILING
Glass Ceiling is a term normally used to describe the
invisible artificial barriers that exist within organizations to block
women from attaining senior executive positions. The three levels of
Glass Ceiling are:
• Apprenticeship
• The Pipeline
• Alice in Wonderland
ApprenticeshipApprenticeship
In the United States, women have been admitted into
apprenticeship programs in such large numbers, and for so many
years, that it is easy for young women to believe – and for
management to assert – that discrimination is obsolete, and the
that Glass Ceiling is either a myth or an artifact that will
automatically decay over time. The Glass Ceiling at the level of
apprenticeship does exist, however, and although the immediate
economic consequences are not attention (very few apprentices
8

sue), there are serious long-term implications for the companies
and the country.
Virtually every industry has its own version of an
apprenticeship. One simple way to determine the boundary of
apprenticeship is to find where, in a particular company or
organization, the line is that must be crossed before an individual is
“in the pack” to be considered for management or leadership.
Salary may or may not change dramatically across this boundary;
the same is true of title. For example, at a large retail food chain,
the title and function of “Assistant Store Manager” marked the entry
of an individual into the pipeline. In a large defense contra have
studied, there are many “Managers” but only one type, a “Project
Manager”, actually confers the opportunity to begin building
credentials for power and authority in the company. In doing this
sort of analysis, reliance on basic numbers that federal contractors
gather for required reporting can be very misleading.
Women in every industry and profession report that
sexual harassment is most common during apprenticeship. Indeed,
sexual harassment is frequently defended as being just part of the
normal hazing that is meted out to apprentices. In fact, it is one of
the most important mechanisms that implement the Glass Ceiling at
the level of apprenticeship. To say that sexual harassment has a
dramatically greater effect on women than men may seem trivial,
but it is important to understand that its use may he difference in
how well women perform during apprenticeship, and even whether
they complete the apprenticeship at all. At a recent gathering of
women radiologists, every single women cracked jokes about their
experiences of sexual harassment as a medical student and
resident. They all agreed that the self-respect they had sacrificed by
9

putting up with it was a price they had to pay to continue in their
programs.
In any effective effort to eliminate the Glass Ceiling, an
organization should delineate apprenticeship, and should pay
particular attention to the fact that the apprentices are almost
certainly underreporting the problem of sexual harassment. This is
not to say that sexual harassment is not a problem at higher levels.
Rather, it is important to recognize that the “effectiveness” of
sexual harassment as a tool of discrimination is directly to the
power differential between the duals involved.
The other main mechanism of the Glass Ceiling at this
level is outright exclusion, almost always with the justification that
“women don’t want” whatever the particular non-traditional entry-
level job is. This justification has been disproved again and again in
major class-action lawsuits. For women who find themselves barred
or dissuaded from entering apprenticeship in any field, there is no
one solution. In general, however, there are enough women who
have made it into and through apprenticeship that today there are
formal and informal professional and trade associations for women
in almost every field. These can provide a great source of
information and encouragement for younger women.
For women who are in apprenticeship, the basic
realities of the low status combined with sex discrimination can be
daunting. Women who have made it through tough apprenticeships,
seem to have relied on three things: peer support and camaraderie
(including regular sessions for venting); humor; and intense
development of skill and expertise.
10

The PipelineThe Pipeline
This second level of the Glass Ceiling, The Pipeline is the
range of jobs that are post-apprenticeship, but prior to senior or top
management. We have previously defined top management as
officers of a corporation and senior management as executives who
report directly to top management. In non-profit or public sector
organizations, top management is perhaps best defined as
individuals reporting directly to the executive director – e.g. the
equivalent of Cabinet members (who report directly to the
president), and senior management is anyone reporting directly to
top management.
Because there are women and minority men who have
made it beyond the Pipeline, observers often question whether the
Glass Ceiling “really exists” at this level. The simplest way to show
the existence of the Glass Ceiling atop this second level is to look at
some basic members. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the ratio of men to women in all managerial positions is 1.4 to 1. At
the every top level of the salary that the Bureau records, however,
($75,000 and above), the ratio of men to women is 20 to 1. The
Department of Labor also confirmed the existence of the Glass
Ceiling at this level in its “Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative” the
partial report of compliance reviews of nine federal contractors
initiated under former Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole in 1990.
11

It has been observed that the mechanisms
implementing the Glass Ceiling at the Pipeline level fall into three
main categories. And even though the Department of Labor failed to
label any of these “sex discrimination”, the Glass Ceiling
investigators did in fact note examples in each of these categories
in most, if not all, of the nine companies they reviewed.
One major category is the growth and the
obfuscation of the pay gap. Again, the Labor Department found that
none of the nine companies they studied had looked at total
compensation of managers for gender-based inequity. Data Line
looked foe examples of companies that have proactively reviewed
management compensation for gender discrimination, and to date
has not found any.
A second mechanism used to implement the Glass
Ceiling at this level is denial of credential building. This is not only
the exclusion of women from credential-building experiences, but
also the discounting of the credentials that a woman does hold. A
company that wishes to eliminate its Glass Ceiling in the Pipeline
should articulate its beliefs about credential-building; integrate
review of these into its regular salary and performance review
procedures; and require its managers to ensure that women have
equal opportunity for credential building experiences.
The individual wishing to move through the Pipeline
must also do the same analysis, and at the same time, begin
dropping the concerns and defense mechanisms she may have
acquired in apprenticeship. In the Pipeline, for example, it is no
longer appropriate to allow others to take credit for work you have
done. Further, you may need not only to keep the credit, but also to
12

take assertive action to make your accomplishments known. This
runs counter to the social interaction skills many women have
learned, and is definitely a departure from the deferential behavior
that is acceptable in apprenticeship.
Additionally, jokingly, accepting derogatory treatment,
while never desirable, becomes more detrimental in the Pipeline
than it was in apprenticeship. As an apprentice, you are not
particularly expected to demand respect. In the Pipeline, to acquire
not only the credentials you need to keep moving, but also the
image of someone who has those credentials, you must demand
basic respect. Also, mentorship, while not always effective, is
usually a given in apprenticeship; mentors are automatically
assigned. In the Pipeline, you may have to drop the expectation
that your mentor will find or choose you. In most companies, a
woman in the Pipeline needs to recruit her mentor in order to have
access to important credential-building experiences. And finally,
while developing skills and expertise continues to be important, the
woman who considers them paramount, to the exclusion of
relationship and image building, will probably find herself regularly
losing out to individuals with less skill or accomplishment.
A third mechanism that implements the Glass Ceiling in
the Pipeline is the use of recruiting services and strategies that
unconsciously or explicitly discriminate.
Alice in WonderlandAlice in Wonderland
13

The third level of the Glass Ceiling is known as Alice in
Wonderland because for women who reach it, the rules and
relationships seem so dramatically different; they frequently feel as
if they have to run as fast as they can just to stay in place; and for
many, the final outcome seems to be a corporate version of “off
with their heads!” This third level is also a place where a woman
can have a lot of fun, if she survives.
Levity aside, the third level is characterized by a
dramatic decline in the number of female peers and, as a result,
significantly increased visibility for the few women who are here.
Basically, a woman at this level has gone from being in a ratio of 2
women for every 3 men, to a ratio of 1 woman for every 20 men.
This increased visibility can have a warping effect, independent of
anything the woman executive is or is not doing, on how the woman
views herself and how others view her. In addition to the glare of
the spotlight, many women at this level report a sudden, dramatic
change in the criteria by which they are judged.
The effect of such dramatic change in the way one is
being assessed can be just a little crazy making. If the change is in
fact based slowly or primarily on a woman’s sex, after she has spent
many years of leaping hurdles and accomplishing significant things
despite her sex, the reassertion of this once-inconsequential factor
has a determining factor is truly disorienting.
In addition to being eliminated from the third
level based on new assessment criteria, women at this level are
frequently “beheaded” by having their departments or organizations
re-organized out from under them. Although this can look,
superficially, like politics as usual, there is a different end-result for
a woman at this level compared to her male peer who “loses out” in
14

reorganization; her career is usually over. A different version of this
mechanism is the placement of an acknowledged inferior over the
woman who has reached the third level. This mechanism has a
particularly dramatic, demoralizing effect not only on the specific
woman executive, but also on less-senior women in the company
who daily observe her fate.
Companies that want to eliminate the Glass Ceiling
at this third level need to recognize that the problems of
exaggerated visibility isolation, and change in assessment criteria
exist. CEO’s and top management need to recognize that
responding to the problems is not affirmative action for executive
female, but a response to extra burdens women executive females
may suddenly find thrust upon them that male executives at this
level do not have to contend with. Also, it is very important to
realize that whatever programmes a company has designed to deal
with the larger issues and woman in the work place or balancing
work and family, or to deal with the Glass Ceiling at the level of
apprenticeship or the Pipeline, are not going to be relevant to the
woman who has made it to this third level.
For woman at this level, it becomes crucial to re-
emphasize peer support and camaraderie. Since this is not usually
easily at hand within the company, women need to give this enough
priority to take the time to develop peer relationship in other
companies and even in other industries. And, even though
increased visibility may already be a strain, women at this level
need to seek even greater visibility outside their companies,
through community, professional, political, or other public
involvement as a way of ensuring balanced feedback about her
success. Finally, for a woman at this level who has spent most or all
of her career in one company, it is important to become comfortable
15

with and knowledgeable about the protocols and system for making
a job change at executive levels.
Not every organization has all three, and sometimes
one level is predominant in one part of an organization and not in
another. But any company that wants to eliminate its own Glass
Ceiling could benefit from analyzing its organization with respect to
these levels. And any individual looking at how to negotiate through
or around the Glass Ceiling should understand what level she’s
encountering, and ensure that she is not relying too much on tools
and resources that helped her at a previous level because they
almost certainly won’t work the same way at the next level.
16

Style ofStyle of
ManagementManagement
17

IN STYLE, ALWAYS !!!IN STYLE, ALWAYS !!!
Research indicates that seasoned leaders, whether men
or women, share certain characteristics. They are self-disciplined,
ambitious, know their stuff and are likely to embrace a visible, take
charge and actively influential approach to their roles.
But the research also indicates that in many ways,
women are more successful than men at traditional, day-to-day
tasks of management. Co-workers rate women higher in such skills
as hiring the right people for the job, developing and coaching
subordinates, and organizing, monitoring and controlling the work
of others. Co-workers also find women better at creating a vision
and setting clear direction and high standards of performance.
The new management paradigm: LeadershipThe new management paradigm: Leadership
20002000
• To survive in a business world characterized by rapid change
and increasing complexity, those who can tolerate ambiguity
18

and make decisions in the face of uncertainty will rise to the
top.
• Traditional hierarchical organizations are a thing of the past.
• People and process are as important as task and results.
• Employees will demand, and the fewer layers of management
will require, empowerment at all levels of the organization.
• Teamwork leads to success and the team must come before
the star.
• Workforce diversity and the globalization of business will
require far more acceptance of individual differences and
flexibility in management approach and style than ever
before.
• Managers will spend more and more of their time in situations
where they do not have command authority; they will not
necessarily be the technical expert but rather the synthesizer
of cross-functional activities encompassing different fields of
knowledge.
Research shows women managers much more
closely match this paradigm than men. Women are better suited to
the team orientation of the Leadership 2000 model. They
understand that personal success is dependent on the support of
others. Contrary to common stereotype, women are better team
players than men. They are better at communicating and keeping
people informed, important skills in flat, non-hierarchical
organizations. They are able to put the success of the team first,
19

using influencing skills rather than authority to accomplish
objectives.
Managing a diverse workforce may well be an easier
and more natural task for women. Personality testing shows women
managers have less traditional values, are more tolerant to
differences and are less bound to social conventions. This is not
surprising considering that twenty years ago when today’s women
managers entered the workforce, conventional wisdom said women
should not be managers. Because of women’s own experiences with
prejudice and discrimination, I surmise they can deal with people
who are different from themselves in a more empathetic manner.
Research also shows that women follow the
Leadership 2000 model in terms of the ability to motivate others.
Women emphasize behaviors, which generate enthusiasm in their
organizational relations, are generally more expressive of their
thoughts and feelings and more readily show appreciation of the
efforts of others. Women leaders are seen by coworkers as more
inspirational role models than their male counterparts. With all this
going for them, why aren’t women moving into the executive suite
at a faster rate? Discrimination and organizational obstacles,
supported by historical and cultural norms, are certainly part of the
problem. However, research indicates that basic personality
characteristics combined with the management behavior and
strategies women have used to succeed at mid-management levels
are now preventing them from breaking through the Glass Ceiling.
Cream of the cropCream of the crop
20

An extensive review of the literature suggests two
conclusions regarding gender and leadership. First, the similarities
between men and women tend to outweigh the differences. Second,
what differences there are seem to be that women fall back on a
more democratic leadership style, while men feel more comfortable
with a directive style.
The similarities among men and women leaders
shouldn’t be completely surprising; almost all the studies looking at
this issue have used managerial positions as being synonymous
with leadership. As such, gender differences apparent in the general
population don’t tend to be as evident because of career self-
selection and organization selection. Just like people who choose
careers in law enforcement or civil engineering have a lot in
common, individuals who choose managerial careers also tend to
have commonalities. People with traits associated with leadership –
such as intelligence confidence, and sociability – are more likely to
be perceived as leaders and encouraged to pursue careers where
they can exert leadership. This is true regardless of gender. The
result is that, those who achieve formal leadership positions in
organizations tend to be more alike than different.
Despite the previous conclusion, studies indicate
some differences in the inherent leadership styles between women
and men. Women tend to adopt a more democratic leadership style.
They encourage participation, share power and information, and
attempt to enhance followers’ self-worth. They prefer to lead
through inclusion and rely on their charisma, expertise, contacts,
and interpersonal skills to influence others, men, on the other hand,
are more likely to use a directive command-and-control style. They
rely on the formal authority of their position for their influence base.
The tendency for female leaders to be more democratic than males
21

declines when women are in male-dominated jobs. Apparently,
group norms and masculine stereotypes of leaders override
personal preferences so that women abandon their feminine styles
in such jobs and act more autocratically.
Given that men have historically held the great
majority of leadership positions in organizations, it’s tempting to
assume that the existence of the noted differences between men
and women would automatically work to favor men. It doesn’t. In
today’s organizations, flexibility, teamwork, trust, and information
sharing are replacing rigid structures, competitive individualism,
control and secrecy. The best managers listen, motivate and
provide support to their people. Organizations tend to recruit and
promote people into leadership positions who project leadership
attributes.
22

23

The Glass CeilingThe Glass Ceiling
EffectEffect
- The Truth- The Truth
GLASS CEILING EFFECT STILL SEALEDGLASS CEILING EFFECT STILL SEALED
Hard going at the top and on the ground
If Glass Ceiling existed, they would allow people to see
through to the world above them. Because glass is clear, those
existing under such a ceiling might not, at first, even notice that a
barrier was in place, which separated them from higher levels. Yet if
24

they tried to pass through, they would quickly learn that the ceiling
prevented any such rise.
This analogy has been offered by some people to
describe the alleged condition, which is supposed to keep women
and minorities from achieving ant but token positions at the highest
echelons of corporate America. Most individuals concerned with this
problem cite it as evidence of discrimination; a situation which
therefore should be corrected by an application of affirmative action
laws.
Yet even if what such advocates of “equality” claimed
about Glass Ceiling were true, they would not be justified in using
immoral means to achieve a purportedly positive end.
The Truth behind the Pay Gap Numbers:
The commonly held wisdom is that, in spite of the
advantages of the past decade, women still earn less than men.
A 1996 monograph by Korn/Ferry International
entitled “Decade of the Executive Woman” provides good insight
into exactly this situation. The study compared a survey of 439
women executives in 1992 drawn from the Fortune 1000 industrial
corporations and the Fortune 500 service companies with a 1989
study of 698 male executives at Fortune 500 industrial and Fortune
500 service companies. The findings regarding income for the 439
women were summarized in the following paragraph:
The women report working just as long as their male
counterparts – 56 hours a week – but take home only two-third of
25

the men’s income, as shown in the 1989 study. The salary
differential may be explained somewhat by the women’s younger
age (44 years, compared to 52 for the men in 1989) and by the fact
that more are at the Vice President level, but unequal pay is still a
fact.
The average annual compensation for men and
women is a bit more difficult to compare. At first glance, the
average salaries seem equivalent. The women surveyed in 1992
earned $187,000 on average while men in 1989 earned $190,000.
Since most people would prefer to be earning $187,000 at age 44
over earning $190,000 at age 52, this appears to be a slam-dunk
for women.
The 1989 survey of men asked for “base salary”
while the 1992 survey of women was for “salary plus bonus”. The
average total compensation for men was reported to be $289,000.
This is the basis for the report’s conclusion that women “take home
only two-thirds of the men’s income,” because $187,000 is about
two-third of $289,000. Aha! Men are clear winners after all. The
impact of inflation has been taken into account here. The numbers
are what they are. It seems odd that the Korn/Ferry report would
claim, “Unequal pay is still a fact.”
A report by the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,
which undertook the first comprehensive examination of the so-
called Glass Ceiling that this advantages minorities and women from
advancement in the upper echelons of management, found
consistent pattern of income disparities between whites and non-
whites and men and women in virtually every management sector.
26

Income Disparities by Race
Bachelor’s Master’s
Race/Ethnicity Male Female Male Female
Whites $47,181 $31,338 $57,371 $38,391
Blacks -$15,180 -$754 -$10,137 -$4,385
Chinese -$5,924 -$2,032 +$1,481 +$7,292
Filipino -$7,992 -$3,045 -$7,204 -$7,160
Indian -$1,872 -$6,096 +$5,997 -$6,970
Korean -$4,400 -$5,559 -$5,801 -$10,576
Indian women with a bachelor’s degree earn $6,000 less and those
with master’s degree $7,000 less than white women with
comparable qualifications. Indian men earn almost $2,000 less with
bachelor’s degrees, but they earn $6,000 more with master’s
degrees.
The 25 best recruiters claim of equality in their organizations.
However, the table portrays a different picture..
Sr.
No.
Name of organization Total
Employees
No.Of Women at
Sr.Mgmt. Level
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Texas Instruments
Federal Express
Johnson & Johnson
Eli Lilly
Philips Software Center
Godrej Consumer Products
Wipro Spectramind
Nokia
Birla Sun Life Insurance
832
207
500
517
860
929
6462
166
754
8
-
-
2
1
5
16
1
9
0.96
-
-
0.38
0.12
0.53
0.24
0.60
0.19
27

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cadbury India
Aviva Life Insurance Company
TATA Teleservices
NIIT
ERNST & Young SSL Division
Marico
AV Birla Group
Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Hughes Software Systems
Infosys Technologies
Max New York Life Insurance
Co.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
Wipro
Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers
Anand Group
Jindal Iron & Steel Company
1910
328
596
3457
169
661
51054
12494
1791
15365
743
5062
24000
1788
3600
1498
-
1
-
134
1
2
540
325
14
29
3
34
40
-
1
1
-
0.30
-
3.87
0.51
0.30
1.05
2.60
0.78
0.18
0.40
0.67
0.17
-
0.03
0.07
The net aggregate % of women occupying senior positions to that of
the total employees in the top 25 organizations is 0.835%. This
depicts the reality of corporate practices in recruitment and
promotion.
The Perception GapThe Perception Gap
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Exe. (F)
CEOs (M)
1 : Lack of general management or line experience.
2 : Exclusion from informal networks
3 : Stereotypes about women’s roles and abilities
28

4 : Failure of top leaders to assume accountability for women’s
advancement
5 : Lack of role models
6 : Commitment to personal or family responsibilities.
7 : Lack of monitoring.
8 : Lack of awareness of organizational politics.
9 : Different behavioral style from organization norm.
10 : Lack of opportunities for visibility.
11 : Inhospitable corporate culture.
12 : Lack of opportunities for challenging assignments.
13 : Lack of desire to reach senior levels.
14 : Not in management ranks long enough.
15 : Ineffective leadership style.
16 : Lack of skills to reach senior levels.
17 : Sexual harassment.
BARRIERS TO ADVANCEMENTBARRIERS TO ADVANCEMENT
What’s holding women back?
Three years into the new millennium, women make up
more than half of the managerial and professional labor pool but
account for just over 1% of all Fortune 500 chief executives.
As per the Catalyst survey of Fortune 500 CEOs and
women executives at the vice president level and above, the
problem isn’t lack of ambition. Less than one-third of the 120 CEOs
(almost all male) and the 705 female executives who responded
29

consider a lack of desire to advance to senior levels a barrier to
women’s advancement. Of those executive women not already at
the very top, 55% said they aspire to the most senior leadership
levels.
Survey did show that executive women and CEOs tend
to perceive the barriers to advancement differently. But on one
measure they plainly agree: Lack of general management or line
experience is the primary obstacle, cited by 79% of CEOs. Catalyst’s
2002 census indicates that men still dominate these senior line
positions. Although the number of women corporate officers holding
the positions increased from 20% in 1997 to nearly 30% in 2002,
men still hold nine out of ten of these jobs in the Fortune 500. Thus,
in 2003, the pool from which a CEO might draw-successors in
overwhelming male.
Of course, many women move into powerful staff
positions to meet their personal career aspirations. However, many
women don’t rise into senior line positions because they aren’t
aware that such positions are open to them, or if they are, they
may be discouraged from pursuing these roles by colleagues and
superiors who don’t feel that women can perform well in them. Or,
they simply aren’t on the slate when successions decisions are
made.
Survey also suggests a multitude of individual,
cultural, and organizational factors that executive women feel block
their advancement. And it exposes some of the deep disparities
between female executives’ and CEOs’ perceptions about the
barriers to women’s advancement.
30

A clear majority of the female executives surveyed
cite numerous barriers; exclusion from informal networks,
stereotyping, lack of mentoring, shortage of role models,
commitment to personal or family responsibilities, lack of
accountability on the part of senior leadership, and limited
opportunities for visibility. CEOs also acknowledge these obstacles
but in many cases seem less convinced of their significance. CEOs
also appear to put substantially more weight than female executives
do on these barriers in particular: women’s ineffective leadership
style and their lack of skills to reach senior levels.
The Glass Ceiling metaphor, though often used, is
oversimplified. Studies suggest there are glass walls as well –
lateral barriers that limit women’s job potential almost from the
beginning of their careers. The Pipeline on longer seems to be the
primary problem. The main issue appears to be top leadership’s
failure to ensure that women get the profit-and-loss experience that
would qualify them for the most senior positions. About two-thirds
of women and more than half of the CEOs surveyed agree that the
failure of senior leadership to assume accountability for women’s
advance in a key barrier.
In the words of Ann Morrison, “Glass Ceiling is a
barrier so subtle that it is transparent, yet so strong that it prevents
women from moving up the corporate hierarchy.” From their
vantage point on the corporate ladder, women can see the high-
level corporate positions but are kept from “reaching the top”.
31

32

Beginning of theBeginning of the
New EraNew Era
A STEPPING STONEA STEPPING STONE
There has been a steady increase in the number of
women pursuing managerial careers and now they comprise half of
the professional schools, the world over. Women are gaining the
necessary experience and knowledge as par with men.
Recently the giant computer firm of Hewlett Packard
named a woman as its new executive present. Who promoted this
woman to the post of chief executive? Lewis E Platt, the chairman
33

who just stepped down. Apparently, Mr. Platt had an experience in
his personal life that forced him to appreciate women at a new
level. In 1981 Mr. Platts’ wife died of cancer and he assumed the
role of both parents. Platt never forgot the experience. By the time,
he became Chief Executive in 1992, women managers were leaving
the company in droves. A consultant informed him that the
company’s policies toward working women were not flexible
enough. So, together with other top executives, Platt, instituted a
new flexible work policy that included flexible work schedules, job
sharing, working at home even sabbaticals. The result has been that
the company loses fewer than 5% of its employees each year. Mr.
Platt is the exception to the rule. We can’t expect all company
officers or upper senior management to take this approach, but a
precedent has been set.
At WIPRO, 20% of its employees are women. WIPRO
goes beyond women friendly practices. WIPRO is one of the few
companies (IT or NON-IT) to have at least 4 women heading its
various divisions. Companies are now realizing that female
executives equally contribute to their success.
Advancing Women in Management
Farm Fresh
She has made her mark in an unusual sphere. Mallika
Srinivasan, director, Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. (TAFE), is a
woman who has achieved it through sheer dint of determination and
strength.
34

This MBA from Wharton decided “somewhere in her
student years” that she would like to manufacture tractors and
other farm equipment. And she has proved worthy of the laurels
she has acquired over the years. “I grew up in an environment
steeped in business”, says Mallika. My father and grandfather used
to be discussing business all the time. It sort of soaked in me. My
mother also encouraged my sister and me to take an interest in
what they were doing. She joined TAFE as general manager in
1986, and over the years, has garnered admiration as an astute
businesswoman. Mallika has taken TAFE beyond tractors and
implements in the agricultural sector. As part of its corporate vision,
the company supports an agro-portal that forms a forum for
networking within the farming community.
The lady, who has been nominated Businesswoman of
the Year for the Economic Times Awards for Corporate Excellence, is
petite and soft spoken.
Talk to her of the blossoming of women in the
corporate sector and Mallika is firmly of the belief that “India has
treated her women well”. The ‘Glass Ceiling’ according to her, is a
‘mindset’ issue and one that can be surmounted if the woman is
determined. “You have to be focused about what you want to do,
keeping your unique value system in mind and just keep going
ahead,” she maintains. “The workplace environment is not non-
conducive to women,” she avers.
Mallika obviously knows what she is talking about. “It is
not as if Indian women are letting go of their children. They just put
in extra work and get that done as well. And these days, families
are also helping out and to that extent we have a supportive
environment,” she says, “Women who want to be successful, don’t
35

give up”. Such women, Mallika admits, are in a minority, but are
being increasingly recognized in the workplace. She is also very firm
in her belief that nothing can be achieved alone. “You have to have
a great team and we must work towards that. A chain is only as
strong as its weakest link.”
Banking on successes
She doesn’t think she is powerful. But the rest of the
country begs to differ. Naina Lal Kidwani, the hottest investment
banker around, has made it to Fortune’s list of the 50 most powerful
women in International business.
Forty-four year old Naina Lal Lidwani, Vice chairman
of JM Morgan Stale (India), who recently featured in Fortune’s list of
the 50 more powerful women in International business.
Naina is dynamism personified. She has a blazing track record and
is recognized as an eminently powerful dealmaker. She is one of the
highest paid women in banking in India. In 1982, she was also the
first female Indian citizen to graduate from the Harvard Business
School. What makes her so influential is her extensive networking
with corporate biggies, leading politicians and heavy weights from
Mumbai’s Dalal Street. She served for 13 years in ANZ Grind lays
before she was headhunted by Morgan Stanley in 1994 to help them
start up their offices in India. Naina is credited with resurrecting the
fortunes of Morgan Stanley after its mutual fund fiasco, through
some brilliant mergers and acquisitions and listings of Indian
companies in the international market with deals worth nearly $700
million.
36

She feels its perception rather than fact to be called
as “powerful”. She attributes her success to hard work, commitment
to excellence and high goals. From early days, it was important for
her to top the class, be the school captain and president of Lady
Shri Ram College, Delhi. “I worked very hard and never gave up
easily. My parents inculcated in me some very strong values about
work that’s playing high dividends today” Naina reminisces.
Based in New Delhi Naina’s work involves extensive
trouble to Mumbai, Bangalore, occasional trip to Hong Kong – the
original Head Quarters of Morgan Stanley – and to the financial
capitals of the world. Of course, the hectis work schedule means
giving up some other things in life. “Two years in succession I’ve
missed my Wedding Anniversary and 3 years my Husband’s
birthday”. She remarks.
The high-profile dealers admits that it’s always a
balancing act, but has no regrets. I need my office as much as I
need my family for sustenance. “It’s not so difficult to straddled two
world especially in India because of the excellence support system”,
she says.
Naina adds, “I think people with the white traits,
men or women will always succeed”. What drives Naina ahead is the
desire to continue to grow and stretch oneself and never wait
complacent. Every person she meets, she tends to pick out a little
something. From Naina Lal Kidwani, one could probably take away
her congeniality.
One of her kind
37

Kishori Jayendra Udeshi made history by becoming
the first woman to hold the coveted post of deputy governor at the
Reserve Bank of India.
Making history is not something new for Udeshi. She
started doing that early in life. Decades ago, the hallowed precincts
of the St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai witnessed its first girl all-
rounder when Udeshi scupered the boys of her batch to win the
coveted award. Looking at dignified women now sitting across in her
18th
floor office at the RBI headquarters, it’s difficult to visualize her
as the sprightly girl who had once been a National Badminton player
and a member of the college Basket Ball team.
Udeshi says that her leaning towards economics is
attributable to the legendary economist R K Hazari whom she
idolized. But more than anything else it stemmed from her desire to
be a workingwomen. “I just wanted to work”. So began Udeshi’s
journey in the Exchange control department at the old headquarters
of RBI, housed just across the road from her present office in the
new RBI tower.
The transition from the old building to the new one
has ot exactly been a walk across the road through. Between the
time that she moved out of the exchange control department and
finally moved into the deputy governor’s office, Udeshi worked in
RBI’s Bangalore office, and then held charge of Ahmedabad, before
returning to Mumbai to put in stints at various Central Office
departments.
Having been a carrier central banker, unlike some
of her peers and predecessors who have come in from commercial
banks or the Government, most people at RBI views Udeshi as one
38

of their own and take great pride in her success. However, she
knows that there in no room for complacency in heading the
department of banking operations in a country with the largest
network of the bank branches. “Our banking system is very resilient
but then you do always find one or two bitter almonds in a packet.”
Says Udeshi.
In her years in RBI what has struck her the most is
the image that the central bank has been able to maintain. “I feel
very proud of being in the central bank, the high degree if values
and the high degree of ethics in our approach to the public”, says
Udeshi. This faith has reinforced her commitment to maintain the
trust reposed by public. “You can not demand respect. It comes due
to your behavior and that is something I cherish”.
39

The Glass CeilingThe Glass Ceiling
EffectEffect
- The Fiction- The Fiction
Risk, Rescue & Righteousness
To become CEO or president of a major corporation
means forsaking – or at least subordinating – nearly all other
aspects of life to one’s career. Such a level of responsibility
alongwith its attendant financial success requires putting in seventy
– or eighty – hour weeks.; demands one’s almost complete
submersion in and dedication to overseeing both the short-term and
40

long-run needs of the business one manages; and result in the loss
of tome available to spend with family or in recreation.
The desirability of such a goal is not relevant in the
current context. What is necessary to recognize is the fact that in
our society, more men than women – for whatever reasons – are
willing to commit themselves to the course of action demanded by
such a rigorous goal. Even if there were no prejudice against
women in business, the disparate numbers in the pools of available
male and female candidates actively striving for this end would lead
to a male/female ratio in line with that observed today.
Likewise, women forsake high-powered business
careers in favor of the less tangible rewards of greater flexibility in
work schedules; of more time invested in the raising of a family;
and of wider opportunities for non-monetary personal development.
Overall, women work fewer hours than men; have less
job experience and work fewer years; and avoid work in risky or
unpleasant jobs, which tend to be more highly compensated. Also,
marriage and children tend to depress earnings for women when
compared to men or single females.
Even for many women who do devote their full
attention to career issues, many fail adequately to understand how
much of the corporate world works. Advancement in the business
world frequently is based upon principles most men subconsciously
learn as they grow up. It operates in ways emulating team sports
and the military chain-of-command. Women who fail to understand
the importance of office politics, going through the proper channels,
and being able to make decisions quickly put themselves at an
automatic disadvantage. Corporate life is a game, which is not
41

always fair; for men or women. Being able to take risks without
making waves, being a team player who can operate independently
when necessary and participating in after-hours activities may not
set well with some women, but for the present, the reality of the
situation needs to be acknowledged if it is ever to change.
In spite of excellent management and leadership
skills, women contribute to their own inability to break through the
Glass Ceiling in subtle ways stemming from personality attributes,
social conditioning and learned management styles.
The obstacles women are creating for themselves fall
into three major categories: Risk, Rescue and Righteousness.
Risk
Concern about striking out prevents women from hitting
home runs
Avoiding criticism by crossing all the t’s and dotting all
the i’s has been a necessary strategy for women to get to mid-
management levels. Women’s approach to problem solving has
42

therefore been cautious, thoughtful and detail-oriented. Women
look for subtlety and complexity in the environment, a trait shared
with minority groups in general. Personality assessments indicate
women have a higher tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. This
tolerance for ambiguity also allows women to take the time needed
to collect more data, consider multiple options, and carefully choose
from a full range of solutions. This less action-oriented style slows
down the entire problem solving process.
Although this decision making style is in apart natural,
it is also a response to a male-dominated culture that has shaped
and influenced the style women have needed to be credible. It has
exacerbated women’s lack of action orientation, making them
reluctant to take risks without having covered all the bases. This
conservation style of management, developed and rewarded at
lower, more task oriented organizational levels, hinders women
managers from being line management opportunities and the high-
risk assignment that provide visibility and make careers. The need
to make calculated risks becomes even more critical in the context
of rapid change and uncertainty.
Rescue
Women need to create game plans, not worry about ironing
team uniforms
The second obstacle facing women is their own highly
developed sense of responsibility combined with concern for, and
loyalty to, the team. Although women have to be just as
43

independent and achievement oriented as men to get ahead, they
also tend to more clearly recognize the need for group support to
accomplish personal goals.
There is a downside to the team orientation and sense
of responsibility women feel. Women can easily get mired in the
details in an attempt to make sure everything is handled correctly
and everyone is feeling OK. Their tendency to get bogged down in
the short term, tactical part of the management job has limited the
development of strategic capabilities. It prevents women from being
viewed as having a big picture perspective and the ability to keep
their eye on the ball.
Women’s orientation toward the group is causing
them to take on too much responsibility, moving them into a
rescuing and mothering mode.
Righteousness
Locking horns with umpires gets women thrown out of the
game
The final obstacle breaking the Glass Ceiling is known
as righteousness. Women would be far more successful if they
learned to present their ideas and proposals more dispassionately.
44

Even though women’s decisions are of high quality, they continue to
be viewed as fewer objectives, less flexible, and lower in emotional
control than men. This may be a result of how they present their
ideas and plead their cases. Women’s more forthright and
transparent communication style, appreciated by those they
manage, may well appear less polished and diplomatic than men’s
when dealing with those above them in the hierarchy. In situations
that require tact, women have difficulty putting on a “game face”.
Because they have done their homework, they dig in their heels
when challenged by less informed coworkers. Women forget the end
goal; get bogged down in their commitment to the process,
presenting issues in terms of right or wrong. If the woman manager
is right, that makes her colleagues wrong by implication, starting a
cycle that can only tend in a win-lose scenario. Women must learn
to present a case for corporate action rather than defending a
private cause to the death.
Pay gap-a myth
It is well-known that women, especially older women
over 50, are far less likely to have graduated from college than men
of the same age. The salaries that men and women earn probably
reflect that difference, so we are left with the fact that a group of
people [men] with a higher-than-average chance of having a college
degree earns more than a group [women] with a lower-than-
45

average chance of having a college degree. What is being reported
is clearly a difference based on education, not on gender……
Credible research on this issue takes pain to account
for differences in age, education, occupation, and experience.
Legitimate studies that do that routinely find that there is no
disparity between genders as far as earnings are concerned. The
numbers revealed that the women executives surveyed in 1992
were significantly younger than the men surveyed in 1989. The
average age for women was 44, but men averaged 52.
Furthermore, they achieved the landmark plateau of $100,000 in
base salary at startlingly different ages. Over half of the women
achieved that level before age 40, but only 31% of men did. On the
other end of the spectrum, 36% of men were over the age of 46
when they first cracked that barrier, but only 11% of the women
had to wait that long. It seems that women executives are very well
paid at a much earlier age than their male counterparts.
Not so fast. The question remains, would a woman
have $187,000 at age 44 or the newly revised figure for men of
$289,000 at age of 52? One need to know that a woman age 44
would reach absolute pay parity at age 52 through a pay increase of
less than 5.6% per year. If a pay increase of less than 5.6% for
women during their most productive executive years is assumed,
then men win. A greater average annual pay raise means that
women are better off.
That same report contains a similar study of 300
women executives conducted in 1982 that revealed an average
salary of $92,000. The gain from $92,000 in 1982 to $187,000 in
1992 represents an average annual increase of 7.5%. That same
annual increase applied to our average 44-yea-old executive woman
46

earning $187,000 yields an annual salary of $333.510 at age 52.
That is 15% more than the $289,000 a man earns at the same age.
Women win big time.
The truth concerning the entire issue of a “gender pay
gap” is that when apples are compared with apples………… (a)
Women executives earn at least as much as men of similar age and
experience, (b) Women age 27 to 33 earn as much as men in
similar life situations, and (c) any other so-called “gender”
differences can probably be easily explained by different levels of
education and experiences.
Women Executives shatter the Glass-Ceiling myth
“In the tech industry the Glass Ceiling does not exist,
you see a lot of women tech heads. If there is a Glass Ceiling it is in
the mind of the women themselves and not in the industry,” says
Aruna Jayanthi, principal, Cap Gemini Ernst & young (India).
Aruna has been in the industry from 17 years and had started her
carrier in 1984 with TCS. A decade later, she joined Aptech to head
Hexaware’s India division for starting new units and lines of
business. Today, she heads Cap Gemini’s two lines of business in
India – Advanced Development and Integration, and Application
Management. After heads-on technology for the initial three to four
years of her career, she moved on to account management, sales,
business development and quality.
“Right through my career, even at the time when I
was with TCS, I never found being distinguished because I was
woman,” she says, adding, “As a team leader I have never had any
47

problems. The main factor is to guide them; it should be leadership
by example.” Aruna however, points out that she is very cautious
about the word “boss”, because then one cannot deal with the team
efficiently.
Currently heading a team of 250 people, large-scale
recruitment is in the pipeline to almost double the number. For
someone who always nurtured the dream of running an
independent business and building it into a large organization, well
known and recognized internationally, Aruna is happy to be on the
‘right track’. “I have got where I wanted to be but there is a lot
more to be done and things are moving in the right direction,” she
conclude.
Lydia Lobo, chief technology officer with a smile,
Aptech, is a teacher turned techie, who also represents a minuscule
number of women in the industry who decide Boardroom strategies.
Acknowledging that she had always thought she would remain a
teacher, Lydia confesses that she enjoys today the managerial
capacity of being in the front. “I outgrow every job very soon and
look out for new challenges,” she says matter-of-factly. And this is
obviously something which her present job provides in plenty.
“Being in training we have to be the first. Is anything more
challenging?” she asks. Lydia concedes that at the time of starting
her career there were limited roles available in the IT profession,
today the situation is very different. Domain expertise and multi-
skilling gives women in the industry an opportunity to seek their
own mould. “May be in hardware there are not that many women,
but not so in the other fields, particularly training. In Aptech itself,
many women are in good positions. There are two of us who take
Boardroom decisions and policy making,” she says, adding however
that women heads are there in specific fields, on the business side
48

the percentage is less. “There are more technology than business
heads probably because it requires more ruthlessness which is not
present in women.”
A workaholic, she confesses her love for technology
but finds the techno-managerial role much more exciting and she
looks forward to greater international exposure. “After a little bit of
hardcore technology anybody with some ambition would like to do
something different – as a project leader, project manager or client
interfacing,” she points out. Lydia’s current assignment includes
diversified operations – from keeping track of technology trends and
products in market to implementation of training programme course
design and strategy to ensuring quality.
Like Lydia, Saadia Lobo, director, Knowledge Services
Group (KSG), SAP India, finds setting up new opportunities the
greatest challenge that keeps her motivated. “I like doing new
things and doing them different – going head-on into any issue,
taking calculative risks and coming out successful,” she says
emphatically. All set to have leave for a global assignment to be
based out of the SAP headquarters in Walldorf, Germany, Saadia
manages a line of business in the KSG which provides knowledge-
based products and services to help corporate clients in their
learning processes. With 16 years of experience in the IT sector,
Saadia’s portfolio includes sales, business development and
management process. She had started her career as a marketing
executive with Computer Point, and today has her forte in profit
centre and product management. Ask Saadia the formula for
success and response is a bit unexpected. “I never looked at what I
wanted to be but what I wanted to do. I always took up any
assignment that appealed to me,” she adds, candidly admitting that
she never had fixed career goals in mind. While agreeing that there
49

are not many women who make strategic organizational decisions
and maximum are in the software development field, Saadia
reminds that any segment or industry goes through this kind of
trend.
Gayathri Parathasarthy is head, Development
Integration Services, a Strategic Business Unit (SBU) for the IT
services division at i-flex solutions. Starting her career one and a
half decades back, this mathematics graduate from Chennai
University leads a team of 190 professionals in Mumbai and
Bangalore. “We handle various types of projects, onsite, offshore,
turnkey development, maintenance and enhancement in various
technology areas with main focus on corporate and investment
banking. There are three project managers working under me who
handle these projects out of our development centers and customer
locations,” explains Gayathri.
Attributing the reasons for success to solution-
oriented approach, complete understanding of customer needs and
determination to make things happen, she says, “Aim for the best in
everything and definitely you will keep on setting bigger goals and
achieving them.” Her goal as a professional ranges from making
every customer happy to motivating the team members to
achieving zero defect in deliverables. A tall order! Well no, not for
Gayathri who has always set very high standards for herself.
Strongly believing that it is performance, honesty and commitment
to the organization and the potential to handle bigger business that
takes one to the right position (not whether one is a man or a
woman), she remarks, “I have grown in the last 15 years of
profession from a programmer to a business unit head today and
responsibilities have increased every year.”
50

Pointing out that there are many organizations where
senior management consists of a sizable number in India, she
reminds that each individual has the responsibility of managing the
personal and professional life, the balances that need to put in place
and the priorities. “I have never felt that being a women I am
restricted to grow…cannot…If I want to I will nobody can stop it!”
Whether man or woman it is positive thinking,
commitment and business intelligence that charts the way to the
top. “These are individual traits and young professionals can be
trained/groomed to think on these factors which every senior in any
industry who are responsible should take it as an additional
responsibility and do it. That will be the contribution to the future of
this country and the industry.” Inspiring words for wannabe women
techies who have no dearth of role models to find their place under
the sun.
51

Fiction & TruthFiction & Truth
- A Study- A Study
Fiction and Truth – A StudyFiction and Truth – A Study
 Fiction: Now women are a third of business school
graduates and a significant proportion of middle management,
it is just a matter of time equality is reached in the
boardrooms and in the executive studies of the corporate
world.
52

Truth: For the most part, women are stuck in middle
management – and have nothing to do with how long they
have been in business or whether they have, the college
degrees considered necessary to advance in management. As
long ago as 1968, 15% of all managers were women.
Assuming it takes 15 – 25 years for a manager to become
senior executive, women today should compromise at least
15% of those at the top. But women make up only 3.1% of
senior executives at Fortune 500 companies, and only 4.3%
of the executives are women. At the rate of increase, it will be
475 years-or until the year 2466- before women reach
equality in executive post. Women in business are slamming
into a “Glass Ceiling” that prevents them from moving up the
corporate ladder.
 Fiction: Times are changing and the younger generation of
men is more supportive of the idea of working alongside
women executives in high-level positions.
Truth: Unfortunately, the younger generation of corporate
men seems to be holding tight to the negative attitudes their
predecessors displayed toward women in top positions.
Between 1975 and 1983, men MBA students retained
consistently negative attitudes towards women as managers,
while their female counterparts were consistently positive. In
fact, studies suggest that as women increase their numbers
and get closer to the top, the resistance from men hardens,
and discrimination becomes more open, according to Harlan
and Weiss.
53

 Fiction: Conflicts with family and home responsibilities keep
executive women from getting “to the top.”
Truth: Of women executives who do have families, “only a
tiny minority (3%) feels that family responsibilities have
hindered their careers,” according to the Wall Street Journal /
Gallup Survey. Few of the women executives reported that
family conflicts had ever “prevented them from accepting a
job change that would have required relocation” (only 9% of
the one-third who say they ever turned down a transfer).
Besides, executive-level women are more likely to get help
from their husbands with household chores and family
responsibilities. Additionally, it is easier for executive level
women to combine their careers with motherhood, because
they can afford to pay for childcare and household services.
 Fiction: Women executives cost the corporation more
because they must divide their attention between career and
family.
Truth: Considering the proportion of top management that
is male, the likelihood is that male-linked habits will cost
companies a great deal more than pregnancy ever could. For
example, alcoholism and the problem it causes are
overwhelmingly associated with males. In 1985, 11.9 million
men were classified as alcohol abusers as compared to 5.7
million women. 45% of men versus 18% of women were
considered moderate-to-heavy drinkers. This male-associated
habit creates excessive medical costs and serious
performance losses in business. Yet these deficits are
tolerated and are not calculated as a “male related cost of
business.”
54

 Fiction: Women at the top are frequently single divorced or
have no children, proving how difficult it is to combine family
and career.
Truth: It is also true that the men at the top of corporate
America exhibit very different marriage patterns compared to
the national norm. Why do executive men and women show
marriage pattern so divergent from the general population?
The bias in the system that favors the selection of a certain
type of woman – and a certain type of a man – discriminates
against all other types. The proportion of executive women
who remain single (26%), who are divorced or separated
(26%), and who have never had children (52%) are higher
than the national norms (Wall Street Journal/Gallup Survey).
In fact, the higher her ranking, the less likely the executive
woman is to be married – only 46% of top corporate women
are married. The overwhelming majority of executive men
(94.6%) are married compared to 81.6% in the general
population of men 45 years and older. Nearly 6% of men over
45 years are single compared to 0.9% of executives.
Corporate management is narrowly selecting its executives,
and anyone who doesn’t fit the stereotype of the “ideal
corporate executive” – the “single woman” and “married
family man” – is likely to be cut out when promotional
decisions are made. This built-in bias conveniently ensures
there will be very few women at the top.
 Fiction: Women are not as serious about their careers and
often “drop out” to have children or start their own business
55

to better accommodate their family responsibilities. As a
result, they are poor investments for companies that must
spend considerable amounts on executive development.
Truth: Women executives are no more likely to leave their
jobs than men. There is also no evidence that executive
women leave corporations to have children. In fact, 1986
study by Catalyst found that women at the top took even
shorter pregnancy leaves of 6 to 8 weeks. Furthermore, there
is no evidence that women are dropping off the corporate fast
track to start their own businesses because of the desire to
balance family and work. While it is true that more women
than ever are starting their own businesses, most are passed
the age of 40 years when child-rearing responsibilities are
largely ending. A new business venture requires never-ending
attention from its owners – not leaving much time for taking
on even more family duties. For men executives who start
their own companies, the move is seen as a bold and positive
career maneuver. For women, entrepreneurial ventures are
seen as retreats from the corporate world and a chance to
devote more time to family.
 Fiction: Women are not suited for top management because
they aren’t aggressive enough and lack the self-confidence
required for the top jobs.
Truth: Study after study shows there are more similarities in
these personal traits between women and men managers
than there are differences. One of the most comprehensive
long-term studies done found that men and women have very
similar “profiles of high power ad achievement needs, high
self-esteem, and high motivation to manage” (Harlan and
Weiss). A separate study of 2,000 men and women managers
found “a significant case of no significant differences.”
56

Moreover, women executives often display more modern
leadership traits than men. The studies indicate that women’s
management style more often encourages consensus,
participation, and interaction – traits which today’s employees
value – whereas men’s management style often reflects a
basic commitment to the premise of a “hierarchy.”
 Fiction: Any woman can make it to the top is she’s
competent and works hard. That’s how men make it and,
after all, the corporation is looking for the best person for the
job.
Truth: The Corporation is not the meritocracy that has been
led to believe. At least up until now, “who makes it to the top”
appears to be as determined as much by “who are you” and
“who you know” – as by “what you know”.
 Fiction: Most women senior executives suffer from the
‘Queen Bee’ syndrome and are not helpful to younger women
below them on the corporate ladder. Or, women are their own
worst enemies the competitive corporate world.
Truth: Since when don’t men seek to be “King of the
Mountain?” If anything, women executives complain about
their treatment by men – not their treatment by other
women. Executive women say men patronize them and they
often note male chauvinism in the Korn/Ferry survey, 57% of
women executives report belonging to women’s groups. The
majority (56%) of women in the Gallup Survey are involved in
networking with other women – “getting together regularly in
groups to discuss problems and offer support.”
57

 Fiction: Women work primarily for supplementary
income or for luxuries.
Truth: Two-third of employed women are self-supporting,
and 30 to 40 percent of the women are the sole support of
other family members as well.
 Fiction: Women are better rote learners and are
happier doing repetitive routine duties than men are.
Truth: Women, on the average, dislike repetitive tasks just
as much as men do, although they seem to have higher
tolerance for them. They do not seem to do better at rote
learning.
 Fiction: Women are not especially concerned about the
fulfillment of achievement needs and have a lower desire for
promotions than do men.
Truth: Women have achievement and promotion desires as
strong as those of men.
 Fiction: Women are absent from work much more
frequently than men are.
Truth: Women tend to absent about 5.9 days a year, while
men are away about 5.2 days (obviously not a meaningful
difference).
58

59

Chapter- 7Chapter- 7
Primary DataPrimary Data
PERSONAL FEEDBACK
Attitude Toward Women in Management
Women As Managers Scale
Using the numbers from 1 to 7 on the rating scale, mark
your personal opinion about each statement in the blank that
immediately precedes it. Give your personal opinion according to
60

how much you agree or disagree with each item. Respond to all 20
items.
Rating Scale:
1 = Strongly disagree 5 = Slightly agree
2 = Disagree 6 = Agree
3 = Slightly disagree 7 = Strongly agree
4 = Neither disagree nor agree
_____ 1. It is less desirable for women than men to have a job that
requires responsibility.
_____ 2. Women have the objectivity required to evaluate business
situations properly.
_____ 3. Challenging work is more important to men than it is to
women.
_____ 4. Men and women should be given equal opportunity for
participating in management training programs.
_____ 5. Women have the capability to acquire the necessary
skills to be successful managers.
_____ 6. On the average, women managers are less capable of
contributing to an organization’s overall goals than are
men managers.
_____ 7. It is not acceptable for women to assume leadership
roles as often as men.
_____ 8. The business community should someday accept women
in key managerial positions.
61

_____ 9. Society should regard work by female managers as
valuable as work by male managers.
_____ 10. It is acceptable for women to compete with men for top
executive positions.
_____ 11. The possibility of pregnancy does not make women less
desirable employees than men.
_____ 12. Women would no more allow their emotions to influence
their managerial behavior than would men.
_____ 13. To be a successful executive, a woman does not have to
sacrifice some of her femininity.
_____ 14. On the average, a woman who stays at home all the
time with her children is a better mother than a woman
who works outside the home at least half of the time.
_____ 15. Women are less capable of learning mathematical and
mechanical skills than are men.
_____ 16. Women are not ambitious enough to be successful in the
business world.
_____ 17. Women cannot be assertive in business situations that
demand it.
_____ 18. Women possess the self-confidence required of a good
leader.
62

_____ 19. Women are not competitive enough to be successful in
the business world.
_____ 20. Women cannot be aggressive in business situations that
demand it.
To determine score on the Women as Managers Scale, add
the points for the 20 items. Be sure to reverse score the answers
marked with an asterisk. To reverse score, subtract the number
given as an answer from the number eight (8). For example, if for
question No.1, you slightly agreed with the statement you would
enter a 5 on the answer sheet. For determining total score, subtract
5 from 8 to come up with 3, which is actual score for that item.
*1. _____ 8. _____ *15. _____
2. _____ 9. _____ *16. _____
*3. _____ 10. _____ *17. _____
4. _____ 11. _____ 18. _____
5. _____ 12. _____ *19. _____
*6. _____ 13. _____ *20. _____
*7. _____ *14. _____
Total Score ______
The range of possible scores is from 21 to 147. The higher
you score, the more you look positively toward women as
managers. The lower you score, the more negatively you view
women in their roles as managers.
YOUR DETAILS
Name:
63

Age:
Profession:
Signature:
64

Chapter- 8Chapter- 8
ConclusionConclusion
CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION
Women have achieved higher levels of education than
ever before and today represent over 40% of the global workforce.
Yet their share of management positions remains unacceptably low,
with just a tiny proportion succeeding in breaking through the Glass
Ceiling.
65

The lack of adequate education, training and experience
in the past, to some extent, explained the difficulties women
experienced in obtaining management jobs. Today, a large and
increasing proportion of women in many countries are well qualified.
This has resulted a in better gender distribution of jobs, but
occupational segregation, both horizontally and vertically, remains a
major problem. More women now hold management jobs, but they
tend to be clustered at lower levels and in less vital areas. Women
have often fared better in professional and financial services, as well
as the public services, compared to other sectors. In all cases,
however, their access to top managerial jobs remains severely
restricted.
Factors contributing to the slow pace of change point
to the maintenance of traditional views on men and women’s social
and economic roles, even though in practice there have been far-
reaching changes in women’s participation in the labor market.
Such views stem largely from women’s primary responsibility for
family care and welfare. They affect the choices made by men and
women in terms of study courses and the type of jobs they seek.
One of the greatest challenges, however, is still how to make the
structures and dynamics within an organization more conducive and
sensitive to gender equality concepts and practices. Without such a
watershed change from within, women will, in the years to come,
continue to experience “Glass Ceiling” and “glass walls” as invisible
barriers to positions of management. It is not advocated that
unqualified women get jobs that they are unqualified for; it is
believed that women are just as qualified as men, but they just
need a boost to be on the same level as men.
66

Strategies to be adopted by women to shatter the
Glass Ceiling
Prominent US researcher Dr. Carol Gallagher has
advocated an approach to the Glass Ceiling which said that:
“Instead of trying to break the Glass Ceiling, women need to find
their own personal windows to climb through it.”
Training and professional development
The key to career development is to maintain a board
skills base alongside the technical expertise, and where possible,
managerial and leadership skills should be developed along with the
advancement of technical skills. If there are plans to specialize in a
particular area, one should try to become the organization’s
reference authority in a secondary area of expertise – technical or
otherwise.
In practical terms, there shouldn’t be limitations on
specializing at the expense of one’s personal skills base.
Earnings potential
Surveys have consistently shown that the difference
between male and female earnings decreases as participation in
post-graduate education increases. That is, at the Masters level
there may still be a significant difference between the median
salaries of males compared with females, but considerably less so at
the doctorate level. Whether or not one chooses to pursue
67

postgraduate education will depend on whether or not it will be
relevant in the context of the organization or in the professional
area of expertise, but it is a practical strategy worth considering.
Leadership skills
Women are often seen to have an “inclusive” style of
leadership rather than the leadership skills of a manager able to
make and implement the tough corporate decisions. It is therefore
useful to pursue accredited qualifications in leadership skills, so that
an external body formally recognizes one’s management skills.
Succession planning
Whether succession planning in the organization is formal
or informal, it is important to maintain a profile. Even if one’s
manager doesn’t personally select his or her successor, how
management views them will certainly impact on whether or not the
person concerned is in contention.
In practical terms, staying visible and “in the loop”
while also achieving results in one’s area is preferable to a straight
“head down” approach. Be articulate in how one’s section or role
contributes to the goal and bottom line of organization, and
promote the value of one’s role and section to decision-makers.
Where possible, participate in decision-making meetings so that the
person concerned is aware of what’s happening in the organization
and organization is aware of the person. Undertaking collaborative
projects with other colleagues or departments may also be a way of
68

raising one’s profile with managers beyond the person’s own
section.
The Superwoman Syndrome
For a more senior position, many women may be wary
about an increase in the time and out-of-hours commitment
required. Changed demands could potentially upset the finely tuned
balanced families have achieved in what are already invariably very
busy lives.
Still, don’t assume that a more senior role will necessarily mean
that one can’t find a balance. If the person concerned is considering
a promotion, find out what the time and travel commitments are,
and whether flexible arrangements, re-prioritizing and appropriate
delegation mean that person could successfully manage the change.
The practical strategies
• Be conscious of career development at all stages of the
working life.
• Be aware of how one’s choices are informed.
• don’t be steered into soft or easy option.
• If the person is concerned about a change in time
commitments, which may accompany a more senior role, find
out what the demands are and what flexibility is available.
69

• Become aware of from which departments or areas senior
managers are recruited.
• Maintain a broad skills base.
• Develop your leadership skills.
• Make oneself visible as a potential successor in the
organization’s formal and informal succession planning.
• Post-graduate education should be pursued.
There are two clusters of women above the Glass
Ceiling, showing that there are more than one path to career
success. One need to understand that the experience that these
women felt were significant to their career success, such as mentors
and role models, satisfaction in career and life. Organizations can
employ this information to insure that female employees have the
opportunity to reach top management. Equally important is the
experience of discrimination and other obstacles reported by women
below the Glass Ceiling. Companies must help break down these
barriers in order make sure that women have an equal opportunity
to reach top management.
Recommendations for business include:
(1) The CEO must communicate visible and continuing
commitment to workforce diversity. This in turn can
influence the culture of the organization by creating
an atmosphere that fully utilizes the talents and
capabilities of a diverse workforce.
(2) Businesses should use affirmative action as a tool to
help ensure that all qualified individuals have equal
70

access and opportunity to compete based on ability
and merit. Affirmative action is the deliberate
undertaking of positive steps to design and
implement procedures that ensures the employment
system provides equal opportunity to all. Properly
implemented affirmative executives action means
promoting opportunities for advancement for people
who can contribute effectively to a corporation and,
consequently, the nation’s economic stability. It
means making full use of the rich talent this nation
has to offer.
(3) Business must expand their traditional executive
recruitment networks and seek out candidates with
non-customary backgrounds and experiences. They
must go beyond the old school network and seek
talent both inside and outside the corporation, by
looking to employee sponsored networks and affinity
groups, or at women’s colleges, or universities with
historical ties to ethnic groups.
(4) Business must train the entire workforce in the
strengths of ethnic, racial, and gender diversity.
Educating the employees means creating a workplace
that is welcoming and open to all. Diversity training
debunks myths about the suitability and capability of
women and minorities for executive careers.
(5) Companies must act now to prime the pipeline by
identifying objective performance, skill and
knowledge criteria for advancement; instituting
formal succession planning; and providing rotational
and non-traditional job assignments and broaden the
base of a candidate’s experience and visibility.
Mentor and be mentored. Many successful business
71

persons have identified mentoring as a critical factor
in their career advancement due to its function as a
means of networking, socializing and forming ties
with influential corporate leaders.
(6) Work/life and family friendly policies should be
adopted. These include flexible hours, daycare and
elder care programs, telecommunicating, and job
sharing. Family friendly policies improve productivity,
reduce costs by relieving workers of non-job related
worries, and allow them to focus on business
objectives.
(7) Companies must implement high performance
workplace practices that include employee
participation, innovative compensation policies,
employment security, information sharing, and
continuous learning. There is strong evidence that
doing right by employees is also good for the bottom
line. Companies with well respected employee
practices that invest in their workers see a positive
impact on measures of long-term corporate
performance such as utilization of capital and total
returns to investors. One study found companies that
introduced formal training programs experienced a
19 percent larger rise in productivity than firms
which did not train their workers.
Government has a role to play in breaking Glass
Ceilings. Government must lead by example and make equal access
and opportunity a reality for all. It cannot mandate and require
private sector to pursue and value diversity, if it is unwilling to do
the same.
72

Corporate leaders must recognize that they need the
talent and input of women and men at highest levels to better
address the changing consumer markets, the changing workforce
demographics, and international competition in today’s global
economy.
In spite of excellent management and leadership
skills, women contribute to their own inability to break through the
Glass Ceiling in subtle ways stemming from personality attributes,
social conditioning and learned management styles.
What it feels like when one believes that change will
occur and must occur – yet the obstacles to change appear
overwhelming. Equality in the executive suite has that same sense
of inevitability. The time has come for those women who have been
riding in the back of the corporate bus to make the changes that
will allow them to move forward with courage and conviction. Those
who are currently in front of the bus must not look at them as
interlopers or unwanted competitors, but as partners on a common
journey.
Competitiveness in the global marketplace depends on
our collective ability to get the right people, with the right talent, on
the right bus, headed in the right direction. We can no longer afford
to leave half of our human assets at the station.
Shattering the Glass Ceiling--A Strategy for Survival
THE FACTS
73

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission released a report
stating that only 7%-9% of senior managers at Fortune 1000 firms
are women. (Korn-Ferry and Catalyst). This is compelling,
considering women make up almost one half of the nation's
workforce. Highly educated and/or experienced women face their
biggest challenges at upper levels of corporations. As a result, they
have been known to disproportionately cluster in "white collar
ghettos" or the bottom tiers of management and lowest paying
industries. Well-qualified women face barriers spawning from
stereotypes or preconceptions (81%), employers who feel an
aversion to taking a risk by hiring a female (49%), or not carefully
planning their careers or job assignments to benefit them. Most
astounding, a recent survey found that less then 1% of CEOs see
the development of high potential women as a priority.
THE COSTS
If a company chooses to continue to exclude qualified
women from top management positions it is most probable that
they will find themselves unable to compete in an increasingly
diversified marketplace and will lose an extraordinary amount of
talent, creativity and productivity. Women today are leaving the
corporate sector in vast numbers-twice the rate of men. They are
not leaving to tend to their families but rather to seek positions that
are more satisfying and rewarding or start up their own business.
According to a study released last year by the National Foundation
for Women Business Owners, women own approximately 7.7 million
firms; an increase of 43% since 1990. Women are forming new
businesses at double the rate of men. In turn, big companies are
losing valuable players. This loss is becoming more and more costly
to organizations that have invested time and money in their
employees. It would serve both organizations and women to
74

reexamine the obstacles that prevent females from advancing and
from being valued in the workplace.
WHAT WOMEN CAN DO
You need to know what you want and must clearly
define your goals and priorities. Develop strong relationships with
others in the company, focusing on those individuals with high
authority. Ask these people for feedback on their performance and
then make it a point to act on their recommendations. Improve
creditability by taking on challenging assignments that are visible to
upper management. Document every successful assignment
completed and the positive impact your efforts had on the
organization. Present these during your review. Become
knowledgeable of the less quantifiable criteria for evaluation such as
personality, loyalty, networking etc.
WHAT MANAGEMENT SHOULD DO
Management must learn to recognize and appreciate
gender differences as positive qualities, which can serve as assets
for the organization. They must loose their preoccupation with old
male-oriented procedures. For example, instead of meeting over
drinks, meet for breakfast or as a group. Males and females differ in
their communicative approaches. Therefore, permit each individual
to talk through a situation in their own way, at their own pace.
Don't allow emotions to get in the way of good judgment. Most
importantly, implement a program that eliminates cultural and
structural biases. Examine organizational design, staffing and
performance reward systems. Incorporate mentoring programs for
75

women and minorities and hold managers acceptable for initiatives
by rewarding only those who successfully meet the goals of the
program.
BibliographyBibliography
Secondary sources
 Organizational Behavior -- Stephen Robbins
76

 Organizational Behavior -- O. Jeff Harris,
Sandra J. Hartman
References
 Business World - 1st
September’ 2003
 Business Line - 3rd
March’ 2003
 The Times of India - Men $ Women : 18th
August’ 2002,
2nd
June’ 2003.
Sunday review : 13th
January’ 2002,
Times personal : 30th
July’ 2003.
Websites
www.the glassceiling/com/resources
www.googles.co.in
77

the glassceiling effect

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to the glassceiling effect

Similar to the glassceiling effect (17)

More from umesh yadav

More from umesh yadav (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

the glassceiling effect