Running head: WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA 1

Women in leadership in America: Empowering women by breaking down barriers

Tara OConnor

Purdue University
WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA 2

Women in leadership in America: Empowering women by breaking down barriers

In the U.S., women have struggled to break out of stereotypical gender roles even though

women leaders have a lot of diverse and positive perspectives to bring into management

positions. Research conducted by Eagly (2007) found positive patterns in women leadership,

including higher propensity to adopt participative or democratic leadership styles and engage in

transformational leadership behaviors (as cited by Hackman & Johnson, 2013). The Peterson

Institute for International Economics recently found that having women in high positions of

power within corporations is linked to increase profitability (Victor, 2016).

Despite this positive correlation, women still make up a very small portion of U.S.

leadership positions in government and corporations. Today women make up 19% of the

Congress, about double the share from 20 years ago, and, Only 26 women are now serving as

CEOs of Fortune 500 companiesroughly 5%, (Pew Research Center, 2015). The inability of

women to advance to management and leadership positions is often referred to as the glass

ceiling, and a number of factors support and perpetuate this invisible barrier. Wrigley (2002)

conducted a qualitative study of 27 focus group participants and 10 depth interview participants

and identified five factors of possible contributors to the glass ceiling for women in public

relations: denial, gender role socialization, historical precedence, women turning against other

women and corporate culture.

If the ultimate goal is to shatter the glass ceiling and empower women to ascend to the

highest echelon of leadership in government and business, then it is vitally important to

understand what it is we are up against. In this paper, we will explore cultural, institutional, and
WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA 3

systemic practices that perpetuate the glass ceiling in corporations and tactics we can use to

remove this barrier.

What is the glass ceiling?

In the United States, women began entering the workforce in droves as a result of World

War II. Though most women had little to no training, they learned on-the-job and many were

able to acquire new skills. But when the troops returned, most women exited the workforce to

resume their traditional role in the home. Some manufacturers deliberately hired women whose

husbands were at war, assuming that women would gladly return to the home when their

husbands returned (Cardinali, 2002). Clearly, deep gender biases were at work, and these women

were bumping up against what would later be known as the glass ceiling.

It wasnt until the 1980s that the term glass ceiling was used to describe the invisible

barrier women encountered in the workplace, preventing them from ascending to the top

positions of an organization. In 1986, the Wall Street Journal published an article by Carol

Hymowitz and Timothy D. Schellhardt that is credited with popularizing the term glass ceiling.

The article focused on the invisible obstacles facing women who aspire to be top leaders, and

featured interviews with a number of women who had gone about as far as they could go in

corporate America. At the time, only one Fortune 500 company had a woman as CEO, and only

2 percent of the 1,362 top executives surveyed by Korn/Ferry International in 1985 were women

(Hymowitz & Schellhardt, 1986).

The U.S. government took notice of this phenomenon and enacted the Glass Ceiling Act

of 1991 and gave this definition to the glass ceiling:

WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA 4

Those artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias that prevent

qualified individuals from advancing upward in their organization into

management level positions, (p. 1).

As a result of the Glass Ceiling Act of 1991, the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission

(FGCC) was created. This committee was charged with identifying the barriers that prevent

women and minorities from advancing and identifying policies and practices that have been

proven to work in dismantling the glass ceiling. In 1995, a full report of the findings was

released.

Notably, the Commission reported that three levels of barriers sustain the glass ceiling:

societal barriers (outside of the control of businesses; barriers include candidate pipeline

challenges and socially held biases), internal structural barriers (within the direct control of

businesses; barriers include recruitment and training practices and internal pipeline challenges),

and governmental barriers (barriers include inconsistent collection, reporting and dissemination

of data associated with the glass and a lack of monitoring and enforcement around women and

minority advancement) (U.S. Department of Labor, 1995, 7-8). Additionally, the Commission

discussed some policies, practices, and organizational traits that were successful for some

organizations seeking to dismantle the glass ceiling.

Women in leadership: Current state

More than twenty years after the FGCC released its findings, the unfortunate reality is

that little has changed for women. As of November 2014, 57 percent of women were in the

labor force, only 12 percentage points lower than the share for men (69 percent). Women

account for about half of the U.S. labor force (47 percent in November 2014, (Pew Research
WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA 5

Center, 2015, p. 14). Though the rise in workforce representation is a good sign, it is not

necessarily translating to a proportional increase in leadership representation. In 2015, women

made up only 5.2 percent of Fortune 500 leaders holding the title of chief executive officer; only

26 women were in the highest position of power at these companies (p. 13). When you look at

traditionally male-dominated industries, such as science, technology, engineering and

mathematics (STEM), the results for women are even more dismal. As of 2010, they [women]

made up 13 percent of employed engineers, (p. 14). Even in industries and professional fields

where women have made up the majority of the workforce, such as public relations and

communications, they find leadership positions still tend to go to men. Women make up more

than half of the U.S. population (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997, p. 14), yet their

representation in management in public relations and many other fields is a much smaller

percentage (Cutlip, Center & Broom, 2000, p. 48), (Wrigley, 2002, p. 31).

Workforce representation is only a portion of the issue. The wage gap between men and

women is still prevalent throughout the U.S. Some studies indicate that women are still generally

making substantially less than their male counterparts, as much as 20 percent less (Institute for

Womens Policy Research, n.d.).

Benefits of empowering women in leadership

Ignoring these inequalities or proclaiming they simply dont exist does a disservice to

women, our society and the long-term financial health of corporations. Creating more diverse

corporate leaders and developing more opportunities for people of diverse backgrounds should

be an attractive goal for all of us because it is the right thing to do. However, if doing the right

thing to do is not enough of a reason for corporate America to support the advancement of
WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA 6

women in leadership positions, then perhaps corporate America can be persuaded by the bottom

line: profitability. Having women in leadership positions has been directly tied to increased

profitability. An increase in the share of women from zero to 30 percent would be associated

with a 15 percent rise in profitability, (Victor, 2016).

To corporations, diversity brings a variety of opinions, experiences, and world

perspectives to the table, which can help lead to better business decisions. Employees in diverse

work environments are less likely to fall victim to groupthink and organizations that nurture

diverse perspectives are more open to new and innovative ideas. (Hackman & Johnson, 2013, p.

313). Drawing on the insights of diverse members can dramatically improve how organizations

carry out their tasks - helping them to think in new ways about markets, products, goals, and

organizational structures, (p. 314).

An example of when having a diverse perspective, primarily that of a woman, would

have been beneficial is found in the General Mills Betty Crocker cake mix case study. In the

1950s, General Mills launched a new product targeted at women: a cake mix that only required

the addition of water. Though it was expected to perform well on the market because of the

strong Betty Crocker brand and time-savings, it did not meet expectations. A hired team of

psychologists concluded that, average American housewives felt bad using the product despite

its convenience. It saved so much time and effort when compared with the traditional cake

baking routine that they felt they were deceiving their husbands and guests, (Boyd, 2014). The

solution was simple: add an egg. The company removed the powdered egg from the recipe so

women could add one at home. This slight modification gave women a greater sense of

accomplishment and helped ease their guilt in using the cake mix. Its would be egregious to
WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA 7

assume that having women on the product development or marketing team would have provided

this guilt insight sooner, however General Mills may have benefited from having a female

perspective inserted at some point, since women were the audience being targeted.

In terms of effectiveness, there is no difference between male and female leaders. A

meta-analysis of research conducted around the impact gender has on leader effectiveness found

that in general, organizational and laboratory studies find male and female leaders to be equally

effective (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). Some of the other pertinent key findings are (as

summed by Hackman & Johnson, 2013):

Women tend to adopt a more interpersonally oriented style of leadership.

Women adopt participative or democratic leadership styles more often than men, making

them more open to collaboration and power sharing.

Women tend to be more engaged in transformational leader leadership behaviors, while

men tend to be more engaged in laissez-faire leadership behaviors.

Because of these tendencies, women have the potential to be better leaders than their

male counterparts.

Tactics for dismantling the glass ceiling

There is a business case for dismantling the glass ceiling, and doing so requires a

concerted efforts on all fronts. It should be noted that Corporate America alone did not erect all

these barriers and it alone cannot be expected to remove them. However, barriers internal to

business must be removed from within, (Department of Labor, 1995, p. 38). Every corporation

has a unique culture, and so not every strategy or tactic will have the same impact at every

corporation. Its important for current leaders take stock of their respective organizational culture
WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA 8

and carefully assess which strategies and tactics would be most effective, or what modifications

could make them more effective. The remainder of this paper focuses on three strategies and

tactics.

First, its important to acknowledge one of the root causes of gender bias in the

workplace: language. British linguist Judith Baxter argues that the use of language is the key to

overcoming barriers blocking women from their career objectives, (Hackman & Johnson, 2013,

p. 326). Some of the specific tactics Baxter proposes to challenge discrimination against women

are to adopt nonsexist language (e.g. using he/she instead of just he), raise awareness about

the negative adjectives used to describe women leaders (e.g. tough, shrill, moody), abandon the

use of masculine metaphors (e.g. war, sports), draw attention to seemingly harmless

generalizations (e.g. women are emotional, men dont listen well) and be supportive of women

leaders instead of engaging in gossip (p. 327-328). An important team within corporations that

should be trained on these language issues and be charged with being the first line of defence

against gendered language is the Communications team. Typically these are the gatekeepers of

mass-employee communications and are those preparing materials for leaders, putting them in an

optimal position to eradicate this issue. Another tactic to support this would be for corporations

to incorporate guidelines about how to avoid gendered language into a style guide.

Next, to effectively dismantle the glass ceiling, corporations need to be aware of policies

and procedures that unwittingly keep it in place. Evaluating the procedures typically followed for

recruiting is a good place to start. Every corporation wants to attract and retain the best talent and

so talent acquisition teams frequently look to top colleges across the country for young talent

(Department of Labor, 1995). Though women and minorities have a stronger presence on college
WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA 9

campuses today than they did 20 years ago, its still important to gauge whether or not these

college recruiting activities garner the level of diversity a company expects to see reflected in its

workforce. A more successful, though admittedly more time consuming, tactic may be to create

in-roads with women-centered organizations on college campuses and with national professional

organizations that have a large female presence.

To strengthen this strategy and build in accountability, talent acquisition teams could set

specific goals for the number of women who apply, interview for, and receive positions. In

positions where men may seem to show more interest, the team should evaluate the places

(online and in print) where the job is promoted and determine if there are more optimal

promotion opportunities that expand the diversity pool. The team should also evaluate the job

description and the interview process, as there may be unintentional gender biased language

being used.

Finally, the last strategy being recommended is one that encourages corporations to

develop leadership development opportunities and programs that pay specific attention to the

needs of women. Men should not be excluded from these opportunities and programs because

men stand to learn a great deal about what women have to bring to the leadership table and better

understand the struggles women face. This could be accomplished through leadership training

and discussion groups, sensitivity training, and personality assessments, such as StrengthsFinder

and strength deployment inventory (SDI).

There is also a case for creating safe workspaces that are for women only. Ibarra, Ely and

Kolb (2013) encourage corporations to develop coaching relationships between employees,

 WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA
10

mentor/mentee programs, and support groups so women can exchange experiences and feedback,

workplace challenges, and emotionally supporting each other (p. 66).

Conclusion

Women in the U.S. made tremendous progress in the 20th century, from gaining the right

to vote to the enactment of Title IX. And in the 21st century, for the first time, a woman was

nominated by a major party to run for President - no small feat. Despite these historic milestones,

women still have a long way to go to truly be equal to their male counterparts. It will take a

concerted effort on the part of corporations, government, special interest groups, and individual

citizens to continue to make progress.

There is not one tactic or program that can alone dismantle the glass ceiling, and it is not

solely the responsibility of corporations to bring down this barrier, but they play an important

role in doing so. By setting diversity and inclusion measurement goals and employing various

tactics to dismantle the glass ceiling at each of the levels of barriers that perpetuate it,

corporations can begin to overcome this invisible barrier and reap the benefits of having women

in a greater number of leadership positions.

 WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA
11

References

Boyd, D. (2014) A creativity lesson from Betty Crocker. Psychology Today. Retrieved from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-the-box/201401/creativity-lesson-betty-cr

ocker

Cardinali, R. (2002). Women in the workplace: Revisiting the production soldiers, 1939-1945.

Work Study, 51(2/3), 121-133.

Eagly, A., Karau, S., Makhijani, M., & Steinberg, Robert J. (1995). Gender and the Effectiveness

of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125-145.

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective. Long

Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Hur, Van Den Berg, & Wilderom. (2011). Transformational leadership as a mediator between

emotional intelligence and team outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 591-603.

Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T.D. (1986, March 24). The Corporate Woman (A Special

Report): Cover --- The Glass Ceiling: Why Women Can't Seem to Break The Invisible

Barrier That Blocks Them From the Top Jobs. Wall Street Journal, p. 1.

Ibarra, H., Ely, R., & Kolb, D. (2013). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business

Review. Retrieved from

https://engage.purdue.edu/learn/pluginfile.php/40397/mod_page/content/2/Women%20L

Eadership.pdf

Institute for Womens Policy Research (n.d.). Pay equity and discrimination. Retrieved from

http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

Newsom, J.S. (Producer & director). (2011). Miss representation [documentary]. United States:
 WOMEN LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA
12

OWN.

Pew Research Center (2015). Women in leadership. Retrieved from

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

U.S. Department of Labor (1991). A report on the glass ceiling initiative. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED340653.pdf

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

Capital. Retrieved from

https://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/reich/reports/ceiling.pdf

Victor, D. (2016). Women in company leadership tied to stronger profits, study says. The New

York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/business/women-in-company-leadership-tied-to-stro

nger-profits.html

Wrigley, B. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view

the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 14:1, 27-55.