Glass ceilings in organizational hierarchies and career advancement

Glass Ceilings

The concept of glass ceiling is traditional and the general purpose of the ceiling is to stop women working in the organization from reaching a level higher than they are permitted by that ceiling. In the state of Wisconsin, 58% of working women reported that this exists in their company. (Companies must take lead from state on breaking glass ceiling)

There are many prejudices that exist in humans and most of them are regarding some groups not being as capable as others - blacks, lower castes and class, people of faiths other than the one we practice, etc. Well what is to be done about these beliefs? Aggressive women say that white male will make up only 15% of the entrants to the workforce. Another statement is that 80% of women leave jobs because of the glass ceiling or that talented women end up starting their own companies. This is apparently leading to a rapid growth of companies being owned by women. (Companies must take lead from state on breaking glass ceiling) Part of these reactions is possibly coming for reasons similar to aggression that was seen when the issue for women getting the right to vote came up. Whether the above facts are true or only partially true is immaterial, but the issue of glass ceilings is now an issue that causes working women great suffering.

Now let us look at some women who succeeded in going beyond the traditional glass ceiling. Pamela Thomas Graham is now the President and COO of CNBC. She was the first to become a partner at McKinsey & Co. In 1995 and then shifted to CNBC and has now risen to her present position. According to her the young women of today should feel inspired by the fact that in a relatively short period of time, position has changed. Things are easier for women than they were twenty years earlier, and the change will continue as long as the women keep pushing. She feels that the situation is becoming easier, but women have to keep pushing for change. Another woman, who is also an entrepreneur, having co-founded some three companies feels that for entrepreneurs it is important to first gain credibility, and that does not matter whether a person is a male or a female. The factor of being a woman is to just be a woman and not keep talking about being a woman. That talk is like carrying "a chip on the shoulders" and does not do other women any good. This sort of behavior affects other woman. She is Judy Estrin, President and CEO of Packet Design Inc. (Open to Women? Are we living in a meritocracy or a machotocracy?)

These are two women who are in relatively smaller organizations and feel that there is a certain amount of discrimination which should go. Another person is a professor and she talks about the new economy being robust and women still not getting full benefits. She feels that she has been accepted as an equal, but the acceptance of mothers and children as equal has not happened, and this is a major problem for poor mothers and their children. Those individuals do not get enough prenatal care, and the growth in the economy has not helped those women. It is obvious that she is talking about very small children and their mothers as she is Phyllis Magrab, the professor of pediatrics at Georgetown University School of Medicine. She is polite, but one can see clearly that she is not talking about woman of equal social status.

Since the organization that we are interested in is Proctor & Gamble, let us now hear what women in that type of organizations are talking. According to Cherri M. Musser, chief information officer at GM in Detroit, she did not even think about gender when she took up her job. She looked at the job and her growth has been due to her successes in dealing with the job. These skills according to her are more important than her gender. A similar type of a message comes from Susan Arnold, President global personal beauty care at proctor & Gamble. According to her, she has shattered some glass ceilings on the way, but has been treated fairly throughout her career. She was always giving excellent results and this had meant giving the largest profits from any division in North America in ten years, and she was supported by the CEO who was her first boss. She is working in the company for 20 years. (Open to Women? Are we living in a meritocracy or a machotocracy?)

Let us now see how the biggest employer, the government views the entire issue. The government has been telling all business organizations to implement policies taking affirmative action and equal employment opportunity in selecting and developing mid level to senior level managers and not place artificial barriers to higher level jobs for minority men and women of all races. That there are such barriers in terms of attitudes and organization itself for preventing or inhibiting equal progress for minority men and women is not doubted. The government is certain that removing such barriers is the correct thing to do. There is a lot of evidence to prove that removal of these barriers will lead to bigger profits for the organizations. Yet the efforts were not being made to hire the widest pool of talent, key employee identification and career development for these groups was not done properly. The result was that the highest paid woman still receives only the 20th highest salary in the organization and the highest paid minority is at the 127th position. It was seen that women were always lagging behind men in salary and minorities were even further behind. There is also "an inverse relationship between affirmative action and discrimination." (Are There Cracks In The Ceiling?)