Women's glass ceiling?

The topic of women reaching the highest level of the corporate world was broached the other night.  While the topic is not as entertaining as Jeffery’s recent posts, I think it is worthy of kicking around.  To me the topic breaks down into two distinct parts:  can women today reach the top, and are their decisions on the way more difficult than men’s in similar situations?

Can women reach the top?  I believe history has proven that women can reach the top, easier in some fields than others.  For example, there are more women in the House and Senate than ever before; although with my opinion of Congress, I’m not sure that supports the position that women can reach the top.  An astounding 29 females are governors (including two that are in an “acting” capacity), including obviously Michigan’s own Governor Granholm.  Michigan State as well as Harvard and MIT boast female presidents (as does the University of Cambridge for the Anglophiles in the group).  However, women make up only approximately 16.4% of the CEOs of the Fortune 500; this is up from 8.7% in a little more than ten years. 

Is the glass ceiling at work in business, but not elsewhere?  My conclusion is no.  The discrepancy between business and politics is explained by the fact that the business world requires a far greater level of in-depth knowledge and experience than the relatively soft-skills needed in politics.  I’ve been unable to find any statistics on senior women whether they are married or single, or the number with children; those statistics could obviously impact the conclusions I make in the rest of the post.

Clearly the glass ceiling used to be a factor; the “old boys” club was true, but the glass ceiling for women has clearly passed into the dustbin of the past.  (A possible topic for another post might be the shattering of the racial glass ceiling as well.)  I suggest two factors lead to the skewed figures in the business world:  history, and the choices women make during their working life. 

For the liberals in the group that need to be reminded, there is a difference between men and women; men, unless you happen to be on Oprah, cannot have babies.  For women who choose to have children, typically this occurs at the age when competitors are at the peak of the learning and “moving up the ladder” curve in a company.  A number of laws protect the women’s jobs during pregnancy and neonatal care time off, but realistically time (to the company) is still lost during the birthing process.  The shareholders of the company do not care if someone, especially a key player, is out for a pregnancy that might cause the bottom-line to flounder.  Management must take into account key staff availability when making promotion and job assignment choices; the choices are not made because the candidates are male or female, but may be based on availability. 

The second aspect of child rearing is women, whether single mothers or married, frequently are significantly more involved in nurturing the children; by requirement or choice is immaterial to this blog.  Thus when the child is sick or needs personal time, mothers are much more likely to take off from work than men.  Is it right?  It depends on the choice of the participants.  All else being equal (I don’t believe men or women have an edge in intelligence or work ethic), I believe someone who puts in more productive time at work has a better chance of promotion.  It is only natural to give highly important, visible tasks to someone you know will be there regardless of family situation; it is immaterial if this is a male or female.

Does child birth/rearing/care or family responsibilities make a woman less qualified?  Absolutely not, but the loss of time from work certainly may hinder promotion potential dependent on when it occurs.  Here is where the women have a difficult choice, much more so than men have had historically.  Should they devote their time to their children and family, or, as many men have chosen to do, leave the family in care of the spouse (or other caregiver) and hit the corporate work place as hard as they can?  It is a brutal decision, but may be a key one on the way to the top floor.  Obviously there are circumstances that may help ease the decision such as the availability (or lack of same) of day care, empathetic spouse or significant other, or nearness of a support systems.  I sympathize with all the women who have to make this choice.  I hope they choose what is best for them and their families, and do not choose for money or status. 

As far as historically, until relatively recently women were not a mainstay of the work force; currently the business work force is divided about 50/50 between men and women.  That would suggest, as does the increase in female CEOs in the last ten years, as women get longevity and experience in the work place, they will rise based on their merits.  I do not think women need “preferential treatment” laws any more than anyone else does.  They should rise, or not, based on their own merit and their worth to the company.  The multiple gender baiting and tracking organizations that “prove” company X or corporation Y are discriminating against women actually harm female advancement in the work place.  If you are under a constant threat of litigation from one sub-set of potential employees but not another, is it not natural to limit exposure and lean toward the non-litigious group if all else is equal?  To prevent an outcry, I am not a pagan nor am I suggesting there should be some unwritten preference toward hiring or promoting white males, but the gender baiters (National Organization of Women is one) are a real problem to women’s advancement in the work force.  Let meritocracy reign.  Women are more than capable of standing on their own.  Time will level out the statistics given a fair chance.

Comments

[Populista]

In my field, if you don't work 2,500+ hours per year, you are not going to make partner, pretty much no matter how good you are (unless you are well connected, which is a whole other issue). It's pretty hard to be a good mom (or dad) when you are away from your kids 2,500 hours per year. I've seen people do it, but very few can pull it off. I had to opt out of trying to make partner, I'm now in industry. I still work full time, just not 50+ hours per week. The upside potential of my earnings is vastly smaller now, but I do have a better "work/life balance" (ugh, I hate, hate, HATE that term), and the $ I'm making is still quite good, but I'm not going to be anyone's CEO either. If quality were as valued as quantity, I think you would see many more female CEO's, but as long as people, typically women, are forced to make that choice, this will always be a problem.

[SnottyBubbleTush]

Good post, Populista. I had an epiphany moment many years ago when I thought about what I'd like my tombstone to say: "Smart, Talented VP" or "Smart, Talented and Deeply Loved Mother". After that, it was easy.

[Michael Motta]

Speaking of Anglophilia and some Cambridge alumni:

STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It's my right as a man.
JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What's the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

[EmersonsZen]

Excellent post Michael...

I had forgotten about the "Judean People's Front." Quite a hoot.

"Any otter's noses?"

I must have seen the movie 5 times when it first came out. Loved it.

[Michael Motta]

Thanks Zen. I think "The Life of Brian" is a little better than "The Holy Grail", yet it seems to be less widely enjoyed than is the latter.