This article will cover the following points:

• What is a Glass Ceiling?
• Is there a possibility of a glass cliff? 
• “Women are less educated compared to men, that is why women cannot reach higher positions!” 
• “Men can lead better because women are too emotional!” 

What is the Glass Ceiling effect?

The Glass Ceiling effect has been a widely investigated topic in the past few years. Researchers describe this as the phenomenon showing that when it comes to women, they are unable to obtain top management positions and only rise to middle management positions. This is one of the factors that highly contribute to the gender pay gap in many countries [3,7]. 

But why does the glass ceiling effect even exist in the first place? As humans, we have many assumptions and prejudices about the environment around us. One of those prejudices hits us in the face when we go to a workplace: gender roles. In most societies, there are certain predetermined roles made for both men and women. For example, in most societies men are the bread-makers of the family, whereas women take care of their children at home. Consequently, people still assume that women cannot work in a higher position while being a mother at the same time. However, when a man becomes a father while working in a high management position it is something that is celebrated among coworkers and viewed positively. These distinct assumptions create a barrier for women who  are trying to reach higher management positions [5]. 

Moreover, one of the core principles of human nature states that we are more attracted by people who fit within our mental schemas. As we grow up, we develop a set of assumptions and beliefs about the world around us. In this case, people develop schemas about how a leader should behave. This is known as leadership categorisation theory.  For example, if you believe that a leader should behave like Elon Musk that would be known as your leadership prototype. You will compare the leaders you have to the characteristics of Elon Musk. This comparison process will affect how much you relate to your leader. Similarly, during the employment processes, recruiters are unconsciously affected by their leader prototypes (i.e. CEO of the company, their own images of a leader). They will look for people who can act the part but also look the part. This leads to a higher employment rate of white, cis male individuals, because most of the companies CEOs carry this profile. However, this is highly dependent on the culture and the country. For instance, leadership categorisation can be widely seen in the American history if you look at the presidents they have elected so far (i.e. most of them are white males) [5,7,8]. 

Is there a possibility of a Glass Cliff? 

Another interesting argument that stemmed in previous years is the glass cliff: women are appointed top positions in situations where this role is unstable and risky. One of the ways authors explain this is by looking at a similar link: Think manager-think male. By this, it is meant that men are mostly seen as more suitable for leadership roles because they are more likely to possess the “ideal” characteristics (e.g., dominant, competitive, aggressive, self-reliant). Compared to these characteristics, women stereotypically put more emphasis on being aware of how others feel, being caring, helpful and understanding. Thus, when it comes to women, there may be an effect of “Think crisis-Think female” [9]. This suggests that characteristics of women would be more suitable for leadership solely during a period of crisis, compared to the characteristics of men (i.e. communication skills, ability to motivate others). In fact, studies show that males are more likely to be chosen as CEO when the company is doing well. On the other hand, when the company is going through a crisis, females are more likely to be appointed as CEOs[9].  When women are appointed in these times, they are the ones that take the shot and go down, which damages their reputation and career. Authors studying this matter emphasize that the glass cliff is highly dependent on the situation, hence this phenomenon will only be seen when the company or the organization is going through a crisis. 

Examples of this phenomenon can be seen in the media: Margaret Thatcher, CEO of Hewlett Packard Carly Fiorina. A concrete solution to the glass cliff has not yet been reached, but it is an interesting phenomenon to consider with regard to female underrepresentation [9]. 

“Women are less educated compared to men, that is why women cannot reach higher positions!” 

When it comes to how people spend their time, it seems that women and men carry out distinct activities outside of the workplace. Women are more likely to spend longer amounts of time for household activities compared to men. But interestingly, this depends on the country as well [10]. 

Moreover, some people argued that women have less opportunities, thus they do not spend as much time on education or training as men do. However, a study done across 2013 and 2014 demonstrated that women earn 57% of all bachelor degrees, 59% of masters degrees and 52% of doctoral degrees. This means that women are statistically more educated than men[4]. Yet, they are somehow still less likely to occupy high positions among organizations and Universities (e.g. Professors). 

“Men can lead better because women are too emotional!”

The topic of leadership has a pretty diverse background, however most people believe that men are innately better leaders than women. The reasoning behind this notion comes from the way society shapes gender role and from biological differences, which make each sex unique in their skills. One of the leadership styles that has been extensively and consistently examined is: Transformational Leadership. It is characterized by four different characteristics: Idealized influence, Inspirational motivation, Intellectual stimulation and Individual consideration. 

Compared to other leadership styles, transformational leadership is seen as one of the most effective techniques a leader can employ in different situations [2]. 

Interestingly, Eagly, Schmidt and Van Engen (2003) [6] investigated gender differences in leadership styles, and found that women are more likely to show transformational leadership. This contradicts the assumption of women being too emotional to lead others well. 

Further research investigating the Big 5 personality traits (Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability) [2] exhibits that women are on average more neurotic than men, but they are also a bit more agreeable, extraverted and conscientious compared to men. Thus, evidence shows that personality cannot really explain why women face a glass ceiling effect. 

So, how is the future looking? 

Undoubtedly, a lot of progress has been made that should be recognized and valued. Nevertheless, this does not mean we should stop! Even though most people in different societies and cultures believe that the stereotype-driven gap is long gone, we still have a long road ahead. You can contribute to closing this gap by educating yourself on this topic and acting consciously towards people in your life. 

Here at Shrink it Out, we believe it is crucial for people to be aware of this issue and work towards it together. This should be done in all parts of life and not only in organizations. If you want to learn more about the underrepresentation of women check out some of these sources:

1. Book: Nice girls don’t get the corner office by Lois P. Frankel 
2. Youtube video: Why a wave of women in politics hasn’t happened yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwX62UdsgtE&ab_channel=ABCNewsIn-depth
3. Podcast: Run it like a girl https://player.fm/series/run-it-like-a-girl
4. Netflix series: Explained - Why women are paid less https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8dLUxBfsU&ab_channel=Netflix
5. Ted Talk: Why we have too few women leaders https://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders?language=en 

References

1. Board diversity: Catalyst archives. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2021, from https://www.catalyst.org/topics/board-diversity/
2. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 89(5), 901.
3. Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social forces, 80(2), 655-681.
4. Digest of Education Statistics, (2013). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_318.20.asp
5. Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual review of psychology, 69, 275-298.
6. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological bulletin, 129(4), 569.
7. Reiners, B. (2019, September 30). What is the glass ceiling & how do we break it? Retrieved February 12, 2021, from https://builtin.com/diversity-inclusion/glass-ceiling
8. Rosette, A. S., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. W. (2008). The White standard: racial bias in leader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 758.
9. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Morgenroth, T., Rink, F., Stoker, J., & Peters, K. (2016). Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 446-455.
10. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). American time use survey: Results (USDL-20-1275) [Data set]. United States Department of Labor.