A decision-making model for analysing how the glass ceiling is maintained: unblocking equal promotion opportunities

Martin Large and Mark N.K. Saunders

Introduction
Despite 20 years of extensive legislation and the widespread implementation of equal opportunities policies, there is still widespread structural inequality and job segregation in Britain. Whereas ten years ago approximately 10 per cent of junior managers were women, now 25 per cent are women. Middle and senior management is still largely a male preserve with, according to recent surveys, 4 per cent of senior managers women. There still seems to be a glass ceiling in many organizations of varying degrees of thickness a glass ceiling which is xed at different levels, depending on the organization. This article considers established statistics on gender inequality at work, together with some recent research ndings. Subsequently, possible reasons for career slippage between men and women graduates are discussed. Based on case study work a model of the promotion decision-making process is outlined which explains how both individual choices and organizational blockages combine to maintain the glass ceiling. This is examined using case studies of the ways in which women view and participate in the promotion process. These have been chosen to be illustrative rather than representative.

The authors Martin Large and Mark N.K. Saunders are based at Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, Cheltenham, UK. Abstract Recent British gures on gender and inequality at work show that, despite extensive legislation and the implementation of equal opportunities policies, there is still widespread structural gender inequality and job segregation. There still seems to be a glass ceiling in many organizations of various degrees of thickness. This ceiling is xed at different levels depending on the organization. Addresses the key questions of why career slippage occurs and how the glass ceiling is maintained. Explores a model of decision making which explains how a combination of both individual choices and organizational blockages maintains the glass ceiling. Conclusions include the proposition that the dynamics of individual decision making about career progression within organizations need to be analysed when equal opportunities policies are being planned.

Gender inequality at work

Published statistics suggest a gradual improvement in equality of opportunity over the last 20 years although whether these improvements would have happened anyway without legislation or equal opportunities policies is a question which has been debated. Over the last decade (1984-1993) the British labour force of working age has grown by 1.3 million people. Ninety-two per cent of this net increase has been due to women[1], many of whom work part-time. One of the most widely quoted statistics which relates to the relative improvement of womens opportunities is average gross hourly earnings. In 1975 the average gross hourly earnings of fulltime employees on adult rates was 98.3p for women and 139.3p for men; in other words womens earnings were 70.6 per cent of mens earnings. By 1991 the average earnings had risen to 589.1p for women and 756.9p for men. Womens earnings were now 77.8 per 21

The International Journal of Career Management Volume 7 Number 2 1995 pp. 2128 MCB University Press ISSN 0955-6214

A decision-making model

The International Journal of Career Management Volume 7 Number 2 1995 2128

Martin Large and Mark N.K. Saunders

cent of mens earnings, a slight improvement[2]. This differential appears somewhat surprising as almost exactly the same proportion of female school-leavers (12.4 per cent) as male school-leavers (12.5 per cent) in 198990 proceeded to degree courses and teachertraining courses[2]. Surveys have found young women keen to develop successful careers for themselves: for 80 per cent of a sample of 1,000 women under 35, career progression was more important than training children[3]. Despite this, a CNAA-funded study for HELM reported the early onset of signicant career slippage. Three years after graduation women had lower status jobs, more limited promotion prospects and earned signicantly less than men[4]. Further evidence of unequal opportunities is provided by a 1989 NEDO survey. This found that, although 27 per cent of all managerial posts were held by women, only 4 per cent of middle/senior posts were held by women, and less than 2 per cent of senior executives were women[5]. A 1992 survey of 29,000 executives working in UK-based companies found that only 8 per cent were female and that their relative share fell dramatically as one moved up the corporate hierarchy[6]. This analysis suggests that the probability of promotion is no higher (and sometimes signicantly lower) for women top executives. Even more strikingly, they found no promotion of women to the highest jobs (the board of directors). This is supported by a 1989 survey of the top 200 Confederation of British Industry companies and eight building societies. This study found that 80 per cent of these companies did not have any women on their board, only 16 per cent had women nonexecutive directors and only 3 per cent had women executive directors[7]. Similarly, an examination of directors of the 1992 FT-SE 100 UK companies reveals only two female executive directors[6]. Within British companies the vast majority of such managerial posts are full-time, yet 45 per cent of women work part-time compared with 7 per cent of men[8]. Only 18 per cent of women managers work part-time[9]. From these ndings the following conclusions can be drawn: wage differentials are narrowing slowly; 22

more women than ever are entering the labour market, especially as part-time workers; women who make it typically only reach lower positions in the management hierarchy; middle/senior management levels are still for men the exact height of the glass ceiling varies according to the organization. Thus job segregation, apparently on a gender basis, is widespread in management. In addition there is signicant career slippage between men and women graduates on level playing-elds even in organizations paying special attention to equal opportunities.

Why does career slippage occur?

A variety of reasons can be put forward to explain career slippage between male and female graduates with equivalent qualications. Some of these relate to individuals perceptions of their chances for career progression, others relate to the perceived or actual structural and cultural blockages found in more or less gendered organizations. Organizational blockages often include a selection of the following factors: Male managers rate male and female graduate subordinates equally effectively for work performance. However, they rate womens career potential lower[4]. Unclear, vague criteria often exist for progression into management. These can lead to biased decisions when making promotion. The IMS study[10] concluded that the attributes required by managers were vague, but also rather male. Management is still perceived as a male role. For example, Sir Alan Sheppard of Grand Metropolitan was reported as stating at the 1992 Confederation of British Industry Corporate Governance meeting that he would dearly love to appoint a woman with the qualities of Sir John Harvey-Jones or Sir Dick Giordano, two of his most famous non-executives. But any women seeking to match them would have to have an operation [11]. Even where effective equal opportunities policies have addressed structures and systems in companies there are deep-seated, often unconscious, culture blockages which

A decision-making model

The International Journal of Career Management Volume 7 Number 2 1995 2128

Martin Large and Mark N.K. Saunders

form the bedrock of a discriminatory organizational culture. For example, a career and family person may be written off in the career stakes. A person seeking co-operative as opposed to competitive work relationships may be seen as weak. Assertive women are seen as aggressive and unfeminine, whereas unassertive men are seen as passive. The culture may be corrosive towards womens career progression for example, the female junior manager who was told to go on a management course, dear to shut her up. Readers could list their own blockages to gender equality in their organization. However, to be fair, many organizations have addressed equal opportunities, have changed systems and structures, set targets, and provided positive action programmes. Even though there is always room for organizational improvement, research has identied constraints on women which are due to individual perceptions, self-efcacy and societal factors[12].

A decision-making model for career progression: how is the glass ceiling maintained?
Individuals take decisions with varying degrees of rationality about their careers, based on the information available, their perceptions of the factors they can or cannot control, and within the constraints of their total life/work situations. The decision making can be modelled as a two-stage process adapted from Porter and Lawlers expectancy model of motivation (cited in [13]). Porter

and Lawler argue that individuals effort is inuenced by the values they place on outcomes, and the degree to which they believe their effort will lead to these outcomes. Thus the model is concerned with rst assessing the value to the individual of the promotion prospect (the outcome) and second, if the promotion is valued, the perception of the likelihood of promotion (degree of belief). In each careeer/promotion decision a woman may ask whether she values the rewards from promotion more than the stresses (the assessment undertaken to enable this question to be answered is modelled in Figure 1). The package of intrinsic rewards such as the possibility of relocation, and the opportunities to build sound career foundations (case A); and of extrinsic rewards such as exibility to enable time with children (cases A and B) may be important. Everyone perceives the rewards on offer through their own perceptual window, and acts accordingly. A woman may already hold the perception that women have to work harder than men to get on at the same rate because of internal and external negative comparisons (case B). Such perceptions of inequity may be quite false for the organization but, if not corrected or overcome by a powerful role model (case A), may become a powerful individual inhibitor. Harassment might also add to the stress and defensiveness. It is often said that the best will always do well but this raises the question of those who have potential, but misperceive or perceive the total reward package from going for promotion as negative. If this is the case, individuals will be unlikely to decide to put a little extra effort into going for promotion.

Figure 1 Assessment of the value of promotion Knowledge of promotion opportunity Intrinsic rewards from promotion Extrinsic rewards from promotion Job satisfaction Life satisfaction

Comparison with others (internal and external)

Do I value the rewards from promotion more than the stresses?

23

A decision-making model

The International Journal of Career Management Volume 7 Number 2 1995 2128

Martin Large and Mark N.K. Saunders

The second question is dependent on the outcome of the assessment of the value of promotion (Figure 1). Given that a woman personally values the rewards from promotion (a possible outcome of Figure 1), the question is whether her efforts will lead to likely promotion (see Figure 2). Women perceive a whole set of helping and hindering factors which may affect extra effort leading to career progression. The operation of these factors is illustrated by the three cases, each of which includes a range of the following: a supportive relationship with their manager (compare cases A and B); appropriate career guidance and mentoring (compare cases A, B and C); a positive peer group which encourages individuals to make the most of themselves (case B); access to information about possible future career openings and promotions (case B); access to training (cases A and C), and opportunities to use the skills gained; a positive organizational climate towards equal opportunities for example, which rewards both career primary and life/career balancers (cases B and C); fair, open competition for promotion (case B). The opposite of these (the hindering factors) will, if underpinned by a corrosive gender culture, block or seriously deter any woman going for career progression[14]. This might partly explain the reluctant manager phe-

nomenon or the numbers of women managers leaving to start their own businesses. In addition there are also societal and personal factors which inuence career decision making. Such factors often include: What the peer group pressures are to conform either to being career primary or family primary (case B) how are these maintained by the media, for example during recession times? The degree of familial (including partner) support will they assist with parenting, housework, agree to relocate and so on (case A)? Which partners job is dominant and (perhaps) has the most realistic economic prospects (case A)? (London may be the only place in the UK where both partners can develop high-ying careers[15]). What are personal values and beliefs about parenting? To what extent do traditional norms inuence these (cases B and C)? (Just think of those latch-key children!) Will the woman have to do three jobs: a manager, a partner and a parent (case B)? What is the womans self-image (case C)? Judi Marshall has asked, will becoming a manager become a role conict between gender and managerial role[16]? Given the lack of exibility of working conditions offered by most organizations, what is the reality of a career and a family for the woman (cases B and C)? What is the opportunity cost in going for promotion (cases A and B)? Will there be me-time in all this (case B)?

Figure 2 Assessment of the likelihood of promotion

Do I value the rewards from promotion more than the stresses? Yes Will my efforts lead to likely promotion? Organizational hindering factors Yes I did get promotion (positive feedback) No I did not get promotion (negative feedback) Individual perceptions of constraints and blockages Organizational helping factors Individual perceptions of needs and helping factors Try for promotion

24

A decision-making model

The International Journal of Career Management Volume 7 Number 2 1995 2128

Martin Large and Mark N.K. Saunders

As long as a woman is childless, or even has one child, many of these questions may go on the back-burner. However, as domestic, parenting or partner pressures build up, women begin to ask whether they can juggle all this. Perhaps inevitably, one partner then tends to become career primary, and the other partner becomes family primary. Both partners being life/career balancers is also possible but given the societal, cultural and organizational context it will probably be hard work to maintain for any length of time.

Conclusions
To conclude, everyone is different, and makes choices about whether to work for career progression out of their unique life/work situation and their perceptions of it. Organizations may help or hinder the achievement of gender equity but on the whole need to keep reducing both structural and cultural blockages. The case studies emphasize the importance of the immediate boss in this reduction. However, the assessment of rewards from and likelihood of promotion modelled above explain how individuals, on consideration of their own personal circumstances, choose or are constrained to limit their career aspirations to a comfort level which maintains a life/career balance below the glass ceiling. Our thesis is that, unless equal opportunities employers analyse both the organizational and the individual blockages, then the glass ceiling of managerial female and male job segregation at middle, senior and director levels will continue.

Cases
Case A Woman A is in her early 50s and until recently worked as a professional manager in the NHS. Throughout her career, family (extrinsic) issues have been important in her assessment of the value of promotion, and for some job changes these have held more sway than the intrinsic rewards of the job. After qualifying, woman A chose a high status career job to develop a new service which was lacking rather than a more general job in the same profession. After two years, parental illness (which coincided with her boss leaving) prompted her to obtain a new 25

job (at the same grade) in her home town. In addition she felt that the challenge had gone from the original job. During the subsequent period her personal life became more important than her career resulting in marriage and a further job change (again at the same grade) to be close to her partner. Subsequent to this woman A left her job to have her rst baby. For the next ten years woman A moved with her partner (and his jobs). Where possible she took part-time jobs in the NHS to keep her hand in with professional skills, provided that they tted in with her family. A key feature of these jobs was the support packages, particularly in relation to child care, worked out with the employing organizations. Towards the end of this period jobs were taken for predominantly nancial reasons. Marital breakdown forced woman A to nd a new job. Extrinsic factors were still foremost, in particular the need to support her family. However, the nal decision was also based on the employing hospitals help with housing and organizing her childrens education. Over the next two years the job developed culminating in her being offered a managerial job by her boss. She saw this as a career versus family decision, in which she put career rst. This, she argues, was possible owing to her having established support links within the local community and support from her boss (female) who also provided a role model. During the following seven years woman A developed the job, building up from two to a team of 20 staff and undertook a management course. By this time she felt she had outgrown the job, so was looking for a promotion; intrinsic rewards were now most important. She applied for, and was offered, one of the six top jobs in the country. In evaluating the promotion decision, she remembers thinking I will have reached one of the top management jobs in my profession, and if I decide to go no further it will be a nice place to live. In addition she rated the boss. She talked the decision through with her family and they were all supportive, so she took the job. Four years later, forthcoming NHS reforms meant that the womans job was unlikely to exist in the long-term future. Her boss indicated that the next career move would be into general and away from professional management. She felt that this would

A decision-making model

The International Journal of Career Management Volume 7 Number 2 1995 2128

Martin Large and Mark N.K. Saunders

have few intrinsic rewards for her as it involved less people management and more nancial management. She therefore applied for and took a job in higher education after being approached by the person who was to be her new manager. This job, she felt, offered intrinsic rewards of new challenges and a whole new vision. Case B Woman B is in her early 30s, a member of the Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD), works as an independent consultant and trainer, has two young children and is married. The arrival of children and negative company attitudes to family loyalties led to her decision to leave after eight years of working there. Arriving as a temp, she became a secretary in the personnel department of an expanding nancial services company. I aimed at achieving a management job, owning a house and getting a company car. I was single for a while, with no other focus than a career, a strong achiever, ambitious and assertive, even aggressive. I was blunt. Positive assertiveness raised my prole, but it also meant I hit problems rather than calculated. As a good secretary I was in danger of being marginalized into the ossy trap, even though I did a lot of the bosss jobI had a wafer boss and in contrast I got things done. I got positive feedback and was recognized by senior managers and the managing director, partly because of a wicked sense of humour. Woman B was not afraid of them or their rank and was not perceived like the mother gure women. She worked late like the managing director and developed rapport. Woman B obtained the personnel ofcer job via a selection panel. There was no encouragement to go for the job, and no active support for her training and development. When she took the Institute of Personnel Managers (now IPD) qualication this course was seen as a right pain and people asked her are you off on your easy afternoon? Promoted to training ofcer, woman B took maternity leave for four months while she had her rst baby. She provided cover during this period and the training manager was brilliantly supportive. However the personnel director was not and with woman 26

Bs second pregnancy said There goes, off on her rest. Woman B feels that company culture was (and still is) characterized by back stabbing, cliques, the blue eyes/face ts equals promotion syndrome, tunnel vision, unencouraging and secretive with use of information to gain power. She believes that there was value conict with information being selectively communicated and some women receiving less pay than men for equivalent jobs. Woman B believed that she had to distance herself from this, even though there were comments like theres the feminist or the personnel manager saying lets get the female point of view. Just after the birth of her second baby Woman B was promoted to training manager, a post she describes as at a middle management level just below the glass ceiling, to which a lot of people who are dead wood rise. Woman B was promoted because she was seen to deliver on training, although the salary was substantially less than the departing training managers. Woman B felt that to get through the glass ceiling you had to brown-nose, to be a yesperson . In addition she had to join the conict at the top between rival factions of directors. Woman B did not enjoy this. Woman B considered her options after the birth of her second child. It was the recession, she did not like the company, but the job involved only 15 minutes travel to and from work. She had taken the training manager job partly to pay the mortgage payments for a recently purchased larger house. However, with the increased child-minding costs, the longer hours and other expenses there was very little surplus. In addition she had little time for herself, her children or partner who also worked full-time. The company was in Woman Bs words completely inexible. Her manager refused to consider reducing her hours, possible job sharing, more pay or even redundancy! She left. She was kept on a retainer for three months and now does consultancy and lecturing for three days a week, with two days for the family. Woman B sees the big advantage as time but feels that one day she will return to being a company woman because I miss itbesides which I want to maintain my

A decision-making model

The International Journal of Career Management Volume 7 Number 2 1995 2128

Martin Large and Mark N.K. Saunders

ambitions we need more female managing directors! Case C Woman C has a 20 hours a week contract as a market research professional in a consulting group. Analysis of her 1993 time sheets shows that she has worked an average of four days a week rather than the contracted two to three over the past year. She says, When I am needed, I (and my childminder) are usually exible to come in when requiredI am resisting pressure to come in ofcially four days a week. A language graduate in her early 30s, Woman C has qualications in marketing, a diploma in management studies (DMS) and extensive experience in systems support for marketing. Her partner works for the same company and they have a young child who was born in the autumn of 1991. She aspires to remain part-time, especially as her child gets older; however, she also wants to stay in consultancy with the same rm and move up the [career] ladder. She saw taking the DMS as a step to becoming a marketing consultant; however, she became pregnant. Woman C says, it was fairly catastrophic as far as my career was concernedthe pregnancy was not planned. I was written off career-wise. One girl manager said, I cant imagine how you let it happen. However, my eventual manager said, If you come back therell be a role for youmy then manager gave me a lecture about his wifes thesis that parenting was a full-time careersomeone else said, youre going to put your feet up. Woman C took maternity leave to keep her options open. She kept visible by coming in to some meetings and arranged with a supportive secretary to tell her what was going on. Her then-manager rarely spoke to her and then got a new job. Her son was born in the Autumn, she had an appraisal at Christmas and returned the following Easter. She had negotiated a mornings-only, part-time, 20hour contract in which she was paid for every extra hour she worked. At rst there were no pension rights and as a part-timer she was made to feel a second-class citizen. Typical comments from colleagues included didnt know you worked here. It took a year for the personnel department to get her salary right 27

as they were not geared up to part-timers. She believes that what helped was my new manager, who is great. He has a large family, understands my need to be exible; work at home is encouraged and he is supportive. She suspects that if she had a different manager things would be more difcult. Her current manager rarely puts any pressure on her to come in more often, trusts her to get on with the work and never checks her. Considering how she now works, woman C sometimes feels that she works too exibly for her own good. I was terried of going back to a completely new role, working on my own with no one to manage. I had a lot to provethey forgot you if you were parttime I never took coffee breaks. Now Im in the consulting group the team is very supportive of my working arrangements, with my senior (female) colleague getting quite erce if she considers that Im being taken for granted. Although there is an equal opportunities policy where she works, woman C believes it is applied unevenly. She cites the fact that she and her partner are not allowed both to work a four-day week, along with other examples of how the company has shabbily treated women employees expecting children. She believes the glass ceiling is permeable through hard work, playing company politics and using the male trait of telling everyone how good you are, so that they eventually assume it is true. However, she notes that within the company only full-timers are seen as committed and, if you are not seen to work later than 5.30, you are not loyal and committedIll be an exception in my department if I get promotion.

References
1 Ellison, R., British labour force projections 19942006, Employment Gazette, April 1994, pp. 111-21. 2 Equal Opportunities Commission, Women and Men in Britain 1992, EOC, London, 1992. 3 National Council of Women in Great Britain, Research study report, The Guardian, 25 November 1992, p. 7. 4 Bogan, M., Fast tracks, Financial Times, 7 August 1991. 5 NEDO/RIPA, Women Managers: The Untapped Resource, National Economic Development Ofce, London, 1990.

A decision-making model

The International Journal of Career Management Volume 7 Number 2 1995 2128

Martin Large and Mark N.K. Saunders

6 Gregg, P. and Machin, S., Is the glass ceiling cracking? Gender comparison differentials and access to, promotion among UK executives, National Institute of Economic and Social Research Discussion Paper no. 50, London School of Economics, London, 1993. 7 Hansard Commission, Women at the Top, Hansard Society, London, 1990. 8 Employment Department, Women in employment, Employment Gazette, LFS 2, April 1994. 9 Equal Opportunities Commission, Women and Men in Britain, 1991, EOC, London, 1991. 10 Institute of Manpower Studies, Women into Management: Issues Inuencing the Entry of Women into Managerial Jobs, IMS Paper No. 158, Sussex University, 1990. 11 Sheppard, A., Statement at Confederation of British Industry Corporate Governance Meeting, Financial Times, 11 June 1992. 12 White. B., Cox, C. and Cooper, C., Womens Career Development: A Study of High-Flyers, Blackwell, Oxford, 1992.

13 Buchanan, D. and Hosinski, A., Organisational Behaviour, Prentice-Hall, London, 1985. 14 Schwartz, F., Women as a business imperative, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1992. 15 Snaith, J., Migration and dual career households, in Johnson, J.H. and Salt, J. (Eds), Labour Migration, David Foulton, London, 1990, pp. 155-71. 16 Marshall, J., Women Managers in a Male World, John Wiley, Chichester, 1984.

Further reading
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Webberburn-Tate, C., Women in business in the UK, in Women in Business: Europe and 1992, Paul Chapman, London, 1992. British Institute of Management, Survey of Women Managers (1989/90), BIM, Corby, 1990. Davidson, M.I. and Cooper, C.L., Shattering the Glass Ceiling, Paul Chapman, London, 1992. Policy Studies Institute, Women on the Board, PSI, London, 1991.

28