Wo(men) at Work:

Interviews with Women in Business Regarding Gender Inequality

By Stephanie Roth

Abstract

Previous research indicates that gender inequality is a social issue which exists in the
workplace. While federal legislation and social movements like Feminism have assisted in
improving gender relations, gender inequality in career opportunities continues to exist. The
purpose of this paper is to assess gender inequality in the current workplace. Specifically, I
examine how gender affects women in business and evaluate whether prejudices regarding gender
occur in the professional setting and if this hinders promotion. Data here is based upon interviews
with six professional women in the South Bend, Indiana region are used to assess gender inequality
and the way it has affected the individuals and their careers.

Previous research indicates that gender inequality is a social issue which exists in the
workplace. While both federal legislation such as Affirmative Action, and social movement, such as
Feminism, have assisted in improving gender relations, gender inequality continues to exist. Given
that for most sociologists gender is socially constructed, gendered occupations or work-related skills
are based upon social assumptions and beliefs regarding the physical, emotional, and psychological
characteristics of women and men. The purpose of this paper is to assess gender inequality in the
workplace; specifically how gendered assumptions affect women in business and to ascertain
whether prejudices regarding gender occur in the professional setting and it hinders promotion.

PREVIOUS STUDIES ON WOMEN AND CAREERS

In 1890, 18 percent of women worked for pay, compared to 60 percent in 1998 (Costa
2000). Since the 1950s, women in the United States have significantly advanced professionally.
Overall, women have shifted from being housewives and mothers to chief executive officers of
major corporations. Despite the advances women have made in the professional world, there are
still many barriers. Davis-Netzley (1998:340) describes the glass ceiling as the “invisible barriers
through which women can see elite positions but cannot reach them.” Today, there are many
attitudes and perceptions limiting professional women’s equality in business.
Previous literature describes many factors influencing a woman becoming a professional. A
crucial factor is her educational background. Bradley (2000) found that women’s representation in
colleges and universities are approaching the equality point of 50 percent, which means women’s
enrollment in colleges and universities are equal to that of men. Joy (2000:471) states, “Women are
graduating from college at higher rates than men in the United States.” However, Joy (2000:474)
states, “Men obtain more from a college degree in terms of wage, job satisfaction, and job quality
than do similarly qualified women.” Black and Juhn (2000) find that college women’s participation
in high-wage professional occupations is positively correlated with wages in these professional
occupations. Black and Juhn (2000) offer some evidence that college-educated women are
entering-wage professional occupations in response to the recent increase in skill demand.
However, Davis-Netzley (1998:353) state, “Women’s work experiences are not only affected by
gender but also by race, ethnicity, nationality, and class.”
During the 1980s, black women surpassed black men in nearly every area of higher
education, with the exception of the area of business; even so, white men continue to dominate the
field of business (Anonymous 1997). Bell and Nkomo (2001) found that it is more difficult for
black women professionals to fit in and succeed in the corporate world than it is for white women.
They call for women to unite as women and support one another.
According to previous literature, another important factor in determining success and
equality for women in business is the wage structure. Suter and Miller (1973) analyze incomes for
men and women in 1967 and showed that by considering only educational level, occupational
status, and work experience, the income level can be predicted more confidently for women than
men. Thus, women’s pay is proportionate with effort and education. Suter and Miller (1973:973)
conclude, “With the relationship of income with socioeconomic characteristics is more consistent
for women than for men, women receive decidedly lower increments for equal step increase in
educational level and occupational status.” Morrison et al. (1987) propose that it is only a matter of
time before wage and advancement for women professionals equals men’s.
Loury (1997) found the gender earnings gap narrowed significantly in the 1980s due to the
gain in the number of years worked by women compared to men, perceptions and attitudes of
professional women, and changes in the organizational structure. Morgan (1998) also considers the
gender earnings gap, but she specifically looks at engineers. By comparing the glass ceiling effect
and the cohort effect, Morgan’s (1998) findings suggest that a cohort effect operates for engineers
and the gender earnings gap is more related to the time period when an individual entered the field
than how long she has been in the profession. Alessio and Andrzejewski (2000) reviewed Morgan’s
(1998) article and acknowledge that the glass ceiling as a useful concept for identifying the
sociological phenomenon of patriarchal institutions which prevent women from advancing in their
careers as fast as men.
Goldin and Katz (2000) attribute much of the increase in the number of professional women
to the invention and access to the birth control pill in the 1970s. Before the availability of the birth
control pill, many women had to choose marriage or a career. Since the pill, women have been able
to more easily combine both worlds: a marriage and career. Blair-Loy (1999) believes the legal and
social changes of the 1970s regarding women’s rights have had a significant impact on women’s
advancement in the field of finance. For example, in 1971, the American Economic Association
began promoting women’s progress in the economic profession (Bartlett 1998).
Daily, Certo, and Dalton (1999) examined a decade of women’s representations on corporate
boards and CEO positions. They found significant growth on corporate boards, but very little, if
any, growth in the number of women in CEO positions. Renzulli, Aldrich, and Moody (2000:524)
report that since 1970, female business owners have experienced a six fold increase in their share of
U.S. businesses. Though women now hold more professional positions, perceptions of women in
business still vary.
Wiley and Eskilson (1983) found the middle manager respondents in their studies expected
male managers to have more power and future mobility than equivalent female managers. Their
findings indicate the necessity of considering the explanations given for past performance and
promotion when investigating structural status variables which effect expectations of future success.
Cohen, Broschak, and Haveman (1998) examine the hiring and promotions of managers,
specifically how the organizational distribution of men and women effects psychological and
economic rewards. They found that women are more likely to be hired and promoted into a
particular job level if there is a higher portion of women are already there. Also, women are more
likely to be promoted when more women are already at that level. Thus, it will be difficult for
women to be promoted to the CEO positions since research has shown there are so few women
CEOs. Appold, Siengthai, and Kasarda (1998) believe that as women’s presence in the workplace
increase, the work attitudes about women will improve, providing positive feedback on the hiring of
increased numbers of women. Although, Appold et al. (1998) did not suggest that women would be
promoted to CEO if there are more women in an industry, it would seem there is a greater chance of
promotion.
My study draws upon many of the previous studies. It is most similar to Davies-Netzley’s
study because I focus on women who have worked to climb above the glass ceiling and the
perceptions of these women.
 THEORY

Gender inequality has been a topic of discussion since before the 1920’s when women
earned the right to vote. Although women today are as professionally qualified as men, gender
inequality and stereotyping have impacted women’s professional success. Many sociological
theorists have spent much of/if not their entire careers analyzing gender equality. Virginia Woolf,
Simone de Beauvoir, and Betty Friedan were three very influential feminist theorists who wrote
about gender issues.
In “Room of One’s Own” (1929), Woolf offers her opinion on how women are being
creatively and intellectually stifled. She uses an analogy about a personal experience on a college
campus to illustrate the constricted status of women. Woolf is sitting on a river bank, trying to reel
in a thought (just like a little fish). A Beadle from the college approached her with resentment and
anger. Woolf (1929:258) states:
Instinct rather than reason came to my help; he was a Beadle; I was a woman.
Thus was the turf; there was the path. Only the Fellows and Scholars are
allowed here; the gravel is the place for me . . . The only charge I could bring
against the Fellows and Scholars of whatever the college might happen to be
was that in protection of their turf, which has been rolled for 300 years in
succession, they had sent my little fish into hiding.

Woolf has lost her little thought and she is intimidated and yet angered by the authority of the male
Beadle due to the fact that she was simply a woman and not a Fellow or Scholar. She did not
“belong” on the river bank; she belonged on the path. Woolf is angered by the Beadle “protecting
his turf” which has belonged to men for 300 years and, at this point in time, showed no signs of
changing. The turf represented the professional world, a place in which a woman did not belong.
Simone de Beauvoir begins the Introduction of The Second Sex (1953:xxii) by stating how a
woman is identified in relation to a man; she states:
For him she is sex – absolute sex, no less. She is defined and differentiated
with reference to man and not he with reference to her;she is the incidental,
the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the
Absolute – she is the Other.

de Beauvoir recognizes the way that women are being characterized as “the Other” and the reason
they are being typified as secondary. She claims that women are conceptualized as “the other”
because early Western philosophers established the female sex as "the other" to rationalize and
promote the development and growth of fledgling patriarchy. Specifically, de Beauvoir describes
the eighteenth-century middle class and how it reacted to threatening, progressive ideas of the time.
At the time, women were confined “to the kitchen and the home, closely watching their behavior,
keeping them wholly dependent” (1953:111). de Beauvoir (1953:112) believes that the middle class
woman clung to this because,
She clung to the privileges of her class. Freed from the male, she would have
to work for a living, she felt no solidarity with working women, and she
believed that the emancipation of bourgeois women would mean the ruin of
her class.

de Beauvoir suggests that middle class women were perfectly content with their place in society due
to the gender construction of the historical and cultural period in which de Beauvoir was writing.
She suggests the reason women are satisfied with their roles is they “lack concrete means for
organizing themselves into a unit which can stand face to face with the correlative unit. They have
no past, no history, no religion of their own” (1953: xxv). de Beauvoir discusses female labor and
the French laws and charters surrounding it. These laws and charters were made in order to restrict
women in business. She (1953:115) states:
Little by little social legislation was set up and feminine labor was
surrounded with hygienic precautions: chairs were required for saleswomen,
long sessions at outside displays were forbidden, and so on. The
International Labor Office led to international conventions on the sanitary
conditions of women’s labor, leave to be granted for pregnancy, and so forth.

In The Second Sex (1953), Simone de Beauvoir specifically addresses the businesswomen.
She suggests society holds women in business in a higher regard. De Beauvoir (1953:135) states:
The businesswoman and the female employer who runs a small enterprise
have always been among the privileged; they are the only women recognized
since the Middle Ages by the Code as having civil rights and powers.”

Feminine labor was “protected.” de Beauvoir (1953: xxv) reiterates the fact that the “division of the
sexes is a biological fact, not an event in human history.” With this perspective on gender, de
Beauvoir sought to encourage women to make human history by standing up and no longer
depending on men for their past, history, and religion.
Ten years later, Betty Friedan in “The Problem That Has No Name” (1963), speaks of the
same sort of complacency as a wife and mother, only Friedan describes a problem many women in
1963 were having. It was “the problem that had no name.” Friedan (1963:15) describes the
problem:
It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women
suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each
suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for
groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her
children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at
night – she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question – “Is this all?”

Friedan noted that there was no word to express the yearnings that so many women were
having. At the time, there were many accounts written by experts, in columns, books, and articles
informing women that their role was to seek fulfillment as wives and mothers. Friedan (1963:357)
speaks of how isolated women were; they rarely left home unless it was to care for home, children
or attend an event with their spouse. Friedan claims that women at the time were socialized to be
wives and mothers and to want nothing more. She provides empirical evidence about the declining
average age of marriage and how girls were socialized younger and younger to become perfect
wives and mothers. The goal was to get and keep their husbands and the dream being told was to
become the suburban housewife. Friedan discusses how shameful it was for a woman to admit to
any dissatisfaction with her life as a wife/mother; how women told themselves over and over,
“There’s nothing wrong really.” Friedan (1963: 32) states:
If I am right, the problem that has no name stirring in the minds of so many
American women today is not a matter of loss of femininity or too much
education, or the demands of domesticity. It is far more important than
anyone recognizes. It is the key to these other new and old problems which
have been torturing women and their husbands and children, puzzling their
doctors and educators for years. It may well be the key to our future as a
nation and a culture. We can no longer ignore that voice from within women
that says: “I want something more than my husband and my children and my
home.”

Friedan concludes on an encouraging note as she seeks to promote the examples of successful
women changing the future of our nation and culture.
 There are many theories as to why gender inequality exists in the professional realm. Woolf
(1929), de Beauvoir (1953), and Friedan (1963) all offer insights and explanations as to why gender
inequality exists. They provide a historical background and a theoretical framework for my study
regarding gender inequality and women in business today.

METHODS

Participants
Six professional women in the Michigan-Indiana (Michiana) region, ages 35-65, were
interviewed for the study. All of the women were Caucasian and from the Midwest. They were
selected for participation upon their membership to a professional women's organization or by using
a snowball sampling method from contacts given by a member of a professional women’s
organization. One weakness of my research was a lack of time. Due to the constraints of the Senior
Seminar course, there was a limited amount of time in which I could interview professional women,
thus there were only six participants in this study. This sample may not necessarily be
representative of the entire Michiana region, but at least representative of the Women Business
Owners of Michiana professional group.

Procedures
The interviews conducted were informal in nature taking place in a coffee shop setting. The
interviews were based on approximately thirty open-ended questions (See Appendix), varying
slightly for each interview. The questions used were adopted from similar interview questions
conducted by Morrison et. al.(1987) and Bell and Nkomo (2001). The questions were open-ended
covering topics ranging from the woman’s personal background and education to her current
professional position to her personal family life. Depending on the responses given to previous
questions, some questions were omitted, specific to each interview. This format was selected
because it allowed each participant to reveal a depth of information not available through a survey
method. It was selected also to allow each participant to provide detail about her perceptions of her
gendered work experiences.

FINDINGS
Davies-Netzley (1998, p. 341) states, “While engaging with ideologies that frame
womanhood in terms of family, home, and unpaid or lower paid work, women managers also are
marginalized by a work situation characterized by mostly male peers.” This is true of almost all of
the women I interviewed in my study.
One’s background or childhood can become the foundation upon which they build their
entire lives. Of the six women interviewed, all of them were from the Midwest, specifically Indiana
and Illinois. Half reported they were from poor or working class families. Two of the six women
were from rural or farm communities, which they believe had a significant impact on their lives as
far as building their own work ethic. There were many character traits shared by the women
interviewed, but two traits exemplified by all six women interviewed were both passion and
ambition.
With regard to family relationships, five women reported their fathers had a significant
impact on their professional careers, similar to the Bell and Nkomo (2001) findings. They
described their fathers as “very encouraging” while their mothers took a more passive role with
regard to professional or career goals. One woman stated, “My father always told me I could do
whatever I wanted. My mother wanted me to be a teacher.”
Another strong influence reported by more than half of the women was their faith, most
being Roman Catholic during at least one point in their lives. The women stated that religion had
given them a base for their morals and values by which they lead their lives.
The next step in building the foundation of one’s life is education. Five of the six women
interviewed had attended college. Their colleges were all traditionally liberal arts based, with their
majors ranging from History to Modern Languages to English Literature. Two of the six women
had at least a master’s degree.
All six of the women said they either had been married or were currently in a relationship.
Half of the women got married almost immediately following graduation, from either high school or
college depending on their degree. One third of the women had been divorced. One woman
speculated the reason intimate relationships did not last was due to the independence of professional
women and the emasculation of the men in their lives. Five of the six women had children. Of
those five with children, three women had at least one person outside of or in addition to their
spouse to help them with the children and/or household chores, including nannies, babysitters,
house keepers, and personal assistants. Only one of the women reported being a caretaker for her
aging mother, but another reported there was a potential for to her do so. The other women were
not responsible for aging parents or relatives due to proximity or the relatives had already deceased.
All six women hold some sort of leadership position within the Michiana community. Five
of the six women are members or officers of Women Business Owners of Michiana. They also
served on boards of directors or participated in other community organizations including Chamber
of Commerce, Better Business Bureau, Junior League, Rotary Club, Lions Club, Church Council,
American Cancer Society, Saint Margaret’s House, National Organization of Women, YWCA, etc.
Most of the women interviewed stressed the importance of giving back to their community. At least
one woman reported that she does pro-bono work for some of her clients and offers discounted rates
for others. Despite the level of activities the women are involved in, all six women stressed the
importance of a work/life balance.
An issue that arose in most of the interviews was the geographic area the participants are
located in. All of the women are originally from the Midwest, but some had also lived elsewhere.
One woman reported she used to be a stockbroker in California and did not face any gender
inequality there, but reports she has in the Michiana area. She believes this is due to the open
mindedness of the overall population. Residents of California are obviously much more liberal than
those of Michiana. She reported that people in the Michiana region are much more suspicious and
negative than those in California. Another woman reported previously living in New York and the
environment there was much friendlier to not only women workers, but women with children
working. Two more women discussed the University of Notre Dame, one as a student and one as a
former professor. Both were qualified women, but they both reported difficulties and gender
inequality towards women from the University.
During the interviews when the women were asked whether or not they had faced gender
inequality, almost every woman interviewed initially said no. After saying no, in the course of the
interview they re-evaluated the statement. Upon reflection, all six of the women reported they had
faced some sort of gender inequality. One woman, an executive who had experienced gender
inequality, believed it was not just her gender but her lack of a college degree that contributed to
inequality. Another woman who had experienced gender inequality, currently the President of her
company, was once in business with her father where she had called on an account that treated her
terribly. She reported she had “grown up in an environment where [gender inequality] was not
tolerated.” After speaking with her father about the ordeal, to the account’s embarrassment, her
father confronted the company to inquire why she had been treated so poorly. The company
apologized profusely and assured her father that had they known it was his daughter, they would
have never treated her that way. It seems that in the business world, sometimes it is not what you
know, but who you know.
An issue that came up in almost all of the interviews was the importance of women
supporting women. One woman stated the reason she initially joined the Women Business Owners
of Michiana was for relationships with other women in business. Many women spoke of the
strength of women empowering women and networking. The women also stressed the importance
of mentors, both being a mentor and taking advantage of the opportunity to be mentored. One
woman stated that a reason women should support other women is so that all women can stay
grounded and succeed. She said, “We don’t want to become what we are trying to escape.” By
supporting and empowering other women, hopefully it will make life easier for future generations
of women.
The most interesting aspect of these interviews was the style and grace with which these
women handled the discriminatory situations. Although it was very frustrating, none of the women
reported experiencing any long-term negative impacts as a result of the gender inequality they
faced. All of the women seemed to take it in stride and use it as a learning experience. They are
more aware now of not only how to handle gender inequality, but how to prevent it and possibly
even use it to their advantage. One woman reported that she would rather work with men, because
she sees many advantages to being a woman. She stated that men are “softer and more lenient”
with her than they would be working with other men. Another woman suggested that women
should use their “differences as women” to get tasks accomplished.

DISCUSSION

The findings demonstrate how important perception is when considering gender inequality
in business. Although, most of the women initially stated they had never experienced gender
inequality, after reconsidering their answer or asking for clarification, every single woman reported
that they had in fact faced gender inequality. Clearly, one’s perception is important with regard to
social issues.
Since the purpose of this study was to assess whether professional women in the Michiana
region had experienced gender inequality and as there is no specific index to judge whether or not
one has faced gender inequality, a woman’s perception becomes the most important factor.
Regardless of what discriminatory action which may have been taken against a woman, if she does
not perceive the discrimination to have affected her, the action is unimportant. However, in this
particular situation with gender inequality and professional women, the reason the women did not
originally report to having faced gender inequality is due to the fact discrimination happens so
frequently.
Women, but especially professional women, are so often judged first by being female and
second by their accomplishments. While women have made great progress in the workplace during
the last few decades, the gender inequalities that have been faced by my participants in this study
indicate there is still a very narrow socially constructed role of women.
As more groups like the Women Business Owners of Michiana form and more companies
offer mentoring programs for women, women can overcome the isolation that Woolf once faced.
By overcoming isolation and banding together, women can then continue to create their own history
as de Beauvoir described. The more successful women become and the more women that are
promoted to higher and higher executive levels, the more women will change the future of our
nation and culture as Friedan described. Finally, gender inequality will be eliminated from the
professional realm.

REFERENCES

Alessio, John C and Julie Andrzejewski. 2000. “Unveiling the Hidden Glass Ceiling: An Analysis of
the Cohort Effect Claim.” American Sociological Review, 65:311-315.

Anonymous. 1997. “The Long, Hard Ascent: Black Women Storm the Ol' Boys Club of Business
Higher Education.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 18:58-59.

Appold, Stephen J., Sununta Siengthai, and John D. Kasarda. 1998. “The Employment of Women
Managers and Professionals in an Emerging Economy: Gender Inequality as an
Organizational Practice.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 43:538-565.
Bartlett, Robin L. 1998. “CSWEP: 25 Years at a Time.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives,
12:177-183.

Bartlett, Robin L. and Timothy I. Miller. 1985. “Executive Compensation: Female Executives and
Networking.” The American Economic Review, 75:266-70.

Bell, Ella L.J. Edmondson and Stella M. Nkomo. 2001. Our Separate Ways: Black and White
Women and the Struggle for Professional Identity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.

Black, Sandra E. and Chinhui Juhn. 2000. “The Rise of Female Professionals: Are Women
Responding to Skill Demand?” The American Economic Review, 90:450-455.

Blair-Loy, Mary. 1999. “Career Patterns of Executive Women in Finance: An Optimal Matching
Analysis.” The American Journal of Sociology, 104:1346-1397

Bradley, Karen. 2000. “The Incorporation of Women into Higher Education: Paradoxical
Outcomes?” Sociology of Education, 73:1-18.

Broom, Patricia A. 1986. The Third Sex: The New Professional Woman. New York: William
Morrow and Company, Inc.

Costa. Dora L. 2000. “From Mill Town to Board Room: The Rise of Women's Paid Labor.” The
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14:101-122.

Cohen, Lisa E., Joseph P. Broschak, and Heather A. Haveman. 1998. “And Then There were More?
The Effect of Organizational Sex Composition on the Hiring and Promotion of Managers.”
American Sociological Review, 63:711-727.

Daily, Catherine M, S. Trevis Certo, and Dan R. Dalton. 1999. “A Decade of Corporate Women:
Some Progress in the Boardroom, None in the Executive Suite.” Strategic Management
Journal, 20:93-99.

Davies-Netzley, Sally Ann. 1998. “Women above the Glass Ceiling: Perceptions on Corporate
Mobility and Strategies for Success.” Gender and Society,
12:339-355.

de Beauvoir, Simone. [1953] 1989. The Second Sex. Reprint, New York: Knopf

Friedan, Betty. 1963. “Problem That Has No Name.” Pp. 355-359 in Social Theory, Second Edition,
edited by C. Lemert. Wesleyan University: Westview

Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence F. Katz. 2000. “Career and Marriage in the Age of the Pill.” The
American Economic Review, 90:461-465.

Joy, Lois. 2000. “Do Colleges Shortchange Women? Gender Differences in the Transition from
College to Work.” The American Economic Review, 90:71-475.

Loury, Linda Datcher. 1997. “The Gender Earnings Gap among College-Educated Workers.”
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50:580-593.
Morgan, Laurie A. 1998. “Glass-Ceiling Effect or Cohort Effect? A Longitudinal Study of the
Gender Earnings Gap for Engineers, 1982 to 1989.” American Sociological
Review, 63:479-493.

Morrison, Ann M., et al. 1987. Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America’s
Largest Corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Renzulli, Linda A., Howard Aldrich, and James Moody. 2000. “Family Matters: Gender, Networks,
and Entrepreneurial Outcomes.”Social Forces, 79:523-546.

Suter, Larry E. and Herman P. Miller. 1973. “Income Differences Between Men and Career
Women.” The American Journal of Sociology, 78:962-974.

Wiley, Mary Glenn and Arlene Eskilson. 1983. “Scaling the Corporate Ladder: Sex Differences in
Expectations for Performance, Power and Mobility.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 46:351-
359.

Woolf, Virginia. 1929. “Room of One’s Own.” Pp. 257-258 in Social Theory, Second Edition,
edited by C. Lemert. Wesleyan University: Westvie
 APPENDIX A: Interview Questions

1. What college/university did you attend?

2. Did you face any gender inequality at that institution?
3. Did you go to graduate school? What led you to choose graduate school?
4. Do you feel your experiences at your college/university prepared you for today’s
business world? Why or why not?
5. What led you to this career path?
6. What have been some of the positions you have held in your career?
7. What were the key decision points in your career?
8. What would you do differently if you had the opportunity?
9. What advice do you have for other women who aspire to the executive ranks?
10. What is your current position? What is the nature of your work?
11. What has been your exposure to high-level executives? What did you learn from such
exposure?
12. What do you see as critical turning points in your career?
13. What is the biggest challenge you have faced?
14. Do you think the road to the top is different for men and women?
15. What is your relationship with your male co-workers?
16. Have you faced gender inequality in your career? If so, please explain the situation.
17. Did you involve management or Human Resources? If so, what was their response?
18. If you did involve management or Human Resources, were you pleased with their
response and the outcome of the situation?
19. How is promotion handled within your company?
20. How do you feel gender inequality has affected you? Your career?
21. What opportunities do you feel you missed out on due to gender inequality?
22. Is there anything further you would like to add regarding gender inequality?
23. Have you faced a “glass ceiling” at all in your career?
24. Do you perceive any constraints in your life success that are grounded in gender issues?
25. What kind of personal sacrifices have you had to make to get where you are today?
26. Do you have a family? If so, do you feel as though you have been discriminated at all, in
the business world, due to your choice of having a family?
27. If you have children, what kind of child care did you use?
28. What is your spouse’s career and how did you work together around your careers to raise
children?
29. Did you have any household help?
30. Are you responsible for caring of your aging parents or other family members?
31. I am interested in learning how your family, women friends, and coworkers provide you
with support. In what kinds of situations do they support you? How do they
communicate their support? What kinds of support do they provide?
32. What sort of public/community service (board of directors, volunteer work, “pro-bono”
work, politics) do you participate in?
33. Can you speak about your personal/social life as far as friends, vacation, hobbies, and
relaxation?
34. Do you have anything further to add regarding women in business?