The Glass Ceiling

“Gender Gap in the Executive Suite: CEOs and Female Executives Report on Breaking the Glass Ceiling” by Belle Ragins also discusses the struggles of women in breaking the glass ceiling. Over 92% of executive women affirm that this invisible barrier exists, and 80% of female middle-level managers left their previous organization because of the glass ceiling (Ragins 28). Despite businesses recognizing its existence and trying to implement procedures which dissolve the barrier, it remains intact. Ragins states that the only way to dismantle this ceiling is through understanding three key information, “first, it is critical to understand the barriers women face in the advancement,” “second, it is instructive to understand the career strategies

They highlight that even though laws exist which prevent from blatant gender discrimination, “today discrimination against women lingers in a plethora of work practices and cultural norms that only appear unbiased” (Meyerson & Fletcher 128). An example of this would be how when women defended their turf at a company, they were labeled as “control freaks” whereas men appeared “passionate” another situation which supports how females attempting to adopt successful male practices fails them (Meyerson & Fletcher 129). This is perhaps because businesses are designed to be male-oriented and for men, and most women are still left with the burden of motherhood despite societal progress, which gives them less chances of workplace success. However, this does not mean the answer is to blame men or women for these transgressions, though often women appear to blame themselves. Additionally, companies have tried to improve their workplaces for women, including methods such as assimilation, accommodation, and promoting uniqueness, but none of these address the source of gender inequality. Meyerson and Fletcher claim that a forth approach, “start[ing] with the belief that gender inequity is rooted in our cultural patterns and therefore in our organizational systems” is the only way that people will consider altering the systems currently in place

It is important to make the distinction that the glass ceiling itself exists, as opposed to a term that simply is another way to describe inequalities. This study specifically defines the glass ceiling as “a specific type of gender or racial inequality that can be distinguished from other types of inequality” (Cotter et al. 656). The four criteria found include first, “a glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee,” second, a difference “that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome,” third, inequality “in the chances of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportions of each gender or race currently at those higher levels,” and finally, inequality “that increases over the course of a career” (Cotter et al. 657-61). Overall, the results of the study found that women have a lower chance to exceed the earnings threshold compared to white males, and this continues at each year of work experience, meaning that the chance remains constantly below white men for women. Annual changes in high earnings were also lower for women, which demonstrates that there is indeed a gap which exists. This study furthermore proves how the glass ceiling presents itself, even when taking a