|
|
 |
The Glass Ceiling: Roadblock to Promotions
By Paul Igasaki, IMDiversity.com Featured EEO
Columnist
Examining statistics on who gets promoted into management and,
particularly, who gets the top spots in any organization show that even
employers with the best general employment diversity records may not
fare as well in fostering diversity in organizational upper atmosphere.
The higher the position, in both the private and public sectors, the
less likely that women or minorities will fill it. Why? Is it because
minorities and women haven’t amassed the same level of education and
experience to get those jobs? Or is it because the powers that be are
stingier with those who are “different” at levels where real money and
power are involved? In fact, the reasons for the glass ceiling are much
more complex than that.
A number of years back, a federal government commission examined the
effects of the glass ceiling by studying the nation’s largest companies.
It found that top management positions comprised 95% males and 97%
whites. While some of this imbalance has likely improved in the years
since, it remains today almost always big news when a woman or a racial
minority becomes CEO of a large corporation. Conditions in the
government sector are not so different. Although more women and members
of at least some minority groups hold leadership roles in government,
there are far fewer than would be available in the labor force, and the
under-representation remains pretty pronounced.
Again why is this?
One cause of such disparities in management can often be traced back to
hiring processes, and to the existing managers who enact them. Although
it is sadly more present than I would have hoped for at this point in
our history, outright executive prejudice -- not wanting to allow
minorities and women in authority -- is probably rare. However,
entrenched stereotypes and biases natural to us all are more pernicious
and less conscious than overt prejudice. Their impact is far more
powerful in creating the glass ceiling phenomenon.
The more subjective the criteria used in the hiring or promotions
process, the more likely it will be that one’s assumptions and
stereotypes affect the decision.
Without carefully analyzing why we think this way, when considering
someone we will make assumptions that may not be correct.
Among those who evaluate candidates for managerial roles – especially
top positions – priority will be given to those who have already held
positions offering some management experience at lower levels. This
creates a preference for those who have “done better” or at least “gone
farther” in the past, which may from the start reduce the opportunity
for women and minorities. This exacerbates the effect of stereotypes in
hiring.
Diversity in Staff and Diversity of Style
These
biases can be deeply rooted in women and minority hiring
managers as well, whose role models , mentors
and colleagues don't look like them |
Some of the most commonly stated requirements in candidate searches,
such as “leadership” and “communications” skills, cannot be quantified
and so are particularly open to subjective and possibly biased
interpretation. The evaluator’s personal background, experiences, and
internal assumptions about what constitutes “leadership” will powerfully
determine what kind of person can be envisioned in the position. That
evaluator’s own past role models will help form that mental image;
similarly, a glance around the organization’s current executive
structure can also reinforce models of leadership valued in the past.
And, as the federal glass ceiling study points out, it will be highly
unusual when these leadership models are not defined, represented and
fulfilled by a white male.
Styles of leadership and communication vary. Aggressive, take-charge
styles are strongly favored. While, theoretically, team-building or
teaching styles are also appreciated, the prevailing management ethos in
the U.S. values the assertive, gung-ho and even martial style above
others. Media representations of organizational leaders, along with
one’s own economic, ethnic and regional backgrounds, will be primary
building blocks for an evaluator’s internal image – or stereotype -- of
“what a leader looks like” – or acts like, or sounds like.
A candidate’s slight accent may be used as a shorthand to conclude that
communications skills are lacking although the person may be very good
at explaining complex ideas.
Whether stated or not, some of the most common and important criteria
applied in hiring decisions are whether a candidate will “fit in” with
the existing leadership team and organizational culture, and whether he
or she will be someone the other staff will be most comfortable
interacting with. Inevitably, this is someone “who is like” – or at
least who fits the comfort zone of – the person making that judgment
call. A colleague once worked on a hiring committee whose chair
instructed members to ask themselves, “Is this someone I would like to
go to lunch with on a regular basis?” I have even been told about a
company that evaluates potential team members by asking a question along
the lines of, “Is this person someone you would want to be stuck on a
desert island with?”
This dynamic is especially apparent when candidates are being
evaluated by those who will work closely with them. Although
it may be understandable, it should also be obvious why this perpetuates
the demographics of a non-diverse management team.
The biases and images I am discussing can be deeply rooted in women and
minority hiring managers as well -- even against candidates with
backgrounds and orientations similar to their own. Yes, they may have
been personally inspired by someone who had “cracked the glass ceiling”
before them, and may have progressed far themselves. However, the
statistical fact is that they too will most often find that their role
models and mentors and colleagues in leadership positions don’t look
like them. Indeed, they may be hyperaware of the challenge to “fit” the
organizational culture if they have experienced it
in their own work paths.
Breaking Through
Ultimately,
stripping away its emotional baggage and occasional abuses,
affirmative action is the solution that makes business sense |
The glass ceiling is not healthy for anyone. It suppresses the
diversity that is America’s most unique and powerful advantage.
Consider, for example, that in most other industrialized countries,
speaking two or even three or four languages is the norm. In the United
States it is not, even though our ethnic richness provides us more
native speakers of more languages than perhaps any other nation. It is
no wonder that customer service can be economically farmed out to many
nations for English speakers.
The most competitive companies and forward-thinking government bodies
are well aware of the significant differences among American consumers
-- from food and language and clothing preferences to more profound
values and beliefs. Without people on your team who understand those
differences you are playing at a distinct disadvantage.
Breaking the glass ceiling requires addressing it head on. If you are
serious about a diverse team, you need to understand why you don’t have
one and how you will assess efforts to get one. Are there barriers you
haven’t considered leading to a non-diverse hiring pool? Is your
recruiting regionally limited or overweighting certain schools? For
example, failure to recruit in urban areas will reduce racial diversity;
failure to go to the South may reduce the number of Africans Americans,
to the Southwest Latinos, to the West Asian Americans. To assume those
from Ivy League or Seven Sisters schools are automatically superior will
cut off many qualified candidates. Failure to recruit at historically
African American colleges, or to avail yourself of ethnic media outlets
and multicultural professional networking resources, will also have an
exclusionary impact.
Consider whether each hiring criterion is really what you need in the
position. If so, is it being applied objectively or subjectively, in
ways that limit the diversity of your pool?
Ultimately, the solution is affirmative action. While politicians
struggle with this sometimes unpopular concept, as the Supreme Court has
recognized for education, and any company that seeks quality and
diversity has been practicing, affirmative action is
an important tool. Stripping away its
emotional baggage and occasional abuses, the policy makes business
sense. Looking more carefully at each hiring decision will not only help
move the organization closer to its diversity goals, but result in
better staffing decisions across the board.
At-A-Glance
U.S. Workforce Diversity @ EEOC (2000)
Quick reference chart shows diversity statistics broken down by
ethnicity, gender, and occupation level (management,
professional, technical, clerical, and more) |
Establishing goals based upon what is available in your potential
hiring pool will serve as an important yardstick for measuring your
efforts. Without some numbers about what is possible, diversity is a
concept without practical effect. These shouldn’t be quotas. To the
extent that you lock yourself into requiring certain characteristics for
a position, you will run afoul both of discrimination law and of the
reasons those who don’t understand how affirmative action should work
oppose it. Falling below your goals in your hiring pool should spur you
to retool and target your recruitment efforts. Falling below your goals
in your hiring decisions might suggest a review of the hiring criteria
and how it is being applied. This should also be applied to internal
promotional practices, or it could suggest the need to consider more
external choices in the pool.
Having satisfied these reviews, some inequality is inevitable, but over
time, with serious commitment to diversity we will all do better.
Failure to take action will make the glass ceiling turn into a concrete
one.
Do You Have a Question about EEO?
-
Email Your Question!
The editors invite you to send in questions or suggestions for
diversity or workplace EEO-related topics that Paul Igasaki can
address in future features.
Previous EEOCorner Columns
Other Readings of
Interest @ IMDiversity.com
-
Asian Americans and Corporate Leadership:
What’s the Score?
By Kurt Takamine, Ed.D., Chapman
University
Glass Ceiling remedies are well within reach, but surveys show
employees, employers and labor officials alike have work to do
-
Obstacles to Women's Leadership Lessened, Not Gone
By Sumru Erkut, Ph.D.
The Winds of Change Foundation and Wellesley
College surveyed women leaders in many
sectors about their career experiences, accomplishments,
leadership styles, and what it took to succeed
-
How Minority Execs
Make It to the Top
By David A. Thomas & John J. Gabarro, Harvard Business School
Tips from business experts, plus excerpt from
Breaking Through: The Making of Minority Executives in Corporate
America, the all-time bestselling title on
Amazon featured at IMDiversity
|
Paul Igasaki
