Glass ceiling
In economics, the glass ceiling is "the unseen, yet unbreakable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements."[1] Initially, the metaphor applied to barriers in the careers of women but was quickly extended to refer to obstacles hindering the advancement of minority men, as well as women.[2]
Contents |
Definition [edit]
David Cotter and colleagues defined four distinctive characteristics that must be met to conclude that a glass ceiling exists. A glass ceiling inequality represents:
- "A gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee."
- "A gender or racial difference that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome.
- "A gender or racial inequality in the chances of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportions of each gender or race currently at those higher levels."
- "A gender or racial inequality that increases over the course of a career."
Cotter and his colleagues found that glass ceilings are correlated strongly with gender. Both white and African-American women face a glass ceiling in the course of their careers. In contrast, the researchers did not find evidence of a glass ceiling for African-American men.[3]
The glass ceiling metaphor has often been used to describe invisible barriers ("glass") through which women can see elite positions but cannot reach them ("ceiling").[4] These barriers prevent large numbers of women and ethnic minorities from obtaining and securing the most powerful, prestigious, and highest-grossing jobs in the workforce.[5] Moreover this effect may make women feel they are not worthy to fill high-ranking positions or as if their bosses do not take them seriously or see them as potential candidates for advancement.[6][7]
The gender pay gap and the glass ceiling [edit]
The gender pay gap is the difference between male and female earnings. In 2008 the OECD found that the median earnings of female full-time workers were 17% lower than the earnings of their male counterparts and that "30% of the variation in gender wage gaps across OECD countries can be explained by discriminatory practices in the labour market."[8][9] The European Commission found that women's hourly earnings were 17.5% lower on average in the 27 EU Member States in 2008.[10] The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in the United States in 2009.[11]
See also [edit]
Notes [edit]
- ^ Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Solid Investments: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, November 1995, p. 4.
- ^ Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, March 1995, p. iii.
- ^ Cotter, David A., Joan M. Hermsen, Seth Ovadia, and Reece Vanneman (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 655–81.
- ^ *Davies-Netzley, Sally A. (1998). Women above the Glass Ceiling: Perceptions on Corporate Mobility and Strategies for Success Gender and Society, Vol. 12, No. 3, p. 340, doi:10.1177/0891243298012003006.
- ^ Hesse-Biber and Carter 2005, p. 77.
- ^ Nevill, Ginny, Alice Pennicott, Joanna Williams, and Ann Worrall. Women in the Workforce: The Effect of Demographic Changes in the 1990s. London: The Industrial Society, 1990, p. 39, ISBN 978-0-85290-655-2.
- ^ US Department of Labor. "Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital". Office of the Secretary. Retrieved 9 April 2011.
- ^ OECD. OECD Employment Outlook - 2008 Edition Summary in English. OECD, Paris, 2008, p. 3-4.
- ^ OECD. OECD Employment Outlook. Chapter 3: The Price of Prejudice: Labour Market Discrimination on the Grounds of Gender and Ethnicity. OECD, Paris, 2008.
- ^ European Commission. The situation in the EU. Retrieved on July 12, 2011.
- ^ DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-238, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2010, p. 7, 50.
References [edit]
- Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995a). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, March 1995.
- Fox, Mary F. and Sharlene N. Hesse-Biber. Women at Work. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1984, ISBN 978-0-87484-525-9.
- Giele, Janet Z. and Leslie F. Stebbins. Women and Equality in the Workplace. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2003, ISBN 978-1-57607-937-9.
- Hesse-Biber, Sharlene N. and Gregg L. Carter. Working Women in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-19-515047-6.
- Lyness, Karen S., and Donna E. Thompson (1997). Above the Glass Ceiling?: A Comparison of Matched Samples of Female and Male Executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 82, No. 3, pp. 359–375, doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.359.
External links and further reading [edit]
- Catalyst research report (1996). Women in Corporate Leadership: Progr(2003). [http://www.catalyst.org/file/74/women%20and%20men%20in%20u.s.%20corporate%20leadership%20same%20workplace,%20different%20realities.pdf Women and Men in U.S. Corporate Leadership: Same Workplace, Different Realities?
- Catalyst. Women and Men in U.S. Corporate Leadership: Same Workplace, Different Realities? New York, N.Y.: Catalyst, 2004, ISBN 978-0-89584-247-3.
- Catalyst. 2010 Catalyst Census: Financial Post 500 Women Senior Officers and Top Earners.
- Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, March 1995.
- Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Solid Investments: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, November 1995.
- Carvajal, Doreen. The Codes That Need to Be Broken. The New York Times, January 26, 2011.
- Cotter, David A., Joan M. Hermsen, Seth Ovadia, and Reece Vanneman (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 655–81.
