Sessie 16: Network barriers &
glass ceiling
Women and the labyrinth of leadership (Eagly & Carli)
Despite years of progress by women in the workforce (they now occupy more than 40% of all
managerial positions in the United States), within the C-suite they remain as rare as hens’
teeth.
What is to blame for the pronounced lack of women in positions of power and authority?
“Even those few women who rose steadily through the ranks eventually crashed into
an invisible barrier. The executive suite seemed within their grasp, but they just
couldn’t break through the glass ceiling.”
Times have changed, however, and the glass ceiling metaphor is now more wrong
than right. For one thing, it describes an absolute barrier at a specific high level in
organizations.
At the same time, the metaphor implies that women and men have equal access to
entry- and midlevel positions. They do not.
By depicting a single, unvarying obstacle, the glass ceiling fails to incorporate the
complexity and variety of challenges that women can face in their leadership
journeys.
Metaphors matter because they are part of the storytelling that can compel change.
The danger arises when they draw attention and resources away from other kinds of
interventions that might attack the problem more potently. If we want to make better
progress, it’s time to rename the challenge.
WALLS ALL AROUND
A better metaphor for what confronts women in their professional endeavors is the labyrinth.
It conveys the idea of a complex journey toward a goal worth striving for. Passage through a
labyrinth is not simple or direct, but requires persistence, awareness of one’s progress, and a
careful analysis of the puzzles that lie ahead.
Vestiges of prejudice
One of the most comprehensive of these studies was conducted by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
Without controls for these variables, the data showed that women earned about 44%
less than men, averaged over the entire period from 1983 to 2000. With these
controls in place, the gap was only about half as large, but still substantial.
Even after adjusting wages for all of the ways men and women differ, the GAO study,
like similar studies, showed that women’s wages remained lower than men’s. The
unexplained gender gap is consistent with the presence of wage discrimination.
Promotions come more slowly for women than for men with equivalent qualifications.
Even in culturally feminine settings such as nursing, librarianship, elementary
education, and social work (all specifically studied by sociologist Christine Williams),
men ascend to supervisory and administrative positions more quickly than women.
Interestingly, however, there is little evidence from either the correlational or the
experimental studies that the odds are stacked higher against women with each step
up the ladder—that is, that women’s promotions become progressively less likely than
1
, men’s at higher levels within organizations. Instead, a general bias against women
appears to operate with approximately equal strength at all levels.
The problem, in other words, is not a glass ceiling.
Resistance to women’s leadership
What’s behind the discrimination we’ve been describing? Essentially, a set of widely
shared conscious and unconscious mental associations about women, men, and
leaders.
Women are associated with communal qualities, which convey a concern for the
compassionate treatment of others. In contrast, men are associated with agentic
qualities, which convey assertion and control. The agentic traits are also associated
in most people’s minds with effective leadership.
As a result, women leaders find themselves in a double bind. If they are highly
communal, they may be criticized for not being agentic enough. But if they are highly
agentic, they may be criticized for lacking communion. Either way, they may leave the
impression that they don’t have “the right stuff” for powerful jobs.
Given this double bind, it is hardly surprising that people are more resistant to
women’s influence than to men’s.
Nonverbal dominance, such as staring at others while speaking to them or pointing at
people, is a more damaging behavior for women than for men. Verbally intimidating
others can undermine a woman’s influence, and assertive behavior can reduce her
chances of getting a job or advancing in her career. Simply disagreeing can
sometimes get women into trouble.
Self-promotion is similarly risky for women.
Another way the double bind penalizes women is by denying them the full benefits of
being warm and considerate. Because people expect it of women, nice behavior that
seems noteworthy in men seems unimpressive in women.
It all amounts to a clash of assumptions when the average person confronts a woman
in management.
Issues of leadership style
In response to the challenges presented by the double bind, female leaders often
struggle to cultivate an appropriate and effective leadership style—one that reconciles
the communal qualities people prefer in women with the agentic qualities people think
leaders need to succeed.
Does a distinct “female” leadership style exist? There seems to be a popular
consensus that it does.
The meta-analysis found that, in general, female leaders were somewhat more
transformational than male leaders, especially when it came to giving support and
encouragement to subordinates. They also engaged in more of the rewarding
behaviors that are one aspect of transactional leadership. Meanwhile, men exceeded
women on the aspects of transactional leadership involving corrective and disciplinary
actions that are either active (timely) or passive (belated).
o The research tells us not only that men and women do have somewhat
different leadership styles, but also that women’s approaches are the more
generally effective—while men’s often are only somewhat effective or actually
hinder effectiveness.
Another part of this picture, based on a separate meta-analysis, is that women adopt
a more participative and collaborative style than men typically favor.
2
glass ceiling
Women and the labyrinth of leadership (Eagly & Carli)
Despite years of progress by women in the workforce (they now occupy more than 40% of all
managerial positions in the United States), within the C-suite they remain as rare as hens’
teeth.
What is to blame for the pronounced lack of women in positions of power and authority?
“Even those few women who rose steadily through the ranks eventually crashed into
an invisible barrier. The executive suite seemed within their grasp, but they just
couldn’t break through the glass ceiling.”
Times have changed, however, and the glass ceiling metaphor is now more wrong
than right. For one thing, it describes an absolute barrier at a specific high level in
organizations.
At the same time, the metaphor implies that women and men have equal access to
entry- and midlevel positions. They do not.
By depicting a single, unvarying obstacle, the glass ceiling fails to incorporate the
complexity and variety of challenges that women can face in their leadership
journeys.
Metaphors matter because they are part of the storytelling that can compel change.
The danger arises when they draw attention and resources away from other kinds of
interventions that might attack the problem more potently. If we want to make better
progress, it’s time to rename the challenge.
WALLS ALL AROUND
A better metaphor for what confronts women in their professional endeavors is the labyrinth.
It conveys the idea of a complex journey toward a goal worth striving for. Passage through a
labyrinth is not simple or direct, but requires persistence, awareness of one’s progress, and a
careful analysis of the puzzles that lie ahead.
Vestiges of prejudice
One of the most comprehensive of these studies was conducted by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
Without controls for these variables, the data showed that women earned about 44%
less than men, averaged over the entire period from 1983 to 2000. With these
controls in place, the gap was only about half as large, but still substantial.
Even after adjusting wages for all of the ways men and women differ, the GAO study,
like similar studies, showed that women’s wages remained lower than men’s. The
unexplained gender gap is consistent with the presence of wage discrimination.
Promotions come more slowly for women than for men with equivalent qualifications.
Even in culturally feminine settings such as nursing, librarianship, elementary
education, and social work (all specifically studied by sociologist Christine Williams),
men ascend to supervisory and administrative positions more quickly than women.
Interestingly, however, there is little evidence from either the correlational or the
experimental studies that the odds are stacked higher against women with each step
up the ladder—that is, that women’s promotions become progressively less likely than
1
, men’s at higher levels within organizations. Instead, a general bias against women
appears to operate with approximately equal strength at all levels.
The problem, in other words, is not a glass ceiling.
Resistance to women’s leadership
What’s behind the discrimination we’ve been describing? Essentially, a set of widely
shared conscious and unconscious mental associations about women, men, and
leaders.
Women are associated with communal qualities, which convey a concern for the
compassionate treatment of others. In contrast, men are associated with agentic
qualities, which convey assertion and control. The agentic traits are also associated
in most people’s minds with effective leadership.
As a result, women leaders find themselves in a double bind. If they are highly
communal, they may be criticized for not being agentic enough. But if they are highly
agentic, they may be criticized for lacking communion. Either way, they may leave the
impression that they don’t have “the right stuff” for powerful jobs.
Given this double bind, it is hardly surprising that people are more resistant to
women’s influence than to men’s.
Nonverbal dominance, such as staring at others while speaking to them or pointing at
people, is a more damaging behavior for women than for men. Verbally intimidating
others can undermine a woman’s influence, and assertive behavior can reduce her
chances of getting a job or advancing in her career. Simply disagreeing can
sometimes get women into trouble.
Self-promotion is similarly risky for women.
Another way the double bind penalizes women is by denying them the full benefits of
being warm and considerate. Because people expect it of women, nice behavior that
seems noteworthy in men seems unimpressive in women.
It all amounts to a clash of assumptions when the average person confronts a woman
in management.
Issues of leadership style
In response to the challenges presented by the double bind, female leaders often
struggle to cultivate an appropriate and effective leadership style—one that reconciles
the communal qualities people prefer in women with the agentic qualities people think
leaders need to succeed.
Does a distinct “female” leadership style exist? There seems to be a popular
consensus that it does.
The meta-analysis found that, in general, female leaders were somewhat more
transformational than male leaders, especially when it came to giving support and
encouragement to subordinates. They also engaged in more of the rewarding
behaviors that are one aspect of transactional leadership. Meanwhile, men exceeded
women on the aspects of transactional leadership involving corrective and disciplinary
actions that are either active (timely) or passive (belated).
o The research tells us not only that men and women do have somewhat
different leadership styles, but also that women’s approaches are the more
generally effective—while men’s often are only somewhat effective or actually
hinder effectiveness.
Another part of this picture, based on a separate meta-analysis, is that women adopt
a more participative and collaborative style than men typically favor.
2
