“Women's Progress at Top Management Levels” 1

“Women's Progress at Top Management Levels” 1

XI Congreso Internacional de la

Academia de Ciencias Administrativas A.C. (ACACIA)

“Women's Progress at Top Management Levels”

Mesa del trabajo: Liderazgo, Capital Humano y Comportamiento Organizacional

Leticia RamosGarza., Ph.D.

Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Division de Administracion y Finanzas

Eugenio Garza Sada 2501 Sur

Col. Tecnológico

Monterrey, N.L.

México CP 64849

Tel. 52 81 8358 1400 ext. 4336, 4339

Profesora y Directora de Investigación y Desarrollo Académico

email: [email protected]

Guadalajara, Jalisco a 22, 23 24 y 25 de mayo de 2007

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

This study includes a brief review and analysis of the existing

literature of the progress made by women at top management levels and

results from a twopronged research design, composed of a quantitative

(survey, n=232) and a qualitative (interview, n=29) component. First, I will

take into consideration the theme ‘leadership traits’, to address the

characteristics a successful manager should have. Furthermore, I will

outline the theme ‘women's adaptation to maleoriented occupations’.

Second, I will explore several differential factors that could be influencing

the hierarchical level and number of promotions of females within an

organization. Third, I will analyze the organizational barriers and

discrimination against women at the workplace. Finally, I will close with

findings of the study, some general discussion and final conclusions. It is

important to mention that this paper uses the concepts leader and manager

interchangeably.


If we consider that it was almost nonexistent 30 years ago (Dipboye, 1977),

research on women at work has made double progress forward in understanding

the role of women in modern organizational life (OlivasLuján & RamosGarza,

2006). The purpose of this study is to unfold this progress and to determine the

possible factors that could be positively incluencing the development of this

phenomenom.

The family model that we can consider as the traditional one, described the

husband as the breadwinner and the wife as the homemaker (OlivasLuján &

RamosGarza, 2006, Hall & Hall, 1980; Piotrkowski, Rapoport, & Rapoport, 1987).

Actually, the economic pressures of inflation (Lee & Kanungo, 1984) and the social

psychological need ‘to develop one's selfidentity’ (Nieva, 1985) are encouraging

women (1) to take a more active role outside the home, (2) to pursue fulltime

careers, and (3) to participate more widely in society in general (Cooper,1981).

During the 1970's, women made significant progress in moving into occupations

traditionally dominated by men. Blau and Ferber (1987), when they compare

figures noted that the representation of women increased through the years: in

lawyers, operations and systems researchers and analysts, pharmacists, and

veterinarians. Similar increases have occurred in executive, administrative, and

managerial positions. In 2005, INEGI (2005b) reported that there were

approximately 105 million Mexicans, of whom 51% were women. The Mexican

Constitution prohibits employment below the age of 14; INEGI therefore tracks

employment conditions and intentions of Mexican residents aged 14 through 65

(the “economically active population,” which excludes individuals within those ages

who are not interested in or capable of being employed because of academic,

family, sickness, or other reasons). Thus, almost 43% of the national population is

considered to be part of the economically active population. About 16.9% of

Mexico’s women are below working age and less than 3% are older than 65.

However, the traditional female roles of wifehomemaker and mother –along with

lack of work opportunities—interact so that only 35.3% (almost 15 million) of

Mexican women, compared to 74.6% (over 27 million) of men of working age are


part of the workforce (INEGI, 2004c). It is also encouraging to note that data on

the percentage of women in college and in medical school, law school, veterinary

school, and dental school indicate that this trend may continue (Punnett, 2006; Rix,

1987).

As management theory pays closer attention to organizational culture, it

becomes apparent that work contexts vary in the degree to which they accept the

promotion of women into managerial ranks. Women concentrate in lower and mid

level management positions with very few women at the highest levels of the

organization (Freedman, 1988). It is important to have in mind that women are

younger and have fewer years of service within each position they hold than men

do, and women receive lower pay and do not supervise as many employees as

men. This condition describes analysis results of Arizona, Texas, Utah, and

California (Halc and Kelly, 1989).

The progress that has occurred at the lower levels of management for

women has not continued up the ladder. It is easier for women to obtain positions

at lower levels of the organizations these days, but these positions often prove to

be holding patterns for them. Indeed the rise of women in the labor force over the

past twenty years is largely due to a dramatic increase in the number of women in

the force.

Different authors have determined that, in many countries, working women

concentrate in four main industries: community services, wholesale and retail trade;

manufacturing; and finance property and business services (Still, 1988). We still

regard as something out of the ordinary, the appointment of a woman to a senior

middle management position.

To

determine the impact of several factors to women's progress at top management

levels, I will unfold the themes described below.

First, as a critical start, I will take into consideration the theme 'leadership traits', to

address the characteristics a successful manager should have. Furthermore, I will

analyze the theme "women's adaptation to maledominated occupations". Second,


I will explore several differential factors that influence the hierarchical level and

number of promotions of females within an organization. Third, I will analyze the

organizational barriers and discrimination against women at the workplace. Finally,

I will sum some conclusions regarding these relevant issues.

Leadership Traits

Many

authors believe that qualities associated with leadership such as dominance,

assertiveness, competence, status, intelligence, and high levels of participation

match male sexrole stereotypes (Hollander, 1964; Homans, 1950, McKee &

Sheriffs, 1957; Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman & Broverman, 1968). On the

other hand, we can characterize women as having traits such as submissiveness,

passivity, and dependence, characteristics that do not resemble leadership

(Rosenkrantz et al., 1968; McKee & Sheriffs, 1957). In 1967, Douglas McGregor, a

wellknown organizational theorist, described the model of a successful manager in

our culture as 'a masculine one. The good manager is aggressive, competitive,

firm, just. He is not feminine; he is not soft and yielding or dependent or intuitive in

the womanly sense. The very expression of emotion is widely viewed interfere with

effective business practice.'

Most authors believe that if women cannot be seen as leaders, their chances

of climbing to top management positions are diminished. Natalie Porter et al.

(1983) showed that women are unlikely to be seen as leaders. We can clearly see

as leader of his group, a man seated at the head of the table in a mixed sex

group, but we can ignore a woman occupying the same position. Porter

hypothesized, that sex stereotypes still control social judgments, and that

discrimination operates nonconsciously and in spite of good intentions.

Furthermore she stated that becoming a leader depends on acting like a leader, but

it depends even more directly on being seen as a leader. Hollander (1984)

described the attribution of leadership status to an individual as determined by the

expectations of perceivers as well as by the individual’s behavior. He determined

that expectancies for women do not match those for leadership. Campbell’s theory


suggests that stereotypes themselves cause discrimination, regardless of

conscious prejudice. The pattern of evidence suggests that while conscious

attitudes are shifting rapidly, their nonconscious underpinnings may be slower to

change (Epitropaki & Martin,2005).

Heilman and Block (1989), found a strong concurrence between the ratings

of men and the ratings of successful managers, and only a weak concurrence

between the ratings of women and the ratings of successful managers. Moreover,

we view successful managers as more similar to men than to women on attributes

considered critical to effective work performance such as leadership ability, self

confidence, objectivity, forcefulness, and ambition. These findings, consistent with

earlier reports (Basil, 1972; Bowman, Worthy, & Greyser, 1965), indicate that we

do not believe that women possess the qualities essential for success in

management positions. These results make clear that descriptions of women, in

general, are still far less congruent with descriptions of successful managers than

are descriptions of men.

Women's adaptation to Maledominated Occupations

Psychological research on occupational segregation tends to emphasize the

socializing influences that begin to shape motives for both sexes early in childhood

and that eventually lead to divergent career paths for men and women. The

socializing variables that we can propose as relevant to the early emergence of

work values leading to different occupational choices for men and women are too

many. Some relevant ones that we can mention are: early family life, macro

societal influences, educational system and personality characteristics (Gomez

Mejia, 1990).

Early Family Life

Researchers have identified a host of family characteristics that appear to

have an effect on the workrelated values of men and women. These include

parental work values (Frieldlander, 1965; Kohn & Schooler, 1973; Wollach &

Goodale, 1971), the parent's social origin (Blau & Duncan, 1967), the attitude of

the father towards the daughter (Goodale & Hall, 1976), the working role provided


by the mother (Depree, 1962), and the cultural values of the family (Hall, 1976).

Two major work value dimensions have repeatedly been identified in the literature.

First, contextual values concern the importance of rewards derived from the job but

external to the work itself (job security and working conditions). Second, in

contrast, task related values involve rewards obtained directly from work

experience (responsibility and challenge), (GomezMejia, 1990). More research

has to be done to determine the differences in work values of men and women and

how they affect succesful leadership.

Macro Societal Influences

Other researchers have focused on the effect of broad societal forces in

developing and shaping the norms and values of both sexes that are then reelected

in occupational segregation. The theoretical formulations used to explain how the

societal norms channel the sexes into different career paths include the notions of

congruence between sex roles and personal behavior (Hall, 1976), expectancy of

social punishment upon success for women (Horner, 1972); power imbalance

between the sexes (Cromie, 1981); use of stereotypes in selection decisions and a

socially sanctioned dilemma between family life and a demanding career (McClure

& Piel, 1978). It will be helpful, to first determine what are the real expectancies of

women that made it to higher ranks.

Educational System

Some investigators look at the school system as being primarily responsible

for directing members of both sexes into different occupational paths. Authors cite

in numerous studies, the lack of support and encouragement for women choosing

nontraditional careers on the part of faculty and counselors (Goodale & Hall, 1976;

Weisman et al., 1978; Ahrons, 1976). Others focus on peer's attitudes as

determinants of a women’s general conception about what is an appropriate

occupational role (Dement, 1962; Rosen & Jerdel, 1973; Tangri, 1972). On the

other hand, mothers with more education show greater commitment to participate in

the workforce. More than one in two mothers who had at least some posthigh

school education or above were economically active (3.29 of 6.04 million, or


54.5%), followed by 37.6% of mothers with completed highschool (1.59 of 4.22

million), then 33.2% for mothers that had finished elementary school and had some

highschool (2.36 of 7.09 million), 30.6% of mothers that had not finished

elementary school (1.62 of 5.31 million), and 26.6% of mothers with less education

(1.00 of 3.76 million).

Personality Characteristics

Authors propose as determinants of different occupational choices for men

and women, internal psychological processes evolving through childhood and

adolescence. These processes are opposite in terms of such things as role conflict

resolution (Hall, 1976); bringing congruence between selfperception and reality

(McGrath, 1976); adjustments of aspiration level to a realistic career expectation

(Fottler & Bain, 1980); and need to maintain a feminine selfconcept (Crawford,

1978).

In other words, this paradigm leads to the conclusion that we have already

molded a woman's work orientation, prior to entering the occupational world, and

that we can explain on the basis of preemployment values and attitudes, much of

the observed occupational segregation between the sexes (GomezMejia, 1990).

In this study, it is important to outline, that congruent with other authors, we

found a positive relationship between having the proposed leadership traits and

women’s progress. Women that have been successful in top management

positions, possess the leadership traits related to male sexrole stereotype,

different to the believed characterization related to women as having traits such as

submissiveness, passivity, and dependence, characteristics that do not resemble

leadership (OlivasLuján & RamosGarza, 2006). Many of them, believe that to be

a successful manager you need to be aggressive, competitive, firm, just not

feminine, not soft and not yielding or dependent or intuitive in the womanly sense.

Findings of this study, support this way of thinking, making it difficult for women to

be seen as leaders. Moreover, we view successful managers, generally, as more

similar to men than to women on attributes considered critical to effective work

performance, such as leadership ability, selfconfidence, objectivity, forcefulness


and ambition. Making us clear that descriptions of women, in general, are still far

less congruent with descriptions of successful managers than are descriptions of

men.

Research tends to emphasize that socialization influences lead to divergent

career paths for men and women. That there are many socializing variables that

have been proposed as relevant to the early emergence of work values leading to

differential occupational choices for men and women. Some examples cited are

early family life, macro societal influences, educational system, and personality

characteristics. After reviewing them, they lead us to conclude that a woman's work

orientation has already been molded prior entering the occupational world, and that

much of the observed occupational segregation between the sexes can be

explained on the basis of preemployment values and attitudes. An area of

opportunity for research, to determine the differences in work values of men and

women and how they affect successful leadership. But, what are the

characteristics of successful professional women?

Factors Influencing the Hierarchical Level and

Number of Promotions of Females Within an Organization

As managers, executive women and men seem to be virtually identical

psychologically, intellectually and emotionally. Women and men do not differ in

their ability to memorize, to analyze or to solve problems. Rarely have sex

differences been found in the personality traits of managers, in fact the longer men

and women spend in management, the more similar they become (Dipboye, 1987).

Ritchie and Moses (1983) found that skills needed to advance are the same for

female managers as for male managers (Jenkins, Sharon Rae, 1987).

Even though we can observe similarities, women do not get the same

opportunities as men in organizations, and the higher they go in the organization,

the more obvious this becomes. Men advance up an organizational hierarchy

through a series of promotions but the relationship between number of promotions

and hierarchical level is not as clear for women (Stewart, 1982). Promotion is


based, not so much on technical, jobspecific competence, as is the case at entry

level supervision, but on the promise of things to be done (to be strategic

integrative, policyoriented decision makers with a long term perspective). Some

authors have found that an alternative for women to advance upward in the

hierarchy, may be the use of informal organizational systems as well as the formal

systems (Stewart, 1982). Women seem to be in disadvantage due to the fact that

decision makers tend to promote people like themselves to positions like theirs;

98% of the time these are men, promoting men (Cahoon, 1991).

There are many factors that affect the hierarchical level and number of

promotions of females within an organization. Some that I considered for analysis

are: socialization experience, job commitment, cognitive differences, women's roles

and motivational processes. Each one of them will be briefly described below.

Socialization Experience

Winter (1988), studied the power motive in women. He brought together

scattered findings from several previous studies and he reported results of re

analyses of existing data sets and further research on new sample of female

subjects.

Winter (1988), believes the socialization experience determines the

channels of expression of power motivation. Overall, the power motive appears to

function in women very similarly to the ways it functions in men. What at first

appeared to be a major sex difference the relationship of power to profligate,

impulse behaviors turns out on closer examination to be strongly affected, in

women, by responsibility socialization experiences associated initially with sibling

position and, later in life, with having children. A brief reanalysis of some male

data suggests that the same is true for men. Thus the differences between

responsible and profligate expressions of the power motive may have to do with

variables that reflect socialization rather than sex as much. Winter, in his analysis,

suggests that sex, as such, is relatively unimportant as a factor affecting power

motivation (Winter, 1988).


If women entered management via a different career path than did men,

these differential socialization experiences may have contributed to the differences

in current work values. Future research must test conceptual models of gender in

order to understand why these characteristics seem to influence a variety of work

related variables.

Job Commitment

Women with traditional feminine view points often are saddled with

ambivalent feelings. Even those with nontraditional views may experience a

conflict between their personnel beliefs and those of their families and relevant

others. Sexrole conflict does reciprocate negatively with job commitment

(Chusmir, 1982). If the conflict is strong enough, despite a normally sufficient

satisfaction of needs and a high work commitment, the working woman may: (1)

have a propensity to leave her job or (2) continue working (perhaps to satisfy

economic needs), but to do her living off the job. The number of women who cope

with sexrole conflict by leaving their jobs apparently is on decline. Research

evidence clearly points toward diminishing female turnover rates (Chusmir &

Leonarc, 1982).

The research, however, has been inconclusive and frequently contradictory.

Recent evidence suggests that, we may explain any differences in commitment

between men and women by other demographic and affective variables such as job

satisfaction rather than commitment (Aranya, Kushnir, & Valency, 1986). Since

these other affective reactions could be due to differential rewards and perceptions

of those rewards, it is unclear what role, if any, actual job commitment plays.

Cognitive Differences

Differences in the interface between work and family stages (Schein, 1978)

or in selfdefinition of career achievement (Driver, 1979) may also account for sex

differences in career progression. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) reviewed the

enormous literature on psychological gender differences. In particular, they

concluded that three cognitive gender differences were 'wellestablished': females

have greater verbal ability than males, and males have better visualspatial ability


and better mathematical ability then females. Wherman (1978) rereviewed the

evidence on cognitive gender differences and pointed out that even for these

supposedly well established differences, the magnitude of the gender difference

was very small. The main conclusion that can be reached from Shibley's (1981)

analysis is that gender differences in verbal ability, quantitative ability, visual

spatial ability and field articulation reported by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) are all

small. Gender differences appear to account for no more than 1%5% of the

population variance. The difference in means is only about one fourth to one half

of a standard deviation. Generally, it seems that gender differences in verbal

ability are smaller and gender differences in spatial ability are larger, but even in

the latter case, gender differences account for less than 5% of the population

variance (Shibley, 1981).

The answer to the question about whether men and women's career

advancement are more alike or more different depends very much on how you pose

the question. Much as asking whether the glass is half full or half empty, we can

answer by one's sense of differentness, rather than by objective indicators.

A study of standardized aptitude tests given among 1947 and 1980 found

that gender differences in most cognitive abilities have declined, and, many are

now virtually nonexistent (Feingold, 1988). A related social and structural view of

organizations also suggested that occupational sex typing resulted in higher

concentrations of women in jobs traditionally held by women, specially those with

weak power bases in organizations (Kanter, 1977). Women, in turn, recognize the

lack of opportunity in many of these situations and, they adjust their aspiration

levels downward to match the jobs and career paths that appear to be available to

them. Managers undoubtedly also possess welldefined schematic representations

of managerial work and the role of women in organizations (Shibley, 1981).

Women Roles

Family obligations restrict women's freedom. The women who make it to the

upper ranks are much less likely to have children for whom they are responsible

than are men who make it to similar ranks. In other words, if a woman has


restrictive family obligations, she simply does not get promoted to managerial jobs.

If a man has such obligations, he has a wife who takes care of house

responsibilities while he works.

Brenner (1988) indicates that women in managerial roles within the current

organization place more importance on the content and challenge of their jobs and

on the degree of recognition provided for good job performance than did men.

Many authors believe that in our sexsegregated labor market, most

traditionally female occupations involve work with people. For example, teaching,

specially in college, may make fewer problematic interpersonal demands than most

other traditionally female careers but less than many traditionally male careers.

Chusmir (1984,1985,1986) suggests that working women have a need for

power that is comparable in magnitude to men, and they often have even stronger

socialized power needs. We can perceive women as having generally superior

interpersonal abilities, leading firms for which these abilities are critical to seek

competitive advantage by having more women managers (Harriman, 1985).

Motivational Processes

Bartol and Martin (1987) found that male MBA students had higher levels of

motivation tomanage (Miner, 1977) than female MBA students. Parttime female

students had the lowest motivationtomanage scores. Though the differences

could be due to the strong genderrelated items included on the forced choice form

of the Miner Sentence Completion Scale, the authors rightfully argued that future

studies should explore the possibility that these results reflect both genuine sex

related differences in motivationtomanage and altered expectations of success

(Brown, 1984).

Many factors influence the hierarchical level and number of promotions of

females within an organization. Even though women and men are similar in several

abilities, men advance up an organizational hierarchy through a series of

promotions but the relationship between number of promotions and hierarchical

levels are not clear for women. Women seem to be in disadvantage due to

tradition, managers tend to promote people like themselves to positions like theirs.


An alternative for women's progress consists of being able to use the informal

organizational systems as well as the formal systems to advance upward in the

hierarchy.

Although men and women have more similarities than differences, we tend

to exaggerate in their importance, the differences because they are noticeable.

They result from the differentness that characterizes male and female relations and

we manifest them, in family obligations; availability of mentors; and methods of

interpersonal relations (Guy, Mary; 1991).

Some of the factors that influence the progress of women at top

management levels are socialization experience, job commitments, the cognitive

differences and the diversity in women's roles. Furthermore, we will analyze each

one of them.

If women entered management via a different career path than did men,

these differential socialization experiences may have contributed to the differences

in current work values. A theme that we can consider as an opportunity for future

research is “differences in work values”.

In my consideration Winters analysis, would have important practical

consequences if we confirm it with future research, specially, research with

subjects other than college students or college educated adults. Many social

theorists and critics are concerned about protecting society from the bad effects of

profligate power while encouraging the benefits of responsible leadership.

Women can experience conflict between their personal beliefs and those of

their families and relevant others. If the conflict is strong enough, despite a

normally sufficient satisfaction of needs and a high work commitment, the working

woman may take into consideration several alternatives not very attractive to the

company. I believe that we can not generalize with this respect. We have to do

more research to analyze the relationship between women’s job commitment and

success in the organization.

Differences in the interface between work and family stages or in self

definition of career achievement may also account for sex differences in career


progression. We can establish several cognitive gender differences: (1) women

have greater verbal ability than men; (2) men have better visualspatial ability than

women; (3) men have better mathematical ability than women. We have to do

future research to objectively answer the question about whether men and women's

career advancement presents significant differences.

Actually, family obligations restrict women's freedom. Women who make it

to the upper ranks are much less likely to have children for whom they are

responsible than are men who make it to similar ranks. Women have to play a

diversity of roles. Studies indicate that women in managerial roles within the

organization place more importance on the content and challenge of their jobs and

on the degree of recognition provided for good performance than did men. In my

consideration, this could be very attractive to companies that are continuously

changing to adapt the conflicting environment.

Some authors have determined that men had higher levels of motivation to

manage than women. More research has to be done, not only with MBA students

to prove this enigma.

In addition, as research in organizational behavior and human resource

management expands into other areas such as international management, the

need to look at sex differences in these domains has been increasing.

In this study, we can conclude that it is difficult for women to progress at top

management levels due to several factors. Some that we can mention are: the way

women's are perceived as leaders, their personal characteristics, their adaptation

to maledominated occupations, their socialization experience, the degree of job

commitment, the cognitive differences, the diversity in roles and the motivational

processes. Furthermore, to detail more this issue, we can describe some

organizational barriers and discrimination against women that make it difficult for

women to progress at higher ranks.

Organizational Barriers to Women

We can view from at least two perspectives, barriers to women's progress at

the workplace. First, we may see obstacles residing within women themselves,


their own attitudes and motivations may impede high levels of achievement

(O'Leary, 1974; Stein & Bailey, 1973). Second, we many find obstructions in

external factors, in organizational structures, general stereotypes, and in attitudes

of women's peers and superiors (Kanter, 1977; Terbor, 1977). Some of the

organizational barriers or obstructions that influence the progress of women at top

management levels that this paper will analyze are recruitment and selection, task

assignment, performance appraisal, promotion, pay, and institutional barriers.

Recruitment and Selection

One of the major obstacles that women have to face to progress at top

management levels in our organizations is recruitment and selection. What occurs

are biases in decisions about how, where and when positions are advertised, which

tend to favor traditional sources, and this is often compounded by the nature and

format of the advertisements themselves. What we use in the past becomes the

norm for what shall be used in the future. As a consequence, a focus on women or

an appeal to women in particular is lost, unless potential women candidates follow

the male norm, and respond to targeting which has traditionally been focused on

men, specially at the senior levels. For example, in many of our organizations,

particularly at the professional and executive levels, much of the recruiting process

occurs informally, with key candidates already identified through an old men’s

network, and selected for interviews before any formal announcement of the

position is made (Cahoon, 1991). The male bias extends to selection outside the

management context. Lae, Upchurch, Corwin, and Grossnickle (1975) for example,

found that male applicants for scholarship funds were judged as more intelligent

and more likable than their female counterparts. Likewise, Deaux and Taynor

(1973) found that, in general, male applicants for a studyabroad program were

favored over identical female applicants.

Task assignment

Differential task assignments between men and women are often a cause for

institutional sex bias (Dipboye, 1987). Clearly, men, particularly at the professional

and managerial levels, are responsible of assignments that are more central,


critical, visible, and relevant to the task and organizational priorities (Kanter, 1977).

Women generally, are responsible of less important tasks, projects and clients.

The relative lower value assigned to these tasks becomes justification for lower

performance ratings, lower compensation and for being passed over for promotion.

Gender bias in task assignments has clearly resulted in stereotypic undervaluing of

women in organizations (Cahoon, 1991).

Performance Appraisal

One potential external barrier to women at work is prejudicial external

evaluation of their qualifications and performance. Although, we supose employee

evaluation to be objective and meritbased, there is extensive documentation of

frequent deviation from these ideas (Kane & Lawler, 1979; Guion, 1965). The sex

of the person being evaluated clearly influences their performance appraisal. Men

consistently predict higher performance for themselves than do women. Women on

the other hand tend to underestimate their performance (Colwill, 1982). An

important factor in the validity of gender biased performance appraisal relates to

the degree to which we can actually define task and objectives, and measure

performance (Cahoon, 1991).

Three factors affect the operation of sexrelated evaluation bias. First, the

level of inference required of the evaluator relates directly to the occurrence of pro

male bias. Second, sexrelated bias may be a function of sexrole incongruency in

the particular contexts in which we make the evaluation. Third, the level of

qualification or performance involved, affects the operation of evaluation bias

(Nieva, 1980).

In those situations in which good performance is hard to define objectively,

subjective evaluations occur, and sexstereotyping introduced. Conversely, when

we clearly specify goals and tasks, performance evaluation is much more objective

(March 1984). At levels of supervision, when daytoday work is dependent upon

technological competence, performance measure is relatively gender neutral. The

sex of the candidate has little to do with the evaluation. As one progresses up the

organization, the criterion for assessing competence becomes increasingly vague,


what we will measure and how, are less and less clearly defined, resulting in

increasingly subjective decision making. Often organizations only consider the

past 3 or 5 years in determining the competency of an individual for a particular

position. This effectively excludes women of child bearing age, who choose to

have children, and whose consecutive years of experience may not meet the norm,

but whose cumulative years of experience may be more than sufficient for the

required position (Cahoon, 1991).

We stereotype men as being more capable of handling increased

responsibility, authority and autonomy than women (Heilman, 1983).

Promotion

Some authors see a similar promotion process operating for men and

women. For example, Yorks (1976) believes that identifying and applying behavior

that contributes to mobility within the corporate political system is a basic problem

facing all managers. According to Kanter, women occupy roles in complex

organizations that are different from those of men. She states: 'Most women in

business have found their management opportunities in low uncertainty, non

discretionary positions . . ., in expert rather than decision making roles'. We find

them in those areas . . . where we can remove them from the interdependent social

networks of the corporation’s principal operations, 1977. Managers tend to

carefully guard power and privilege for those who fit in, for those they see as their

kind. Mostly, managers are men, we tend to exclude women from power and

privilege. Some researchers argue that we can not systematically exlude women

from power and privilege because of their sex but, because they have not been in

managerial positions in organizations as long as men (Jablin, 1980), women have

not had the time to advance as far as men. Now the question is: If we control the

amount of education, age, and tenure in an organization, are there significant

differences in hierarchical level and number of promotions for males and females?

Some authors believe that: Women spend more time in each promotion rank

than do men. We stuck women in their career ladder and often bit an invisible

glass ceiling. (Hymowitz and Schellard 1986; Morrison et al, 1987). We see


women as less mobile in administrative positions (Cahoon, 1991). For promotion,

women perceive a greater risk from failure than do men. Women get discriminating

questions in interviews. For example: Do you have children? What arrangements

have you made for their minding? Will your husband approve of your business

travel?

Pay

Women are the primary occupants of the secondary labor market. This is

the term given to a job market that has low wages, poor working conditions, few

opportunities for advancement and little job security (Still, 1988). Although, we

supose equal pay to be a reality of the day, this is not the case (Cahoon, 1991).

In 1987, 56% of women were working compared to 31% in 1950. During this

time, the percentage of working men declined slightly from 80% in 1950 to 78% in

1987 (US Department of Commerce, 1975; US Department of Labor, 1987).

Working women in 1986 earned 70% what a man made (US Department of

Commerce, 1987) compared to between 57 and 60% for the period 19601980 (Rix,

1987).

In 1988, the average earnings of female managers were only approximately

60% of those of male managers (Jacobs, 1992). One explanation for this

differential is that companies may get away with lower pay for women because the

supply of qualified female candidates exceeds the number of management job

openings that companies are willing to have (Blau, 1984; Pfeffer & DavisBlake,

1987; Folbert & Oberfield, 1991).

Even if women successfully enter jobs that have traditionally paid well, there

is some evidence that if too many women enter a particular field, then salaries will

decline. Pfeffer and DavisBlake (1987) examined the effect of the proportion of

women on salaries for college administrators. They found an inverse relationship

between the proportion of women and the salaries of both men and women. Their

results support an institutionalization approach that suggests that at the point

where work becomes defined as women's work wages will decrease.

Institutional Barriers


First of all, it is important to define the concept of institutional barriers. We

can consider them practices in the organization that allow men to make mistakes,

whereas we spotlight women and their mistakes are more obvious due to their lack

of numbers. Women are not able to learn on the job with the same case as men

(Shakeshaft, 1991). Organizations are much more likely to take a chance on an

unknown male than on an unknown female. We often give men more opportunities

for informal leadership, to head committees, make presentations, and therefore

have more opportunities to be visible (Shakeshaft, 1991). Various institutional

practices and procedures have developed over time that make it difficult for women

to take part or participate equally in the institution’s programs of employment

opportunities. Organizations inevitably fail to take the career aspirations of women

as seriously as those of men. Stereotypic views of female career paths and career

commitment result from the implicit belief in the male career model. The typical

career path of women is different. First, women tend to take longer in making their

initial career decisions. Typically women make career decisions among 25 and 35

while men make their decisions between age 18 and 28. The socialization process

for men and women are different. Men and women talk differently, women tend to

be more tentative, men tend to interrupt more often. They talk of different things,

families versus sports. Men are more activity oriented, women more talk oriented.

Men view trust and loyalty as most important ingredients in building a team.

Women tend to view competence as the most important ingredient. Men tend to

learn by sharing and activity, while women learn more by talking together. (Cahoon,

1991)

When we analyze the case of a lone woman entering a small group of male

professionals, she usually does not realize that we felt she is trespassing, or

resents and rejects this notion. She wishes to be accepted with full membership,

with the right to express herself freely, and compete actively for status according to

her professional merits. Often, however, she has not resolved internal conflicts

about her sex role. Feminine socialization, described at length by many writers,

trains her to value passivity, helplessness, and show of feeling. In dealing with


men, we suppose a traditionally feminine woman shall take care of, avoid

competition, and emphasize her sexuality. Horner (1975), shows that most women

are afraid of success, specially when achieved in competition with men. To

succeed professionally, a woman must reevaluate her feminine traits, and become

independent, assertive, and competent. A professional peer group containing a

solo woman faces difficult problems. We can lower the productivity of the company

by conflicts over the woman's role. Administrators setting up Tgroups or working

groups would be wise to avoid lone women members, they shall at least include

two or three women. (Wolman, Carol & Frank, Hal; 1975)

Psychologist Steven Berglas (1992) thinks, we can position the female style of

leadership for hard times. "In an era when the need to motivate is so important,

women will do better because they are nurturers and valuedriven," he says, "and

at a time when the corporation needs restructuring, women will be able to do so

because they operate in webs rather than pyramidshaped hierarchies." (Billard,

1992)

In this study, we can conclude that to progress at top management levels,

women have had to face several difficulties. Some authors believe that most of

them are difficulties due to organizational barriers and discrimination that women

have to face.

We can consider it one of the main obstacles that women have to face to

progress. What occurs are biases in decisions about how, where and when to

advertise positions, which tend to favor traditional sources. What we have use in

the past shall be used in the future. As a consequence, a focus on women or an

appeal to women in particular is lost.

Differential task assignments between men and women are often a cause for

institutional sex bias. In my consideration this is a weak point, where we have to do

something. It is not comprehensive, why men receive critical, relevant assignments

and women receive less important tasks. That provokes lower performance

ratings, lower compensations and for being passed over for promotion.


The sex of the person being evaluated influences their performance

appraisal. In those situations in which good performance is hard to define

objectively, subjective evaluations occur, and sexstereotyping introduced. I

believe that it is important to recall that as one progresses up the organization, the

criterion for assessing competence becomes increasingly vague. What we

measure and how, are less and less clearly defined. Not agreeing with Heilman

where he says that we stereotype men as being more capable of handling

increased responsibility, authority and autonomy than women.

Most women in business have found their management opportunities in low

uncertainty, nondiscretionary positions, in expert rather than decision making

roles. We can find them in those areas where we remove them from the

interdependent social networks of the corporation's principal operations. Because

most managers are men, we tend to exclude from power and privilege. A question

that we can still not answer is: If we control, the amount of education, age and

tenure in an organization, are there significant differences in hierarchical level and

number of promotions for males and females? I agree with Hymowitz & Schelland

where they say that organizations tend to stop women's progress and often bit an

invisible glass ceiling.

Working women earn less than men. In 1988, the average earnings of

female managers were only approximately 60% of those of male managers. I

believe this is due to the supply of qualified female candidates that exceed the

number of management job openings that companies are willing to have. Even if

women successfully enter jobs that have traditionally paid well, there is some

evidence that if too many women enter a particular field, their salaries will decline.

They are practices in the organization that allow men to make mistakes,

whereas we spotlight and their mistakes are more obvious due to their small

number. I believe organizations inevitably fail to take the career aspirations of

women as seriously as those of men. One of the problems Horner mentioned

shows that most women are afraid of success, specially that achieved in

competition with men. In my consideration a woman, to succeed professionally,


must reevaluate her feminine traits, and become independent, assertive and

competent.

Method of the Study

This study contributes partially (Mexico’s analyses) to test some of the main

effects of the proposed empirical model. The results of the complete proposed

model, can be find in the book Succesful Professional Women of the Americas,

organized in thirteen chapters based on the applications of 1,100 questionnaires

and 300 interviews of women from different countries Mexico, United States,

Canada, Brazil, Argentina and Chile, that have accomplished top management

levels.

The quantitative survey was answered in Mexico by a total of 287 women,

but 54 surveys were deleted from the analyses for various reasons (e.g.,

respondent was born or working outside of Mexico, her business was younger than

three years of age, she was not a manager of managers with subordinates, or other

conditions for inclusion in the study were not met 1 ) for a total 233 usable surveys.

The average respondent to our study was 43 years old (S.D.: 10.25). A sign of

these women’s work success is that, on average, they reported average yearly

earnings of $42,114.80 USD, in a country where the per capita Gross National

Income was $6,230.00 USD (World Bank, 2004); said differently, these women

made 6.76 times the Mexican per capita Gross National Income for 2003 on

average.

The quantitative component was generated from twentynine women that

participated in personal interviews; most of these women also answered the survey.

Interviews are a very expensive way to obtain information, but a major advantage is

that they also offer a very rich and detailed way to gain a better understanding of

the phenomena under study.

General Discussion and Conclusions


While Mexican women’s work situation has improved in the recent past,

there is still a long way to go before we can consider that their contribution to the

nation’s competitiveness is equitably structured and recognized (OlivasLuján &

RamosGarza, 2006). The family model has changed through the years. The

traditional one considered the husband the breadwinner and the wife as the

homemaker (Hall & Hall, 1980; Piotrkowski, Rapoport, & Rapoport, 1987). Now a

days, the economic pressures of inflation (Lee & Kanungo, 1984) and the social

psychological need ‘to develop one's selfidentity’ (Nieva, 1985) are encouraging

women (1) to take a more active role outside the home, (2) to pursue fulltime

careers, and (3) to participate more widely in society, in general (Cooper, 1981).

As management theory pays closer attention to organizational culture, it

becomes apparent that work contexts vary in the degree to which they accept the

promotion of women at top management levels. We can determine that women

concentrate in lower and midlevel management positions with very few women at

the highest levels of the organization (Freedman, 1988). Why are few women

responsible of the highest levels of an organization? Why organizations stop

women's progress at top management levels? After reviewing the exiting research

I can conclude that discrimination against women exists, even though some

progress has been done at midlevel management. It is important to take into

consideration: first, many authors relate leadership traits with a male sexrole

stereotype, considering that we can characterize women as having traits such as

submissiveness, passivity, and dependence, characteristics that do not resemble

leadership. Many of them, believe that to be a successful manager you need to be

aggressive, competitive, firm, just not feminine, not soft and not yielding or

dependent or intuitive in the womanly sense. Second, women seem to be in

disadvantage due to the fact that decision makers tend to promote people like

themselves to positions like theirs; 98% of the time these are men, promoting men

(Cahoon, 1991). Third, socialization influences lead to divergent career paths for

men and women. Many socializing variables have been proposed as relevant to the

early emergence of work values leading to differential occupational choices for men


and women. Some examples cited in this paper were: early family life, macro

societal influences, educational system, and personality characteristics. Fourth,

there are many factors that affect the hierarchical level and number of promotions

of females within an organization. Some considered by this analysis were:

socialization experience, job commitment, cognitive differences, women's roles and

motivational processes. Finally, we found several obstructions in external factors,

in organizational structures, general stereotypes, and in attitudes of women's peers

and superiors (Kanter, 1977; Terbor, 1977). Some of the organizational barriers or

obstructions considered in this paper, that influence the progress of women at top

management levels were recruitment and selection, task assignment, performance

appraisal, promotion, pay, and institutional barriers.

We can conclude, that there has been little progress at top management levels.

That women need more time to travel through the hierarchical levels of the

organization. Most of the authors have based their analysis on universities, or women

with some special degree of education. In my consideration, their assumptions could

not be totally valid. More research has to be done, to understand the differences and

similarities due to gender. The results of this strudy, should help both practitioners and

academics to design developmental programs to enable future generations of working

women to achieve even higher levels of success than the women of this project.


References

Aldler, N. J. (1994). Women managers in a global economy. Training &

Development, 3136.

Billard, M. (1992). Do women make better managers? Working Woman, 6873.

Blum, T. C., Fields, D. L. & Goodman, J. S. (1994). Organizationlevel

determinants of women in management. Academy of Management Journal,

37, 241268.

Brenner, O. C. (1988). An examination of race and sex differences in managerial

work values. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 336344.

Brown, V. & Geis, F. L. (1984). Turning lead into gold: Evaluations of men and

women leaders and the alchemy of social consensus. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 46, 811824.

Cahoon, A. R. (1991). Gender differences in management. Practicing Manager,

1320.

Chusmir, Leonard H. (1982). Job commitment and the organizational woman

Academy of Management Review, 7, 595602.

Duxbury L. E. & Higgins C. A. (1991). Gender differences in workfamily conflict.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 6074.

Epitropaki, O & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role

of implicit leadership theories on leadermember exchanges and employee

outcomes.

Freedman, S. M. (1988). The changing nature of research on women at work.

Journal of Management, 14, 231251.

GomezMejia L. R. (1990). Women's adaptation to maledominated

occupations.International Journal of Manpower, 11, 1116.

Guy, M. E. (1991). Career advancement and behavioral style among Alabama’s

public mangers: A comparison by sex. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 11, 116.


Heilman, M. E. & Block, C. J. (1989). Has anything changed? Current

characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74, 935942.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A

conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18, 5687.

INEGI. (2002). Encuesta nacional sobre uso del tiempo. Aguascalientes, Ags., México:

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática.

INEGI. (2003). Mujeres y hombres en México 2003. Aguascalientes, Ags., México:


INEGI. (2004a). Agenda estadística de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

Aguascalientes, Ags., México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e

Informática.

INEGI. (2004b). Estadísticas a propósito del día de la madre Datos nacionales.


Informática.

INEGI. (2004c). Mujeres y hombres en México 2004. Aguascalientes, Ags., México:


INEGI. (2005a). Estadística de la Industria Maquiladora de Exportación.


Informática. URL

http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/rutinas/ept.asp?t=emp75&c=181,

accessed May 30, 2005.

INEGI. (2005b). Estadísticas a propósito del día de la madre Datos nacionales.


Informática.

INEGI. (2005c). Población económicamente activa. Aguascalientes, Ags., México:

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. URL:

http://www.inegi.gob.mx/lib/olap/general_ver2/MDXQueryDatos.asp?#Regreso&c

=3124, accessed June 20, 2005.

http://www.inegi.gob.mx/lib/olap/general_ver2/MDXQueryDatos.asp


Jenkins, S. R. (1987). Need for achievement and women's careers over 14 years:

Evidence for occupational structure effects. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 53, 922932.

Lester, T. (1993). A woman’s place. Management Today, 4650.

Nieva V. F. & Gutek B. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of

Management Review, 5, 267276.

OlivasLuján., M.R. & RamosGarza., L. (2006). Successful professional women in

Mexico in Successful professional women in the Americas, 161 – 182.

Porter, N., Geis, F. L., & Jennings J. (1983). Are women invisible as leaders? Sex

Roles, 9, 10351049.

Punnett., B.J. et al. (2006) Succesful profesccional women in the Americas. Edward

Elgar Publishing.

Shibley H. J. (1981). How large are cognitive gender differences? American

Psychologist, 36, 892901.

Stewart, L. P. (1982). Differential factors influencing the hierarchical level and

number of promotions of males and females within an organization. Academy

of Management Journal, 25, 586597.

Stroh, L. K. (1992). All the right stuff: A comparison of female and male managers'

career progression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 251259.

Winter, D. G. (1988). The power motive in women and men. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 510519.

Wolman, C. & Frank H. (1975). The solo woman in a professional peer group.

Amer. J. Orthopsychiat, 45, 164171.

Documents

“Women's Progress at Top Management Levels” 1