Economics 394 and Business Leaders: Glass Ceiling Research (Research Paper Sample)

Glass Ceiling
Name
Institution
Date
Summary
A glass ceiling can be defined as artificial barriers that are created to halt the advancement of women and minorities in their career regardless of their achievements and qualifications. This paper examines in detail various definitions of the glass ceiling, impacts of the glass ceiling on victims as well as on the economy. Unfortunately, there has been a misunderstanding on the right criterion that should be used in attempts to identify the glass ceiling in the business world. This paper, therefore, discusses and provides a detailed analysis of the four main criteria that can be used to test the glass ceiling in companies in an attempt to differentiate it from other vises such as racism, gender inequality segregation and others. The paper also examines various efforts that business leaders should make in order to shatter the glass ceiling within companies, thus achieving the American dream that is to give an equal opportunity to everybody regardless of their color or gender. It is of no doubt that the American economy has been impacted by the existence of the glass ceiling in companies and other organizations. The human capital has not been fully utilized, and this has affected the economy to a considerable degree. A detailed examination of impacts of the glass ceiling on the American economy has also been analyzed in this paper.
Glass Ceiling
A glass ceiling has been defined before as the artificial barriers that are created in the labor market to prevent the advancement of women and the minorities in the career ladder. There is no doubt that there exists a glass ceiling in the labor market. It is, however, crucial to note that there is no clear demarcation between the glass ceiling and other inequalities to many people. It is for such a reason that there is a need to have a clear understanding of what the glass ceiling is and what makes it different from the other types of inequalities.
Having defined the glass ceiling as the artificial, yet unbreakable barrier that is meant to prevent women and the minorities from rising up the corporate ladder despite having high qualifications as well as achievements, this can, therefore, be interpreted as a barrier to rise to the high levels in the career ladder that tells of a job inequality, but does not explain why after looking at the individual’s achievements and qualifications. In this case, it also tells of the labor discrimination and not just an inequality in the job market (Cotter, 2011). When looking for cases that reflect the glass ceiling, it is essential to look for the right trends and, therefore, avoid the imperfect methods. Thus, when detecting discrimination at the place of work, there is a need to look for the prior characteristics of the employees that explain the reason for discrimination. Inequalities that go back to past discriminations, such as in education or health, should not be generally considered to be the glass ceiling (Bertrand, Goldin, & Katz, 2010).
Therefore, it is significant to emphasize that the first criterion when detecting a glass ceiling at the place of work should be to look at the inequalities in terms of gender or race that are not explained by other job related characteristics of the victim (Bertrand, Goldin, & Katz, 2010). In this regard, glass ceilings can only come last after all the other inequalities such as education, achievements, race, gender, experience, abilities and other job related characteristics have been used.
However, it is essential to note that there is no clear demarcation between all the other forms of discrimination and glass ceiling. This means that one cannot measure nor control all the other job related employee characteristics that are likely to affect the end results. In this case, it is also possible that a part of differences may be a result of less job productivity or can be preferences rather than discrimination (Bertrand, Goldin, & Katz, 2010).
On the other hand, it is also possible to control most of the other job related characteristics of the previous jobs, since they are likely to explain or at least help in detecting how discrimination happens (Bertrand, Goldin, & Katz, 2010). A good example would be a change in the job occupation such as when a teacher becomes a head teacher, a clerk becomes a manager or a first line supervisor becomes a plant manager. It is, therefore, possible that controlling these past jobs related characteristics may actually mask the glass ceiling rather than reveal it.
Finally, when one is testing the level of discrimination at the place of work, there can arise some disagreements on the extent, to which the job related characteristics of the employee is supposed to reach. Taking for example, there are those people who would argue that the family issues, such as the marital status, the number of children and their age, is an illegitimate way of to consult when making promotions and success and, thus, should not be used when controlling the glass ceiling. However, on the other hand, some people would argue that family matters affect the level of productivity of the employees and are directly linked to the job and should therefore be controlled (Goldin, 2013).
The second criterion comes from the fact that the glass ceiling is much felt at the top levels of the corporate ladder. According to the most of the researches conducted, the glass ceiling is usually more rampant, when it comes to the prestigious positions. In this regard, it would be argued that most of the people who fall victims to the glass ceiling do not even notice it until they are near the top as far as the labor market is concerned (Samuel, 2014). Therefore, it would be sensible to define a glass ceiling as an inequality that represents a racial or gender difference that is more rampant or greater at the higher levels of the labor market than at the lower ones. In this case, in a common company, which is accused of the gender ceiling, one is likely to see more female officers as compared to the middle level managers, and the same is expected as one climbs up the ladder. However, it is crucial to note that if gender inequality is common all the way up the hierarchies, then this should not be seen as the glass ceiling, but rather should be seen as a case of the gender inequality. In other words, as noted by Hegewisch, Deitch and Murphy (2011) if fewer females are seen at the elite levels of organizations, and the same happens to the number of male females in the blue collar jobs, then the case should be called gender inequality and not the concept of a glass ceiling.
The other way, through which a glass ceiling can be tested, is through promotions and increases in the levels of income. In this case, another definition of a promotion can be introduced, which is meant to say that a glass ceiling inequality is supposed to represent the racial or gender inequality of those in the chances of advancement into higher and more powerful levels based not only on the proportion of race or gender that exists on those higher and powerful levels. In other words, there are chances that more men are likely to be found at the higher levels based on the fact that there were more men at the entry levels. If this is the case, there are higher chances of a bigger percentage of men being promoted and their salaries being increased as compared to women (Goldin, 2013). The other scenario is likely to look like this: if there is a high percentage of women, who exit because of the fear that there exists a glass ceiling in the organization, then the chances are that there are more men to be found at the higher levels as compared to women. This, therefore, cannot be called a glass ceiling. Another scenario would be in a case, where there are 100 men and 100 women in an organization, and then it happens that the rate of promotions is twice as compared to that of women; thus, there are 20 men promoted to the next level, while only ten women are promoted to the next level. The outcomes will be such that out of the four men promoted to the next level, only one woman will be promoted; thus, the ratio of men to women will be 4:1. In this regard, the ratio of men to women at the middle level is expected to be 2:1, while that at the lower levels, it will be 1:1. In that case, the conclusion is that only a gender gap increases as one moves up the career ladder as compared to the increases in chances of promotions and incomes (Bertrand, Goldin, & Katz, 2010).
Another criterion that can be used to test the glass ceiling in companies is a test of disadvantages that grow with time in one’s career. In terms of this, the interpretation would be that an upward movement and advancement in the career of an individual was experienced at one time, but it reached a point, and a barrier occurred. In this case, a glass ceiling would then be defined as an inequality that represents a racial or gender inequality that is supposed to increase with an increase in the years and experiences during the career. As noted by Hegewisch, Deitch and Murphy (2011), in order to test this, one needs to look at the career trajectories that are meant to identify whether there are any differences in gender in terms of earnings and authority as their experiences in work increases. One of the main problems that are likely to face career trajectories is that if by any chance, the gaps in gender and racial inequality increases with an improvement in experience of those people, who start their careers at the bottom, and the same case for those, who start their careers at the middle level, as well as for those people, who made an entry in their career near the top, then it will not pose a clear picture of whether it is a glass ceiling or simply a case of differences in returns as far as the work experience is concerned. According to the secon...