seeing through the glass ceiling

7/30/2019 Seeing Through the Glass Ceiling

1/5

Seeing through the glass ceilingDo women favor structural or meritocratic explanations for how they reachcorporate success?By Alison Wynn on Monday, November 5, 2012 1:54pm

The Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research is committed to empowering womens voices

and leadership on the Stanford campus and beyond. To promote this goal, the Clayman Institute ispublishing profiles of our Advisory Council, women and men who have volunteered their time and energyto creating greater gender equality. Over the course of the year, student writers will interview councilmembers-- representing many communities, including financial, legal, non-profit, and entrepreneurial.We hope these profiles will inspire, as well as begin a dialogue with our readers about what it takes toexercise voice and influence in the areas that matter to you. We will ask each of the council members toshare their histories, paths to success, and career advice.

Early roads traveled

In the 1960s, inspired by travel abroad, Heck pursued a

masters degree in Italian literature. While she loved

student magazine. On weekends and after

A turning When it became time to leave Texas, Heck wante

From Marissa Mayers rise to top dog at Yahoo! to Sheryl Sandbergs closely-watched leadership at

Facebook, women tech executives create quite a stir in Silicon Valley. For some, the rise of a female

leader especially in a male-dominated field seems to tip the scale in favor of equality. Others

worry that these superstar women make the glass ceiling seem more impenetrable to those with fewer

resources or connections.

source

istoockphoto

But do women who break through the metaphorical barrier

actually see the glass ceilings so often documented in social

science research? Or are these glass ceilings somehow

invisible to them? It turns out the answers to these questions

are more complicated than you might think. They also have

far-reaching consequences: high-achieving womens beliefs

about glass ceilings can affect whether they help to implement

policies that bolster up-and-coming womens success.

To better understand the issues at play, sociologists Erin

Cech (Rice University) andMary Blair-Loy(University of

California San Diego) conducted a research study to examine

which factors impact women leaders perceptions of the glassceiling.

The researchers found that work and family factors affect whether women recognize glass ceilings.

Women who are most likely to encounter powerful barriers due to their work and family circumstances

(long hours, being the family breadwinner, having young children) are also most likely to recognize

how structural factors affect their own and other womens success. In other words, these women are

more likely to see the glass ceiling.
http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2012/seeing-through-glass-ceiling-1http://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cechhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cechhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cechhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cechhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cechhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/mary-blair-loyhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/mary-blair-loyhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/mary-blair-loyhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/mary-blair-loyhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cechhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cechhttp://gender.stanford.edu/news/2012/seeing-through-glass-ceiling-1


2/5

Structure or merit? Contrasting explanations of gender inequality

Cech and Blair-Loy studied members of ISIS (pseudonym), a nonprofit professional association for women in

science, technology, and allied fields. ISIS women have achieved substantial career success and work within

a competitive region of California. The study sought to uncover if differences in work or family situations

impact whether women see inequality more as a result of the organization (structural reasons) or as a result

of individual efforts (meritocratic explanations).

Structural explanations are the explanations most often supported by sociological research.

Rather than focusing on the traits of any single woman, structural explanations point to larger cultural and

institutional factors outside the individual. For example, structural explanations would point to the role social

networks play in restricting womens access to valued resources such as advancement opportunities, rather

than focusing on whether an individual woman takes advantage of those networks.

Women constitute 47% of the labor force, 1/3 of all MBA degrees, and only 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs. In 48%

of Fortune 1000 companies, there are no women executives at all

Structuralexplanations also consider stereotypes about womens competence. For example, research on

stereotypes has shown that if a woman is personally likable, she is often believed to be a less competentleader. Likewise, if she is viewed as competent, she is seen as unlikeable. Men do not experience the same

tradeoff. Because of gender stereotypes, organizational leaders may devalue womens contributions or

penalize their assertiveness. As a result, women often face higher standards and penalties than equally-

qualified men do.

Meritocraticexplanations tend to be the dominant explanations of differences in success in American culture.

These explanations focus on individual merit or lack thereof instead of considering structural barriers.

According to Cech, meritocratic explanations are the bread and butter of the American dream, that anybody

can achieve anything as long as they work hard enough and have enough drive.

Meritocratic explanations assume that individual talent and effort bring proportional rewards, such as pay andpromotion. These explanations assume that people who work hard and possess enough innate ability can

reach the highest levels of success. According to this logic, if women have not achieved as highly as men, it's

because women lack sufficient education, experience, or desire to reach the top.

High-achieving women have reasons to support both types of explanations, structural and meritocratic. On

the one hand, successful women may experience the types of structural barriers sociologists write about.

They face stereotypes in their day-to-day lives, struggle to form viable networking relationships, and

encounter resistance when demonstrating leadership.

On the other hand, high-achieving women are heavily invested in their institutions. They want to believe the

system in which they succeeded is fair. Not all women executives see the glass ceiling even though they

very may well have experienced it, Cech explains. To view their own success as legitimate, they recognize

their own hard work, drive, and smart choices as the secrets of their success.

In contrast, the most successful women, and women with

strong connections to certain institutions such as graduate

business school, are more likely to believe that individual

actions drive success. Put differently, these women do not

see the glass ceiling.

The implications of Cech and Blair-Loys research extend

beyond womens views of the glass ceiling and could

implicate how work is designed in the future. Whether

leaders (men and women) recognize the glass ceiling and

whether they believe that organizational or individual factorsled to success may affect how these leaders design future

organizational structures and promotion opportunities for

upcoming generations of women.

Women who are most likely to

encounter powerful barriers due to

their work and family circumstances

are also most likely to recognize how

structural factors affect their own and

other womens success.


3/5

The effects of work and family on explanations ofinequality

Some appear immune to seeing the glass ceiling

In contrast, other women executives seem almost immune to seeing the glass ceiling. Cech and Blair-Loy

found that women with advanced business degrees, married women, and women in one of the top two

positions in their companies prefer meritocratic explanations of gender inequality. In all, 40 percent of the

sample favored meritocratic explanations.

Not surprisingly, the prevailing ideology in most business schools is a potent belief in meritocracy that hard

work is the key to success. Women embedded in these institutions may feel compelled to align themselves

with those ideals rather than emphasizing the barriers they face.

More than 26 percent of the sample believed that womens own lack of individual motivation is the number

one factor holding them back from advancement to corporate leadership. Over a quarter of these

respondents blamed women themselves, [assuming] that they are overly committed to their families, or have

no desire, or there is nothing holding them back, Cech explained. Thus a substantial percentage of high -

achieving technical women attribute gender inequality to womens own inadequacies rather than cultural or

organizational obstacles.

To complicate matters, certain factors such as the effect of marriage apply primarily among white

respondents. For African American, Latina, and Asian American respondents, being married increases the

likelihood of choosing a structural (rather than meritocratic) explanation. Cech and Blair-Loy posit that if

So which is it? Do these women favor structural or meritocratic

explanations? Cech and Blair-Loy uncovered a complex reality.

Structural explanations are most common among women who

experience day-to-day situations that challenge the assumption

that individual effort drives success. In the absence of these

specific experiences, women favor meritocratic explanations.

40% of high-achieving women sampled favor meritocraticexplanations for success. 60% of the sample favor structural explanations for success

...If I am working 85

hours a week, and my male

colleague is working 80

hours a week, and he is

earning 20 percent morethan I do, Im going to

start to question whether

the advancement system

Cech and Blair-Loy learned that womens family roles impact whether they recognize barriers to their success.

Women who work more hours, serve as primary breadwinners in their families, or have young children are more

likely to perceive the glass ceiling. Cech and Blair-Loy hypothesize that such women encounter visible andpersistent barriers that activate their awareness of structural causes of inequality. Thus, 60 percent of the

respondents in the study favored structural explanations.

For example, women may see their promotion opportunities dwindle once they have a young child, and they may

struggle to counter bosses and coworkers stereotypes that they are less committed to their work.

If I am working 85 hours a week, and my male colleague is working 80 ho urs a week, and he is earning 20

percent more than I do, Im going to start to question whether the advancement system that I am in is fair, Cech

said. When peoples daily experiences challenge the legitimacy of meritocratic explanations, they begin to look for

alternative ways to account for their realities, such as structural explanations.


4/5

minority women marry minority men, who are themselves more likely than white men to encounter structural

discrimination, then women of color may be more likely to recognize structural inequalities.

What these findings mean for the future of gender equality

However, rather than blame these high-achieving women, we should seek to educate them and their male

colleagueson the ways structural barriers create gender inequality. One of the take-home policy messages

of this [study] is that we cant assume that anybody understands the basis of inequality, Cech said. It has to

be something that people are taught to see and understand, or else

they [may] behave in a way that reproduces that very structure.

---

Women at the top, especially women in male-dominated fields, often

overcame substantial barriers to get where they are today. To

succeed, they had to push beyond structural barriers. This success

strategy can include ignoring the barriers and focusing instead on

individual effort.

In this sense, the very skill that enabled them to succeed may be the

reason they are not the first in line to implement new policies that

help other women. By accepting the legitimacy of the system [of

advancement to corporate leadership], Cech and Blair-Loys

research contends, they may contribute to the reproduction of the

very glass ceilings they have cracked.

Image of cracked glass (source: Wikimedia)

Policymakers must actively work to raise awareness about the drivers

of inequality, explains Cech. Women at the top are in great position to

create new policies, and she contends that we must equip them, as

well as male leaders, with an understanding of how organizations

create obstacles for workers. We must enlist their help in creatingpolicies that enable workers to break through enduring glass ceilings.

Not all women executives

see the glass ceiling even

though they very may well

have experienced it.

Erin Cechis a formerpostdoctoral fellow at the Clayman Institute for Gender Research and is

currently anassistant professor of sociologyat Rice University. Cechs research examines the

cultural mechanisms of inequality reproductionspecifically, how inequality is reproduced

through processes that are not overtly discriminatory or coercive, but rather those that are built

Mary Blair-Loyis anAssociate Professorand the Director of Graduate Studies & Founding

Director at the Center for Research on Gender in the Professions at the University of California

San Diego. She uses multiple methods to study gender, the economy, work, and family. Blair-

Loy explicitly analyzes broadly shared, cultural models of a worthwhile life, such as the work

devotion schema and the family devotion schema. These cultural schemas help shape

workplace and family structures. She is a member of the Clayman Institute Redesigning and

Redefining Work Project.
http://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cechhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cechhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/fellows/past-postdoctoral-fellowshttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/fellows/past-postdoctoral-fellowshttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/fellows/past-postdoctoral-fellowshttp://sociology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=570http://sociology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=570http://sociology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=570http://gender.stanford.edu/people/mary-blair-loyhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/mary-blair-loyhttp://sociology.ucsd.edu/faculty/bio/blairloy.shtmlhttp://sociology.ucsd.edu/faculty/bio/blairloy.shtmlhttp://sociology.ucsd.edu/faculty/bio/blairloy.shtmlhttp://gender.stanford.edu/redesigning-and-redefining-workhttp://gender.stanford.edu/redesigning-and-redefining-workhttp://gender.stanford.edu/redesigning-and-redefining-workhttp://gender.stanford.edu/redesigning-and-redefining-workhttp://gender.stanford.edu/redesigning-and-redefining-workhttp://gender.stanford.edu/redesigning-and-redefining-workhttp://sociology.ucsd.edu/faculty/bio/blairloy.shtmlhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/mary-blair-loyhttp://sociology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=570http://gender.stanford.edu/people/fellows/past-postdoctoral-fellowshttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/erin-cech


5/5

Alison Wynnis a PhD candidate in sociology at Stanford and a member of theClayman

Institute Student Writing Team.

Founded in 1974, the Clayman Institute for Gender Research

at Stanford University creates knowledge and seeks to

implement change that promotes gender equality at Stanford,

nationally, and internationally.

Copyright 2010 Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.
http://gender.stanford.edu/people/alison-wynnhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/alison-wynnhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/staff/student-writing-teamhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/staff/student-writing-teamhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/staff/student-writing-teamhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/staff/student-writing-teamhttp://www.stanford.edu/group/gender/index.htmlhttp://www.stanford.edu/group/gender/index.htmlhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/staff/student-writing-teamhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/staff/student-writing-teamhttp://gender.stanford.edu/people/alison-wynn

seeing through the glass ceiling

Documents