Abstract
The glass ceiling is a phenomenon that has been perceived to exist in the US. The phenomenon has been seen to prevent women and minorities from attaining higher positions in private and public corporations, educational institutions, and federal and state government bodies in the US. The Glass Ceiling Commission established in 1991 by the US Labor Department was the first government effort to address the phenomenon, and was supplemented by mandated Positive or Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity laws as per US law. While the situation did improve, yet, the phenomenon was seen to persist and even today, the same is a pressing issue that needs resolution so that women or minorities are not discriminated against with regard to sex, religion, national origin, color, etc. In as much as the issue concerns gender equality and employment opportunities in the US and elsewhere, various authors and experts have conducted studies on the phenomenon under various conditions, sample sizes, etc. While these authors generally have considered the glass ceiling as a persisting & prevalent fact at the workplace, particularly at higher levels of private corporations, yet some have recognized the factors that contribute to such situation, and maintain that some improvements have been observed in the working and pay conditions of women in the US and other countries. Many studies have tried to gauge the extent and kind of glass ceiling as prevailing in top Fortune 500 or 1000 companies and found that the highest executive positions still go to men, and women still find little place among the top decision-makers in any organization. This paper presents some relevant literature on the issue of a glass ceiling in the US workplace, highlights significant research findings, and generally confirms the view that much remains to be done so that the glass ceiling obstructing women aspirants from top posts are really broken.
Glass Ceiling: An Introduction
The glass ceiling is used in the context of inequalities between men and women and in describing perceived barriers to women in attaining higher positions in organizations or government. The glass ceiling is a seemingly invisible and impermeable barrier between women and the executive levels in an organization, which prevents them, despite their otherwise be eligible for the position, from occupying the highest positions of management, authority, or power. Thus, qualified women are discriminated against and prevented from occupying the top positions. The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission termed the glass ceiling as “artificial barriers to the advancement of women and minorities” that reflect “discrimination….a deep line of demarcation between those who prosper and those left behind” (1995a, iii). It later on defined the Glass Ceiling as the “unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements (1995b, 4). Cotter et al (Dec 2001) have identified glass ceiling as “an inequality in race or gender, which is unexplained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee” (p. 657), “which is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome” (p. 658), is a “gender or racial inequality in the chances of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportions of each gender or race currently at those higher levels” (p. 869), and which “increases over the course of a career” (p. 661)
Glass Ceiling in the United States of America
In the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 set up the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission to address the issue and put in place measures to promote opportunities of employment for women and minorities in positions of responsibility. The Glass Ceiling Commission identified three key areas relating to recruitment that helped create and perpetuate the phenomenon. One of the findings was that corporations, even Fortune 1000 companies, generally filled upper and mid-level positions through word-of-mouth referrals, particularly inside closed sub-cultures. The Department of Labor and the OFCCP (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs) attempted to monitor and ensure that there was no discrimination in deciding on internal job promotions and recruitments by business enterprises under federal government contract in respect of racial or national origins, sex, color, disability or even veteran status, and religion. Both the Labor Department and the OFCCP were primarily concerned with ensuring good faith effort in selecting women and minorities for employment. They defined good faith effort as a real and continuous effort for ensuring that women and minorities were included impartially in the recruitment process. The second method of recruitment was through employee referrals whereby selections for employment tended to favor closed communities, rather than ensure equal opportunities for employment of women or minorities. A third approach followed by major corporate firms in their recruitment process was that such firms often sought the help of employment search firms, which were unaware of the need to comply with equal opportunity and affirmative action requirements as mandated by US law.
Some Pointers to the Glass Ceiling Effect in the US
The magnitude of the problem can be gauged from the data collected in various studies that have shown that few women were found to occupy the highest levels in US most corporations. For example, in one study in 1995 of the top Fortune 1000 companies, it was found that women occupied only 8% or only around 813 out of 10,000 available seats on the Board of Directors of these companies (Micro-quest Corp., p. 7). In another study, which was more glaring, the US Glass Ceiling Commission pointed out some serious lacunae in the process of recruitment at major corporate entities and also identified two other factors as the significant causes for the glass ceiling effect. One was that women did not have sufficient involvement or opportunity to participate in corporate development. Another was that women and minorities themselves failed to realize that Equal Employment Opportunity or EEO was a concern for all, and not only for a single person or deprived entity.1 While efforts have been made by the management at corporations to address the issue, it is commonly believed that the Glass Ceiling still exists and is quite widespread and deep-rooted as to defy a long-term solution, unless efforts are made to root it out from within. Thus it is that despite genuine efforts on the part of successive federal governments, women in the US still face barriers to their advancement within organizations, particularly in the higher hierarchy. A GAO study conducted among ten industries in 2000 has confirmed this view and found that although some progress had been made, yet the glass ceiling was still in place, and still necessitated strategies for removing attitudinal obstacles so that women could break through the glass ceiling (Dingell, J.D., and Maloney, C.B., pp. 1-19).
Related Literature, a Study
Many authors like Arfken, Bellar, and Helms (p.183), Baxter and Wright (p. 276) and Mani (p. 545) have recorded their observations which, according to them, and as substantiated by other earlier or contemporary authors, point to the existence of the problem in both private and public organizations. While some authors have tried to discover the reasons for such situation, others have tried to analyze the phenomenon and given their considered views on the matter as relating to other relevant social, economic, and managerial issues like wage levels, the profitability of the (as sourced from the Glass Ceiling Commission, 1991) organization, equal opportunity, etc Very few authors, it appears, actually support the reverse view, that the glass ceiling in the US is a myth or that it does not exist. Actually, most experts have taken the existence of a glass ceiling in corporations, the government, and educational institutions as a fact and have only attempted to analyze related issues and commented on ways to resolve the problem. They have all been concerned with the need for improving employment opportunities for women, removing inequalities in the workplace, and better-empowering women in spheres like education, workplace, government, or elsewhere. A brief attempt is made in the following paragraphs to throw light on the phenomenon, what the analysis of various studies point to, and what needs to be done to address the issue.
A study by Bell, McLaughlin, and Sequeira (2002) is first cited as a case in point that throws valuable light on the phenomenon of the glass ceiling. In the study, these authors examined the relationship between discrimination, sexual harassment, and the glass ceiling, and observed that the same factors that caused the glass ceiling also caused sexual harassment of women in the workplace. They list three forms of sex discrimination as primarily affecting women in the workplace, viz., overt discrimination, sexual harassment, and a glass ceiling. According to them, ‘Overt Discrimination” was the use of gender as a criterion for affecting workplace-related decisions (p. 66). They also make some observations on women executives. One is that employing women at top levels of management help reduce sexual harassment to some extent in the workplace. A second observation is that women rarely ever themselves perpetrate sexual harassment themselves. Thirdly, and quite obviously, women view harassment differently than men view them. Fourthly, women are more likely to experience sexual harassment than men (p. 70).
Another expert, Guyot (2008) most tellingly observes – based on a study of women in government jobs in the US – that, many ascendants to government offices in present-day America are women. He also mentions other indicators of women’s progress in education and job diversities. But he too avers that “greater male variability restricts gender equity” (p. 1-5). Other authors like Arfken, Bellar, and Helms in a study conducted on 102 public companies in Tennessee in 2002 have also observed that representation of women in the boardrooms of those companies was almost nil and out of a total 102 companies held publicly, only 38 i.e., 37 percent had at least a woman on their company boards (p. 183).
But in another study, which was quite unlike other studies of the time, Eyring and Stead (1998) surveyed and obtained results from sixty-nine companies in the Houston area. While they acknowledged the existence of the glass ceiling in various States, including incorporations in the Houston area, as also in other parts of the US, they evaluated the results and made certain conclusions regarding the success in some major companies which had broken the glass ceiling so that women could reach the topmost positions in those companies. Those firms tried to implement certain measures, which they felt, could facilitate the breaking of the glass ceiling on a larger scale through effective benchmarking. To this end, the authors even listed the strategies that the companies tried to implement as also the most common practices that other companies needed to adopt. Essentially, they evolved a list of top common practices which could serve other companies as benchmarks (p. 245-251).
Perhaps, one of the most significant studies and unique approach is that due to Baxter and Wright (2000, pp. 275-294), which is perceived by this author as having the potential to impact the direction in which future studies on the glass ceiling hypothesis could proceed. While the study is based on their observations in countries other than the USA, yet, their approach is still relevant to the US. The study is inconclusive and perhaps raises more questions than it answers. But this writer would like to believe, though it may seem strange, that raising questions as the study does is a small step in the right direction. Views on the issue are as diverse as the authors themselves and it may well be that results of studies are biased one way or the other. Accordingly, a somewhat detailed description of their study is felt essential and duly provided in this paper in some detail.
In their study, Baxter and Wright succinctly observe that “…although it may now be the case that women can get through the front door of managerial hierarchies, at some point they hit an invisible barrier that blocks any further upward movement”. (p. 275). To judge how correct they are in their hypothesis would require an analysis of the data and observations derived therefrom, and an attempt is made to provide the same in the following paragraphs. However, we must first clarify that Baxter and Wright view the glass ceiling as obstacles to the promotion of women as relative to men, which systematically intensifies in varying degrees and steps, as women progress up the organizational hierarchy. They also repeat the common view that if it exists, the glass ceiling must be more pronounced in discriminating against women in employment opportunities and promotions, the higher they attempt to go along the organizational hierarchy. The state generally that the glass ceiling seems to be very much in existence and that this may be confirmed even by casual observation, without the help of systematic research (p. 276).
The authors cite an example in which they consider around six managerial levels within the organizational hierarchy, viz, non-management (0), supervisors (1), lower managers (2), middle managers (3), upper managers (4), and top managers (5). If the probability that a woman at level n will be promoted to a level n+1 is Pr (W: n→n+1) and the probability for a man in an identical situation be Pr (M: n→n+1), and if the Glass Ceiling hypothesis were to be true, it obviously can be denoted mathematically as that: the ratio of Pr (W: n→n+1)/ Pr (M: n→n+1) would decline with an increase in n. In this case, the higher the level in the managerial hierarchy, the higher will be the value of the ratio, thus pointing to the existence of gender differences preventing equity in corporate promotions in an organization. An ideal case would mean that the ratio is 1 where there are no such gender differences in organizational promotion exercises. The existence of gender differences in an organization, by the same logic, would imply an invariable ratio signifying that gender discrimination may be widespread across the organization and yet show no progressive non-equitable employment opportunities at higher levels in the organization (p. 280).
Baxter and Wright provide two cases (Table 1). In the first case, they note that “50 percent of men but only 25 percent of women get a promotion at any level” and conclude that “discrimination is constant across the levels of hierarchy” (p.277). In the second example, they observe that the identical ratio is 2:1 for promotions to line supervisor level, but declines to a more equitable 1.16:1 for top promotions. However, they also note that the proportion of women in top posts decreases substantially from supervisory level to top positions, viz., women are only 6% in top posts as compared to 25 percent in supervisor levels. The conclusion that they derive from the results of their study is that the situation does not imply the existence of any significant glass ceiling effects, unless “the ratio of the probabilities of women compared to men being promoted into or entering a given level of management declines as they move up the managerial hierarchy and also this deterioration in relative promotion probabilities is due to intensified barriers to promotion as opposed to some other mechanism” (p. 277).
Obviously, the above study attaches significance to the changes in relative probabilities of men and women as they are promoted up the organizational hierarchical ladder. It essentially considers changes in the gender gap in managerial authority by the organizational hierarchy in three countries, Sweden, Australia, and the United States of America all of which are capitalist and developed economies (p. 278). And, still, more poignantly, the authors themselves view the results of the study, which uses as a primary model the series of regressions given by the logarithmic series, Log [Pr(n + 1)/Pr(n)] = an + BnFemale, as suggestive rather than conclusive. Let us examine what actually the model is, so as to understand the results better.
First, in the model, we need to mention that the sample was limited to two adjacent authority levels, n, and n+1. While Pr(n) denoted the probability of being in hierarchical level n, Pr(n + 1) was the probability of being in n + 1 level, with subscript n indicating coefficients of the equation for the contrast between level n and n + 1 (p. 280).
Second, the coefficient termed Bn denotes the “gender gap in authority” at the level n. This value of the coefficient is zero when there is no gender gap, whereas it is less than zero when gender discrimination does exist at higher levels (the probability of a woman reaching a higher level than n, i.e., n+1, is less than that of a man in this case). In the extreme case, women are better placed against men in case the coefficient is more than zero (positive).
Third, the gender coefficient given in the previously given regression equation is perceived to be useful in estimating the gender gap in authority caused directly by gender issues, and not by issues related to gender. Therefore, the need to factor in secondary job attributes as well as individual characteristics necessitated the authors to include another equation, a secondary regression series, as follows:
Log [Pr (n + 1)/Pr (n)] = an + BnFemale + ∑iBniXi
In this equation, Xi denotes the various compositional controls as listed in Table 2. The “net gender gap” in the organizational hierarchy is represented by Bn. The most important consideration by the authors in using both sets of equations is that the existence of a glass ceiling in the workplace would be indicated by the fact that Bn would be more negative with an increase of n (p. 283).
Fourth, the Baxter and Wright study also included two other supplementary models in addition to the two equations given above. These models incorporated three sets of alternate variables different from the ones used with the previous regression equations (Table 5). One reason they did so was to offset the low incidence of actual cases and resulting small sample sizes, which effectively helped to increase the sample sizes based on which the coefficients could be more accurately estimated. Also, the supplementary models could realistically predict real-life situations where the different hierarchical levels in an organization are actually non-homogenous and non-uniform in categorization. It was quite difficult to make the strict assumptions under the basic model, which was essential to ensure accurate prediction of the glass-ceiling hypothesis, and the use of an alternate set of variables could, they felt, only add to the degree of accuracy in such prediction (p. 284-285).
Fifth, the results of the analysis of the data, as provided by Baxter and Wright, and based on the primary or basic regression coefficients, showed that among all the three countries, there was a distinct gender gap in authority which was significant statistically between levels 0 and 1. This primarily implied that in each of the three countries, the odds that a woman would become a bottom-level supervisor i.e., Level 1 supervisor, was substantially less than that men would become Level 1 supervisors. This was substantiated by the data provided in the study (Table 5).
Lastly and more importantly, while the study did confirm the existence of a marked gender gap in authority, the authors could not in any way prove conclusively that the glass ceiling did exist in workplaces in the US. This would have been indicated if and when, the coefficients used in the primary regression equation were found to be substantially more negative at the higher hierarchical levels in the organizations under study. In this respect, the results found were neither conclusive nor could any significant indication be obtained that could point definitely to the glass ceiling hypothesis in the US. (p. 285). In fact, the authors actually found that, at least in the US, although the gender gap could be inferred as obstacles to the promotion of women in an organization, yet, once the women entered the authority structures, women were treated at par with men. Hence, as per the authors themselves, the results did not point to the glass ceiling hypothesis (p. 286).
However, even if the Baxter and Wright results did not signify the existence or non-existence of the glass-ceiling phenomenon in the US, the results of their study did indicate a few things. One was the existence of a distinct gender gap in the authority structure in organizational hierarchies, even though these were more pronounced at lower levels than at the highest levels of managerial hierarchy. This lent credence to the existence of a ‘sticky floor’, rather than that of a glass ceiling. Thus, there was no reason to assume from the results, despite its limitations as to sample size, lack of factoring in of all personal attributes, case scenarios, etc, that there did exist a systematic glass ceiling in the US. But the results did indicate a larger and more serious problem, which was that sex or other form of discrimination appeared to be either constant at all levels within the organizations or even more pronounced at the bottom levels (p. 289-290).
Mani, in one study in 1997, even found that the similarities between male and female members of the State Executive Services indicated that federal executives were treated equitably, irrespective of their gender (p. 545-558). The data also seemed to indicate that females were acceptable in state government employment. This perhaps also supports the later views of Baxter and Wright (2000, pp. 275-294) that a glass ceiling, if it existed in private companies, could be caused primarily by recruitment practices, which did not follow affirmative action and equal opportunity mandatory requirements. Another cause was the lack of developmental assignments for women employees. Mani also opines that top-level decision-makers in organizations need to be held accountable for equal employment opportunities if at all the number of women in higher managerial positions were to increase (p. 545).
Wirth, in her study (2001, p. 243) however maintains that the glass ceiling does exist, and seems unbreakable and this is confirmed by available research. She observes that generally, women constitute only 20 percent of the management jobs in most nations, although around 40 percent of the world’s labor force is made up of women. The situation is more pronounced at higher hierarchical levels in an organization, particularly in the most powerful organizations, where women hold only around 2 to 3 percent of the top posts. The author further says that although women in the US are better qualified and compose as much as 46 percent of the workforce there, yet, in a survey of the 500 biggest Fortune 500 companies by Catalyst in 1997, it was observed that women held only around 2.4 percent of the top management posts and that too only a minuscule 1.9 percent were made up of top-paid officers and directors (p. 243-244). Elsewhere in the same article, she avers that while diversity has been one of the measures adopted by various enterprises worldwide, affirmative action needs to be an essential part of an equal opportunity policy so as to provide equity in employment. She also lays emphasis on management skills development and on-the-job training, which can provide women, in her view, with self-confidence, knowledge, techniques and the contacts to advance further in the organization (p. 245).
In another of her thoughtful articles for the ILO (2002), Wirth also speaks of the glass ceiling as that which ‘blocks women from holding or attaining senior level executive posts, but mentions another problem which she aptly calls the ‘sticky floor’ problem, which she avers to as forces that relegate “women to the bottom of the economic pyramid”. She quotes research from the ILO, which generally points to the glass ceiling effect becoming more pronounced, the higher one rises up the organizational hierarchy. According to the ILO, as Wirth quotes, women only hold a small percentage of the world’s top executive positions in the biggest corporations, and the position is such that, women constitute only 13.4 per cent of the world’s Parliamentarians, around only 8 per cent of the countries boast a woman head of state, and, perhaps more significantly, only 1 per cent of trade union leaders are women. This is spite of the fact that trade unions worldwide boast a women membership of around 40 per cent of the whole (p. 2) For meaningful change, Wirth maintains, there is need to diversify occupations for men and women, inculcate greater involvement in and equitable sharing of family responsibilities, introduce innovations in human resources management, and also, build up entrepreneurial abilities in women (p. 6).
While the workplace situation has been the common ground for research on the glass ceiling effect, some authors have also attempted to discern the existence of the phenomenon in the education system. Meier and Wilkins in such a study (2000) on the US public schools observed that school districts are classic glass ceiling organizations. They also observed that in the set of school districts studied, women comprised of 75% of teachers, some 51.3% of assistant principals, around 47% of principals, and around 35.8% of assistant superintendents. But significantly, and reinforcing the views that glass ceiling did exist in the US education system, the study also concluded that only 8.4% of the women were superintendents, the top most position along the hierarchical ladder (p. 8).
In a study by Wolfers (2006) for determining the effect of CEO gender on company stock returns, it was estimated that the announcement of a female CEO in a company would lead the stock prices to decline by about 4 per cent (p. 13) and such decline was linked to the perceived ability of the female to lead the company. However, Wolfers did not find any systematic differences in returns from holding stock in companies led by women, and did not find any correlation between gender of company CEO and stock performances in the financial markets. Thus, while most other contemporary literature may have pointed out to a glass ceiling existing in publicly listed companies, Wolfers’ study perhaps points to the fact that, gender gaps even if they do exist in a company, do not appreciable influence stock performances and hence profitability of that company. other way and he found no such reflection in the results oh his study and survey.
We also have Browne (1995) whose observations on the phenomenon are revealing. Browne observed that men wish to achieve hierarchical status and accordingly take career risks essential to get a prized top position, and also work longer hours to acquire organizational position and greater incomes. However, women are more driven by desire to take part in their children’s daily activities, and this contributes to differences in attitudes of men and women and also causes the glass-ceiling phenomenon at the workplace. There are marked differences between males and females, in competitiveness, risk-taking, social orientation, etc and Brown believes that these in turn appear to lead to sexual differences, and occupational distributions among males and females in organizations (p. 27).
Conclusion
This paper concludes that much remains to be done at both government levels and at the individual organizational levels, if at all the glass ceiling obstructing women aspirants from the top most managerial positions of real authority or power is to be broken. While some progress has been made over the last few years, problems do persist. In one report the GAO (2002) assessed the financial conditions of women in 2000 and compared the same with that in 1995. It found that most of the women managers were progressively worse off financially with time 2. In course of the study, data from around ten industries were evaluated. These industries were business and repair services, public administration, educational services, communications, entertainment & recreation services, retail trading, finance and insurance, real estate, and professional & other medical services. The ten industries together employed around 70 per cent women. It found that pay differences between men and women increased between the years 1995 to 2000 in as many as seven of the ten industries reviewed. Thus, pay of women managers in the entertainment sector in 2000 decreased to 62 per cent of what their male counterparts received in 1995, which was 83 per cent. An identical decrease from 86 to 73 per cent, 76 to 68 per cent and 90 to 88 per cent was observed in case of communications, finance, and professional medical services industries, respectively (Wirth, 2004, p. 31).
A common view perhaps is that the problem appears to stem more from attitudinal discrimination rather than an institutional process or system put in place by insensitive organizational management. Women are also constrained, whether in managerial or non-managerial roles, by their gender and natural inferior physical strength (which prevents them from putting in more work hours and late hours), their preoccupations with family life, and the lack of adequate skills development and managerial training. The addressing of the glass ceiling phenomenon, if at all it does exist in an organization, needs among other things two most important steps, as this author would like to believe. One is that women must be more conscious of their rights at the workplace, know the legal issues involved, and, more importantly, insist that they be given equal rights in employment opportunities. Second, since the glass ceiling appears to exist and persist due to the human attitudes that are formed over the years and often is related to individual perceptions, cultural upbringing, family and social values, the learning environment, and a host of other factors, the phenomenon needs to be addressed in its entirety and a more comprehensive effort undertaken if at all even some finite progress beyond doubt is to be made in improving the lot of women employees. (Quoted from J.D. Dingell, and C.B. Maloney, 2002, “A New Look Through the Glass Ceiling: Where are the Women? The Status of Women in Management in 10 Selected Industries”, US General Accounting Office)
References
Arfken, D.E., Bellar, S.L., and Helms, M.M., 2004, “The Ultimate Glass Ceiling Revisited: The Presence of Women on Corporate Boards”, Journal of Business Ethics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, Vol. 50, pp. 177–186
Baxter, J., and Wright, E.O., 2000, “The Glass Ceiling Hypothesis: A Comparative Study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia” Gender & Society, Vol.14, No. 2, pp. 275-294
Bell, M. P., McLaughlin, M.E., and Sequeira, J.M., 2002, “Discrimination, Harassment, and the Glass Ceiling: Women Executives as Change Agents.” Advancing Women’s Careers: Current Status and New Directions (Apr.), JSTOR: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 65-76
Browne, K. R., 1995, “Sex and temperament in modern society: a Darwinian view of the glass ceiling and the gender gap.” Arizona Law Review, 37, pp. 971–1106.
Catalyst, 1997, “Women in business: A snapshot”, in Info Brief, New York
Cotter, D.A., Hermsen, J.M., Ovadia, S., and Vanneman, R., Dec 2001, “The Glass Ceiling Effect”, Social Forces, The University of North Carolina Press, 80(2), p. 655-682
Dingell, J.D., and Maloney, C. B., “A new look through the glass ceiling: Where are the women?” The Status of Women in Ten Selected Industries, US Dept of Education, ERIC, 2002, pp. 1-19. Web.
Eyring, A., and Stead, B.A., 1998, “Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Some Successful Corporate Practices”, Journal of Business Ethics, Kluwer Academic Press, Netherlands, 17, pp. 245–251
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995a, “Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital”, the US Dept of Labor, p. iii
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995b, “Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital”, the US Dept of Labor, p. 4
Guyot, J.F., 2008, “Is the Ceiling Truly Glass or Something More Variable?”. Web.
Mani, B.G., 1997. “Gender and the Federal Senior Executive Service: Where is the Glass Ceiling?” Public Personnel Management Volume 26, No. 4, 545-558
Meier, K.J., and, Wilkins, V.M., 2000, “Gender differences in Agency Head salaries: The case of public education”, p. 8
Micro quest Corp., 1996,” Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Issues and solutions in promoting the advancement of women and minorities to executive management in Corporate America”, White Paper 1996, Micro quest Corp., San Rafael, CA, pp. 1-9
Wirth, L., 2001, “Women in Management: Closer to breaking through the glass ceiling”, Women, Gender and Work, What is Equality and how do we get there? Ed. Loutfi, M.F., International Labor Office, Geneva, ISBN 92-2-111386-8, pp. 239-250
Wirth, L., 2002, “Breaking through the glass ceiling: Women in management” First International Conference: Pay Equity between Women and Men: Myth or Reality? International Labor Office, Luxembourg, p. 6
Wirth, L., 2004, “Breaking through the glass ceiling: Women in Management”, International Labor Office, Geneva, p. 31).
Wolfers, J., 2006, “Diagnosing Discrimination: Stock Returns and CEO Gender.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11989, p. 13