Troy King CIS0A01

Perspectives on Finnish Society

CIS0A01

Vertical Segregation is a major hindrance to the equality of

women in the labour market. Explore and discuss this notion

with particular reference to contemporary nation-states.

Troy C King

09/12/2012

Troy King CIS0A01

The Glass Ceiling Effect: an ingrained phenomenon

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and explore the

hindrances applied to women in the labour market as a result

of vertical segregation. The paper will use Finland and United

Kingdom as reference points to help illustrate the issues

behind vertical segregation. The thesis will argue that two

main propellants of vertical segregation are the ingrained

social norms of the corporate world that hinder women and

state legislation and welfare which help women’s equality but

not development. Primarily the paper will focus on the

background of women’s development in the workforce before

delving into the fundamental issue of male and female

stereotypes in the business world. This will then lead into

the topic of the welfare state and legislation where I will

use graphs to help illustrate the trends between high family

friendly welfare legislation and moderate welfare legislation.

Finally the paper will address the underlying and recurring

issue of the paper that women are being hindered from high

occupation status because they struggle to fit into a male

constructed environment. This will lead me into a possible

solution to the complex phenomenon under the regime of ‘small

wins’.

Throughout the 20th Century Women in Europe have been on an

active fight to chip away at male dominated infrastructure

that has kept their status inferior in society. Significant

Troy King CIS0A01

gains have been made, especially in the latter part of the

Century where women were involved in powerful movements to

shape legislation and drive out gender discrimination. Some

nation-states have made it somewhat easier for women than

others; Finland has been a pioneer for women’s equality,

granting ‘Universal Suffrage’ as early as 1906 along with a

host of laws to increase their status in the early part of the

20th Century. On the other hand the women of United Kingdom had

to be more active to achieve their goals, demonstrations and

violence were utilised for the cause. Today, “most of the

barriers are insidious” (Meyerson & Fletcher, 1999; 127) for

women and in this paper we will take a focus on the issue of

inequality for women in the labour market. There are a variety

of inequalities for women in the labour market that depend on

what sort of occupation, what state legislation applies to

them and which contracts women typically fulfil and many more.

The purpose of this study is to focus upon vertical

segregation in which women are perceived to have unequal

access to the high end of the corporate ladder. This

phenomenon is often referred to as the ‘Glass Ceiling Effect’

which the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995; iii) regards

as the “artificial barriers to the advancement of women and

minorities”.

The glass ceiling is a unique form of inequality that should

be distinguished from other forms of inequality by taking

certain considerations into account. For example many studies

on the glass ceiling focus upon the rates of promotions for

women into higher positions, the proportion of women in

Troy King CIS0A01

managerial roles, which gender is receiving the pay rises and

even who is getting the credit for successful teamwork. Thus,

to discover a glass ceiling effect one simply has to look at

whether “discrimination increases as one moves up the

hierarchy” (Wright, Baxter & Birklund, 1995, 428). This study

by no means wishes to claim that glass ceiling discriminations

are of higher importance to others or need greater attention;

it just seeks to take a greater focus upon one aspect of

inequality for a potentially more useful diagnosis.

As noted earlier, the study will also take a focus on the

comparison of vertical segregation between Finland and the

United Kingdom. To give an idea of the general trend of glass

ceiling in Europe, the following table (Arulampalam, Booth, &

Bryan, 2007) provides a useful starting point to the study.

The table measures the ‘raw wage gap’ of the public and

private sector of eleven European countries and therefore only

gives a one dimensional analysis of the glass ceiling (wage

gap). However, the table still provides a useful analysis to

highlight how women are being hindered from achieving highly

paid jobs. If the wage gap increases from the 10th percentile

to the 90th percentile, then this would point to the conclusion

that this nation has a glass ceiling issue. Evidently,

vertical segregation can be regarded as a widespread problem

in Europe and the most severe case is found in Finland “where

it increases monotonically from about 16% at the 10th

percentile to about 31% at the 90th percentile” (Arulampalam,

Booth & Bryan, 2007; 172) in the public sector. Britain also

has a glass ceiling effect, going from 11% to 24% between the

Troy King CIS0A01

10th and 90th percentile which is less steep than Finland. A

similar trend is found in the private sector where both have a

glass ceiling but Finland’s seems to be in the highest ranks

of vertical gender segregation. This study will explore

further as to why Finland is so prominent in the case of the

glass ceiling problem using United Kingdom as a reference for

comparison.

On the surface of the issue of gender segregation are the

echoing attitudes for the stereotypical female role in society

in the business environment from before they were a part of

it. There is a wide consensus that “women are forced out of

their careers by inhospitable workplaces, dominated by the

masculine competitive model of organisations” (Williams &

Martin, 2010) which lays out the foundation idea that there

are certain character traits that are required in the business

world which are typically male traits. The problem is perhaps

on a more fundamental level because “most organizations have

Troy King CIS0A01

been created by and for men and are based on male experiences.

Even though women have entered the workforce in droves in the

past generation, and it is generally agreed that they add

enormous value, organizational definitions of competence and

leadership are still predicated on traits stereotypically

associated with men: tough, aggressive, decisive” (Meyerson &

Fletcher, 1999; 129). Women, however, are still predominantly

perceived to be naturally nurturing and therefore weak in

comparison to the hardnosed ethos of the business world.

Although women have broken the shackles of being the

stereotypical housewife and entered the economic sphere, they

are still naturally bound to child birth which consequently

puts them in a societal position of combining work with child

care. For many, the problem of child birth plays a fundamental

role in their hindrances to women attaining high positions in

the labour market. As we discovered earlier, Finland is one of

the lead nations for the gender wage gap in Europe but is

simultaneously one of the pioneering states for transforming

gender roles. Finland and the Nordic countries are working

closely with NGO’s to enforce helpful welfare to families in

particular which help women’s right to the work force or to

make their position more secure for when they take leave for

child care. The Nordic states are seen to be actively moving

away from the classic model of the male being the breadwinner

by encouraging dual income households and transformational

gender roles. Here we are presented with the complex

phenomenon in which Finland is a leading country in helping

women’s role in the workforce; meanwhile they are also one of

Troy King CIS0A01

the leading countries for the glass ceiling effect. Therefore

there is a calling to take a greater investigation upon the

welfare system and how it is affecting female individuals in

the business environment.

Different nations have different family welfare policies which

are widely regarded as a vital catalyst for the progress of

equality for women in the workforce. As we have discussed,

greater family welfare policies are a good way to protect

women’s right to the labour market and strengthens their job

security and economic independence. However, family friendly

policies are a “double-edged sword” (Arulampalam, Booth &

Bryan, 2007; 177) because whilst they help women’s equality in

the workforce, the state legislations “do not enhance women’s

occupational and economic achievements since none of them

seriously challenge the traditional distribution of market-

family responsibilities between men and women” (Mandel &

Semyonov, 2006; 1911). For example, Finland has one of the

most generous paid maternity leave policies which allow them

time out of work for a whole year in contrast the United

Kingdom who has one of the lowest paid maternity leave

policies. Although these policies are useful for women to re-

access the labour market, it hinders them from achieving

positions of high authority because they are less likely to be

put in such positions if they are expected to be taking

extensive time out of work. In a study taken by Hadas Mandel

and Moshe Semyonov (2006) of welfare interventions to women’s

opportunities in Europe they developed three graphs which

Troy King CIS0A01

create a useful discourse to support the notion that family

welfare helps women to join the workforce and make equal

numbers, but hinders their advancements once inside.

Troy King CIS0A01

Here I will focus on the differences between Finland and the

United Kingdom to illustrate the differences between those

with high family friendly welfare systems (Finland) and those

with moderate family friendly systems (United Kingdom). It may

also be useful to note that both United Kingdom and Finland

are among the high users of child care systems. In Table 1 we

simply see how the Nordic countries are topping the table for

distribution of welfare, whereas UK is among the lower ranks.

We then see in Table 2 how the high welfare state reflects the

high proportion of women in the workforce which Finland a

notably high for. However, in Table 3 we see the net odds of

women attaining high positions in the work force where the

high welfare states start to slip down the table, being

replaced by those less prominent welfare systems. Although the

differences between Finland and the UK are not significant, it

does show evidence to reveal that women in high family

friendly welfare states are more exposed to glass ceiling

effects than those without. The reasons for this still remain

ambiguous in our study however there can be easily made

conclusions such as “the practice of these rights is

unprofitable for employers; employers may choose to

discriminate against female job applicants” (Hansen, 1997;

11). In this section we have found that welfare systems are

important to helping women’s overall access to the workforce

however they are also a hindrance to their development to high

occupation attainments because they alienate women by

Troy King CIS0A01

highlighting the fact they are prone to be taking time out of

work.

On a similar level to the way welfare has affected women in

the labour force, so too has legislation introduced by

governments, for example; “In 2002, Norway passed legislation,

instructing publicly traded companies to have at least 40%

female board members by mid-2005” (Williams & Martin, 2010)

which is argued to contribute to the glass ceiling effect.

Business leaders shouldn’t be introducing women as board

members as an imperative. The values of women should be

appreciated through meritocracy and thus there would be no

ill-feelings in board rooms when colleagues are replaced due

to legislation. The fact that these laws are implemented goes

some way in explaining the reasons that vertical segregation

is widely misunderstood. Thus, to gain a better understanding

of why legislation and welfare systems may hinder women, the

paper will move into focus on possible symptoms within the

business environment that support the glass ceiling effect.

Businesses themselves have tried to combat women’s hindrances

into high positions because the majority do appreciate women

as a valuable asset to the workforce. They have used a 3 tier

model. 1) Try and assimilate women, train them to adapt

themselves to the male environment, to be aggressive and

dominant (in this approach women may be dismissed as being a

control freak or irrational). 2) Adapt the company to suit

women’s needs; longer child care / maternity leave (reasons

for this failure are covered previously). 3) Assimilation and

Troy King CIS0A01

accommodation, to embrace women for the qualities and utilise

them in the best possible way. Attempt to remove the male lens

that characterises the business world and put women into work

where they are likely to flourish. Harvard Business Review

outlines that “all of these approaches have helped advance

women’s equity in the corporate world. But by now they have

gone about as far as they can. Why? Because they proffer

solutions that deal with the symptoms of gender inequity

rather than the sources of inequity itself” (Meyerson &

Fletcher, 1999; 130). Here we see the fundamental problem to

the glass ceiling effect, because we are addressing the issue

of inequality effectively, however, these actions are doing

little to help the source of the problem that appears to be

ingrained into the social fabric of the business world.

To try and unearth these ingrained hindrances to women

companies can undertake strategies such as focus groups of

various forms (managers and staff, men and women, gender

segregated) with questions to identify the issues. Using one

of these techniques the Harvard Business Review discovered

that group work in businesses was a hindrance to women because

they would often contribute a great deal to the success of the

team (organising and structuring), however, usually only the

one lead character who demonstrated an act of boldness would

gain recognition. Thus, inevitably men would normally be

represented as the successful leader due to their bolshie

bulldog-like characteristics which increases their chance of

promotion. In fact, this analysis became apparent that not

Troy King CIS0A01

just gender was being affected by this idea of invisible work;

“people noted that the company tended to give sole credit for

projects to the lead scientists, even when others had

contributed or had helped spare the projects from major

crises” (Meyerson & Fletcher, 1999; 133). Issues like these

obviously break down work incentives which are a major issue

for the company as a whole. By extracting this evidence we see

that when glass ceiling effects roots are unearthed, they show

core problems with the company system for all employee’s that

were not yet realised.

As a result, companies in this scenario must set up ‘small

wins’ (Weick, 1984) by making invisible work contributions

visible. By doing this there would be a greater appreciation

for individual’s business assets and thus more equal

opportunity for promotion. Furthermore it would benefit the

company tenfold because there would be greater incentives to

achieve and subsequently individuals will work harder within

the team to create success. Small wins is comparable to

something like climate change, where people are encouraged to

think globally but act locally. This meaning that small

changes and contributions let people know that they are

helping the bigger picture which reinforces a vitalising

incentive system. In these circumstances small changes or

small wins can have a snowballing effect where one small

change can affect the bigger a great deal. For example

changing the recruitment system will allow for better people

to be employed for the right job who will then be likely to

Troy King CIS0A01

make increasingly significant contributions to the success of

the company. One example of this is the interviewing process.

Studies have found that many of the issues behind women’s

access to high areas of the workforce are due to the

interviewing processes in companies. Earlier it was mentioned

that men may discriminate women in the interviews due to their

likelihood to be spending time out of work. Further studies

done have revealed that it is not a case of direct

discrimination in interview, but in fact indirect

discrimination. Most of the interviewers are men and the

interviews usually take place on average for 30 minutes. This

does not provide enough time for women to relate and connect

the male interviewer because naturally common ground will be

found quicker between men. Given more time, women may have a

more equal chance to make a solid impression on the

interviewer and the interviewer will have greater opportunity

to understand and relate to the applicant. This idea of

indirect discrimination dominates the issue of the glass

ceiling effect because “It’s not the ceiling that’s holding

women back; it’s the whole structure of the organizations in

which we work: the foundation, the beams, the walls, the very

air” (Meyerson & Fletcher, 1999; 136). We return to the point

that the organisations were constructed by a male dominated

world, since then women have joined and proven successful and

valuable but are yet to break the social norms of the business

environment that hinder their progress. Like all social norms,

they are so deeply ingrained that it is difficult to notice

Troy King CIS0A01

them until they are taken away which is why the glass ceiling

is so hard to break.

Nowadays, blatant discrimination is hard to find. It is no

longer a case of the past where women would deliberately be

replaced by men or promotions were made favourable. It is now

the case that issues of inequality are neatly entwined into

social norms of day-to-day life where they have become

unnoticeable, contributing to the murky understandings of the

glass ceiling. The clue is in the name, the transparent

barrier that stops women’s progress makes it difficult to

address, but with the ‘small wins’ method there may be a way

to chip away at the glass until it eventually breaks. The

purpose of this paper was to discuss and explore the reasons

and effects of the hindrances behind vertical segregation of

women in the labour force. We have managed to identify those

issues such as welfare and legislation (as seen with examples

of Finland and United Kingdom) that can indirectly strengthen

the glass ceiling. Furthermore we discovered that the

underlying problem is not that women are being directly

discriminated by men, but that they are being discriminated by

a system of masculine architecture. It is the duty of the

state and businesses to make a coordinated effort to identify

the social norms that are hindering women and design an

effective solution to the dilemma.

Troy King CIS0A01

BibliographyFederal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for Business:

Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. U.S. Department

of Labor.

Meyerson, Debra. Fletcher, Joyce. (1999). A Modest Manifesto

for Shattering the Glass Ceiling. Harvard Business Review 127-136.

Mandel, Hadas. Seymonov, Moshe. (2006). A Welfare State

Paradox: State Interventions and Women’s Employment

Opportunities in 22 Countries. American Journal of Sociology 111 (6),

1910-1949.

Troy King CIS0A01

Williams, Ray. Martin, Lisa. (2010, 05 15). Why Hasn't The Glass

Ceiling Been Broken? Retrieved 12 01, 2012, from Psychology Today:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201005/why-

hasnt-the-glass-ceiling-been-broken

Weick, Karl. (1984). Small Wins: Redifining the Scale of

Social Problems. American Psychologist 39 (1), 40-49.

Arulampalam, Wiji. Booth, Alison & Bryan, Mark. (2007). Is

There a Glass Ceiling over Europe? Exploring the Gender Pay

Gap across the Wage Distribution. Industrial and Labor Relations Review

60 (2), 163-186.

Wright, Erik Olin, Janeen Baxter & Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund.

1995. "The Gender Gap in Workplace Authority: A Cross-National

Study. American Sociological Review 60, 407-35.