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.
Top Related