The Environmental Scan

A Fact-Finding Report of the FederalGlass Ceiling CommissionWashington, D.C.

GOOD FOR BUSINESS: MAKING FULL USE OF THE NATION’S HUMAN CAPITAL
THE VISION

OF THE GLASS CEILING COMMISSIONA national corporate leadership fully aware that shifting demographics and economic restructuringmake diversity a prerequisite for the long-term success of the United States in domestic and global market places.THE MISSIONOF THE GLASS CEILING COMMISSION“There is established a Glass Ceiling Commission to conduct a study and prepare recommendations concerning—(1) eliminating artificial barriers to the advancement of women and minorities; and(2) increasing the opportunities and developmental experiences of women and minorities to foster advancement ofwomen and minorities to management and decisionmaking positions in business.”

Public Law 102-166—November 21, 1991

Civil Rights Act of 1991

Section 203

GOOD FOR BUSINESS: MAKING FULL USE OF THE NATION’S HUMAN CAPITAL
The Environmental Scan

A Fact-Finding Report of the FederalGlass Ceiling CommissionWashington, D.C.March 1995

GOOD FOR BUSINESS: MAKING FULL USE OF THE NATION’S HUMAN CAPITAL
eich, Chairman

ity

ompany

Equality

ficer

kins

Ms. Beverly A. KingPresidentKing & Wright Consulting Inc.Ms. Jean Ledwith KingAttorney-at-LawMs. Judith L. LichtmanPresidentWomen’s Legal Defense FundThe Honorable Nita M. LoweyU. S. House of RepresentativesNew York 18th DistrictThe Honorable Patty MurrayUnited States SenateState of WashingtonDr. Lynne O’SheaGroup Strategic Planning DirectorDDB Needham WorldwideMrs. Marilyn B. PaulyPresidentBank IV KansasMrs. Delia M. ReyesPresidentReyes Consulting Groups

The Honorable Marge RoukemaU.S. House of RepresentativesNew Jersey 5th DistrictMs. M. Anne SzostakSenior Vice PresidentFleet Financial GroupMr. Henry TangManaging DirectorJeffries and CompanyMrs. Carol Cox WaitPresident and Chief Executive OfficerCommittee for a Responsible Federal BudgetMs. Judith B. WierciakDirector of Special Programs & AdministrationAnheuser-Busch Companies Inc.Ms. René A. RedwoodDesignated Federal Official for the CommissionU.S. Department of Labor

ONERS
iii

 entered America’s public conversation less than a decade ago, when The

te Woman” column identified a puzzling new phenomenon. There seemed

netrable—barrier between women and the executive suite, preventing them

evels of the business world regardless of their accomplishments and merits.

tured the attention of the public as well as business leaders, journalists, and

or was quickly extended to refer to obstacles hindering the advancement of

men.

d vision of Secretary Elizabeth Dole—and that of her able successor,

e Department of Labor became closely involved in identifying and publiciz

m, issuing a Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative in 1991. Senator Robert Dole,

eiling Act in 1991, praised Martin’s report, noting that it “confirm(s) what

ll along—the existence of invisible, artificial barriers blocking women and

p the corporate ladder to management and executive level positions.” He

e issue boils down to ensuring equal access and equal opportunity.”

nacted with only minor changes as Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It

ass Ceiling Commission, with the Secretary of Labor as its chair. And it

mber Commission (itself an appropriately diverse body, in terms of ethnicity,

on) with a complex mission: to conduct a study and prepare recommenda

al barriers to the advancement of women and minorities” to “management

ns in business.”

the Commission is now releasing confirms the enduring aptness of the “glass

ghest levels of business, there is indeed a barrier only rarely penetrated by

Consider: 97% of the senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and 

M THE CHAIRMAN

BOR ROBERT B. REICH
Fortune 500 companies are white; 95 to 97% are male. In Fortune 2000 industrial and service companies, 5% of senior managers are women—and of that 5%, virtually all are white.

The research also indicates that where there are women and minorities in high places, their compensation is lower. For example, African American men with professional degrees earn 79% of the amount

earned by white males who hold the same degrees and are in the same job categories. One study found

that, more than a decade after they had graduated from the Stanford University of Business School, menwere eight times more likely to be CEOs than women.Nor does the evidence indicate that the glass ceiling is a temporary phenomenon. In fact, the researchcited here finds relatively few women and minorities in the positions most likely to lead to the top—the“pipeline.” The critical career path for senior management positions requires taking on responsibilitiesmost directly related to the corporate bottom line. But the relatively few women and minorities found atthe highest levels tend to be in staff positions, such as human resources, or research, or administration,rather than line positions, such as marketing, or sales, or production. Similarly, most companies requirebroad and varied experience in core areas of the business to advance—experience of the sort that, evennow, too few women or minority men are in a position to develop.In short, the fact-finding report tells us that the world at the top of the corporate hierarchy does not yetlook anything like America. Two-thirds of our population, and 57 percent of the working population, isfemale, or minorities, or both. Nor, ominously, does the population of today’s executive suite resemblethe workforce of America’s future. Women and minority men will make up 62% of the workforce by theyear 2005.As many of the CEOs interviewed by the Commission observed, this state of affairs is not good for business.Corporate leaders recognize that it is necessary for their business that they better reflect the market- placeand their customers. Their trading partners and customers are becoming more global and diverse. And tosucceed in this increasingly competitive environment, they need to attract and retain the best, most flexibleworkers and leaders available, for all levels of their organization. Narrowing the pool of talent from whichthey draw is—among other things—a blunder in competitive tactics. Most business leaders know that theysimply cannot afford to rely exclusively on white males for positions of leadership. 
v

ention that diversity is good for business. A 1993 study of Standard and Poor

firms that succeed in shattering their own glass ceilings racked up stock-mar

two and a half times better than otherwise-comparable companies.

inds, serious barriers to advancement remain—such as persistent stereotyp

no qualified women or minorities are out there,” and plain old fear of

then, is to learn from the success stories—to find out the best means of

ts that together form America’s most important productive resource. The

ns case studies of world-class companies that have boosted profits while effec

ng barriers in their organizations. It also identifies some of the factors com

 initiatives—beginning with high-level commitment and leadership and

countability.

e lessons and create models of success for all American workers, to demon

rk and talent will be rewarded and promoted. This is the only way to preserve

pass on to future generations, the age-old American ethic of work and its

the work of the Glass Ceiling Commission, shattering the glass ceiling both

nd makes our businesses stronger.

been a nation containing wide diversity and profound differences—has been

romise of expanding opportunity. We cannot allow ourselves to be detoured

ational journey. The inclusive values that modeled our past, and the eco

enging future, both require us to overcome the “glass ceiling” that mars the

y today.
ana McGuire

 Middleton

Miller

Morrison

n Nicolau

Pachón

Paris

Pedrick

linda Pompa

eth Rose

as Scopp

nie Swirsky

a Tom

Tom

Trivelli

Wernick

Faye Williams

 Witcher

a Wootton

The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission wishes 

to thank the many people who gave of their time,energy, and experiences to help make this reportpossible. Without their sustained cooperativeeffort and commitment to excellence, the widerange of data and experiences chronicled in this report could not have been gathered andpublished.We welcome this opportunity to appreciate thestaff of the Glass Ceiling Commission whose tireless effort helped fulfill this mandate. We aregrateful for their strong stewardship: YvonneLacey, Loretta Davis, Howard S. Hankerson,Gordon Berg, Debra Brown, Carmen T. Lepe,Amy Golen, Alicia Neering, Victor Sewell, andSharon Muse. And to all who have served on staffover the life of the commission, our thanks.To all of those people throughout the regionswhere our hearings were held go our gratitude fortheir generous response.

Our work would have been impossible without thesupport of the U.S. Department of Labor who hasgiven us a home complete with support servicesand the necessary aid and advice to allow us tooperate.Finally, the Federal Glass Ceiling Commissionwould like to recognize the able men and womenwho have confronted glass ceiling barriers andbroken through them. Your efforts will speed theday when all people are recognized in the workplace for their skills and abilities. Each of you hasstrengthened the American dream. You have, in fact, defined it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

uals who,

atly 

mission.
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

iling Barriers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

me the Business Barriers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

ll” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

e Glass” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

ror” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Ceiling” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

 An Industry Comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

e U.S. Civilian Labor Force, by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. . .. . . . . . 171

es Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Measuring Glass Ceiling Realities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

al Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

onal Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Methodology And Questions Asked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

odology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

 within Industry by Race and Hispanic Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 within Industry by Gender and Occupational Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

oster of Oral Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

hy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

vii

ENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RESEARCH

ISSION

opularized in a 1986

cribing the invisible

nt as they approach

rarchy.

ommission, a 21-mem

ed by President Bush

nd chaired by the

ted by the Civil Rights

 to identify the glass

ocked the advance

men as well as the suc

s that have led to the

en and all women into

 the private sector.

cally directed—

opportunities for,

to, the advancement 

all women into man

nmaking positions in 

nd

t to the President and 

the appropriate committees of the Congress written reports containing the findings and conclusions resulting from the study and the recommendations based on those findings and conclusions.

SCOPE OF WORKThe Federal Glass Ceiling Commission systematically gathered information on barriers, opportunities, policies, perceptions, and practices as theyaffect five target groups that historically have beenunderrepresented in private sector top-level management—women of all races and ethnicities,and African American, American Indian, Asianand Pacific Islander, and Hispanic American men. As the Glass Ceiling Act (Section 204 of PublicLaw 102-166) mandates,* the Commission wasdirected to do the following:

“(1) examine the preparedness of women and minorities to advance to management and decisionmaking positions in business;

*Pursuant to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (pub. L. 102-166) andSection 9 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (pub. L. 92-262, 5U.S.C. app. II) a Notice of establishment of the Glass Ceiling Commissionwas published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1992 (57FR 10776). 3

The Commission conducted a study ofopportunities for, and artificial barriers to, the advancement ofminority men and all women intomanagement and decisionmakingpositions in Corporate America.
(2) examine the opportunities for women and 

minorities to advance to management and decisionmaking positions in business;(3) conduct basic research into the practices,policies, and manner in which managementand decisionmaking positions in business arefilled;(4) conduct comparative research of businessesand industries in which women and minorities are promoted to management anddecisionmaking positions, and business andindustries in which women and minorities are not promoted to management and decisionmaking positions;(5) compile a synthesis of available research onprograms and practices that have successfullyled to the advancement of women and minorities to management and decisionmakingpositions in business including trainingprograms, rotational assignments, developmental programs, reward programs, employee benefit structures, and family leave policies; and(6) examine any other issues and information relating to the advancement of women andminorities to management and decisionmakingpositions in business.”

The Commission research and informationgathering process included the following:

• Five public hearings held in Kansas City, 

Kansas; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Cleveland, Ohio; and New York, New York, at which 126 employers and employees from a broad spectrum of industries and institutions testified about their experiences and perceptions of the glass ceiling.

• The commissioning of eighteen research 

papers on the status and problems of minorities and women and on other specific aspects of the glass ceiling such as the impact of downsizing on diversity, comparative compensation, and law enforcement.

• A survey of twenty-five chief executive 

officers (CEOs) from white- and minorityowned businesses regarding their perceptions and experiences in recruiting, developing, and promoting minorities and women into decisionmaking positions.

• Six racially homogeneous focus groups of 

Asian and Pacific Islander American, African American and Hispanic/Latino male executives in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles to determine the perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes of minority men on the key issues related to the glass ceiling barriers. (With each racial/ethnic 
ere held, one of 

and one older 

nts were college 

of bachelor’s, 

egrees. All were 

f U.S. companies in 

es: communications, 

th care, aerospace, 

al/banking, travel, 

 realty, employment 

ducts, and beverage.)

ps with American 

en in Washington, 

 the groups were 

h a mix of bachelor’s, 

rees, a mix of govern

or employment, and a 

 affiliations. The 

n Washington but 

ar away as California.) 

ta runs of U.S. Bureau 

nducted expressly 

Ceiling Commission 

as possible the 

ment, status, and 

of the target groups.

ta runs of U.S. Bureau 

identify the status of 

n by industrial sector. 

THE REPORTSGlass ceiling issues are about business and aboutpeople who work in business. Therefore, for thefirst report, the findings and conclusions are presented in an “Environmental Scan.” The secondreport will contain recommendations and will be a“Strategic Plan.”Report One: The Environmental ScanThis document, The Environmental Scan, presents the findings of the Federal Glass CeilingCommission resulting from research by its consortium of consultants, commission hearings, studies,interviews, focus groups, and panel discussions —as well as its review of other public and privateresearch.

The Environmental Scan describes and analyzes the barriers identified in existing research, independent studies, and Department of Labor surveys, as well as information gathered in the minority male executive focus groups, the American Indian focus groups, the CEO survey interviews, and the five public hearings. It also identifies and outlines strategies and practices that have been employed successfully to promote the advancement of minorities and women to senior-level positions in the private sector. These examples emerged from Commission research conducted by Catalyst and from the 5

Glass ceiling issues are about business and about people who workin business.
Commission’s work in preparing for the 

Frances Perkins—Elizabeth Hanford Dole National Award for Diversity and Excellence in American Executive Management.Finally, The Environmental Scan summarizes the perceptions of corporate leaders and minorities and women in the private sector and presents available quantitative data that supports or refutes them.Emphasis is placed on perceptions because perceptions, true or not, perpetuate the existence of the glass ceiling barrier. Perceptions are what people believe and people translate their beliefs into behaviors, attitudes, and bias. Many judgments on hiring and promotion are made on the basis of a look, the shape of a body, or the color of skin. A 1992 report on a number of the nation’s most progressive businesses and institutions, The New Leaders: Guidelines on Leadership Diversity in America by Ann M. Morrison, revealed that prejudice against minorities and white women continues to be the single most important barrier to their advancement into the executive ranks. For this reason, this report explores the perceptions of employers and employees, outlines the popular stereotypes, and then contrasts them with the research data and findings that delineate the realities and status of minority 

men and all the women who are affected by the glass ceiling. Much of the qualitative information on perceptions is drawn directly from transcripts of the Commission’s five public hearings, the CEO Survey, the minority executive focus groups, and the American Indian focus groups. The quantitative data is based on private surveys and Commission research and on extensive analyses of U.S. Department of Census data, analyses prepared expressly for the Commission. Specific sources are cited in the body of this report.

Report Two: A Strategic PlanA second report will present the Commission’srecommendations based on its findings. Theserecommendations will form a “Strategic Plan” that will be presented to the President and theCongress in the Summer of 1995. The recommendations will speak to the imperative of dismantling artificial barriers toadvancement. The recommendations will bedesigned to assure equitable opportunity for white men, minorities, and women.

 

s of a

color
d, and women and

in focus groups,

nt officials, all agree

d that it operates 

orities and women

gement. At the same 

 corporate leaders 

and exclusion of

an white non

business because 

hree areas that are

vival:

graphics of the labor graphics of the 

arkets

on of the marketplace

compete in changing

usiness environments

s glass ceiling issues

e from top leadership 

people of diverse 

inesses need in order 

lly

• Top quality people, regardless of gender, 

race, or ethnicity, are essential to the health and profitability of business

Despite the growing awareness among corporateleadership of the bottom-line value and economicimperative of including minorities and women insenior corporate management, progress has beendisappointingly slow, and barriers persist whichstop able people from achieving their full employment potential.

GLASS CEILING BARRIERSGlass Ceiling research reveals three levels of artificial barriers to the advancement of minoritiesand women in the private sector that contradictthis nation’s ethic of individual worth andaccountability—the belief that education, training, dedication, and hard work will lead to a better life. The three levels of barriers identified by theCommission research, CEO studies, and focusgroups are these:

• Societal Barriers which may be outside the 

direct control of business 7

HE FACT-FINDING REPORT

Corporate leaders surveyed, andwomen and minorities who participated in focus groups, researchers,and government officials, all agreethat a glass ceiling exists and that itoperates substantially to excludeminorities and women from the top levels of management.
—The Supply Barrier related to 

educational opportunity and attainment—The Difference Barrier as manifested in conscious and unconscious stereotyping, prejudice, and bias related to gender, race, and ethnicity.

• Internal Structural Barriers within the 

direct control of business

—Outreach and recruitment practices that do not seek out or reach or recruit minorities and women—Corporate climates that alienate and isolate minorities and women—Pipeline Barriers that directly affect opportunity for advancement

—Initial placement and clustering in 

staff jobs or in highly technical and professional jobs that are not on the career track to the top

—Lack of mentoring—Lack of management training—Lack of opportunities for career 

development, tailored training, and rotational job assignments that are on the revenue-producing side of the business

—Little or no access to critical 

develop mental assignments such as memberships on highly visible task forces and committees

—Special or different standards for 

performance evaluation

—Biased rating and testing systems—Little or no access to informal networks of communication—Counterproductive behavior and 

harassment by colleagues

• Governmental Barriers

—Lack of vigorous, consistent monitoring and law enforcement—Weaknesses in the formulation and collection of employment-related data which makes it difficult to ascertain the status of groups at the managerial level and to disaggregate the data—Inadequate reporting and dissemination of information relevant to glass ceiling issues

A majority of the CEOs interviewed felt that thesepractices are obstacles to pursuing opportunity.Change can be handled well or it can be handledpoorly. Those corporate leaders who have successfully addressed the business barriers to theadvancement of minorities and women are thosewho have squarely confronted the reality thattheir priorities and the priorities of their middleand upper-level managers are not always synonymous. These are the companies who have madethe transition to inclusion while continuing toprosper. Their experience demonstrates that barriers can be overcome.

ement

nted

nd 

d

ways
RCOME 

minate the barriers 

rities and women in

pany is different and

 its situation and

he companies that 

vely indicates that the 

etailed in this report—

l glass ceiling 

ort

trategic business plan

he organization

hey do not exclude 

men

ceptions and stereo

require accountability 

 

sive

CAN

r of corporate leaders

 managerial and 

an important issue

bottom line, significant

various levels within

ienced differently by

roups. These barriers 

impede the advancement of qualified minoritiesand women. In general, African Americans,American Indians, Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans, and Hispanic Americans resist the use of the term minority which they feel impliesinferiority. It has been pointed out that in the U.S.any population is a minority if it occupies a subordinate power position in relation to another population within the same country or society.African American, American Indian, and HispanicAmerican men believe that within their groupsnot enough individuals are earning the degreesthat business needs. On the other hand, they alsoperceive that even those who have these credentials face brick, opaque, and thick glass ceilings that block their advancement to seniorlevel decisionmaking positions. A survey of seniorlevel male managers in Fortune 1000 industrialand Fortune 500 service industries shows thatalmost 97 percent are white, 0.6 are AfricanAmerican, 0.3 percent are Asian, and 0.4 percentare Hispanic. African American men and women comprise lessthan 2.5 percent of total employment in the topjobs in the private sector. African American menwith professional degrees earn only 79 percent ofthe amount of their white male counterparts;African American women with professionaldegrees earn only 60 percent of what white malesearn. African Americans represent a $257 billionconsumer market.

9

In general, African Americans,American Indians, Asian and PacificIslander Americans, and HispanicAmericans resist the use of the termminority which they feel implies inferiority.
Only 9 percent of American Indians in the workforce hold college degrees. American Indians

have the highest high school dropout rate of anyethnic or racial group — 36 percent. According to the 1990 census, only 7,862 American Indiansheld executive, administrative, or managerial positions at any level, very little of it in the privatesector.From 1960 to 1990, Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans were the fastest growing minoritygroup. Asian and Pacific Islander Americans represent a $94 billion consumer market. Asianand Pacific Islander men feel that they have morethan sufficient educational credentials and experience and still are kept under the ceiling becausethey are perceived as superior professionals butnot as management material.Hispanic American men have the highest workforce participation rate of any ethnic group at78.2 percent. In 1990, 370,000 HispanicAmericans had earned advance degrees now considered essential for climbing the corporate ladder. Hispanic American represent a $175 billion consumer market.White women in Corporate America agree theyhave made some movement through the glass ceiling. They are cautiously optimistic but they donot perceive that the problem has been solved.There is still a long way to go and barriers 

continue to exist. Only two women are CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies.Minority women do not see much progress andfeel that significant barriers to their advancementstill exist.The data show that minorities and white womenare increasingly earning the credentials that business needs. However, data also show thatwomen hold only 3 to 5 percent of the senior-leveljobs in major corporations. Moreover, only 5 percent of the women who hold those seniorlevel jobs are minority women.IN CONCLUSIONTwo major strengths of our country—which withthe exception of American Indians is a nation ofimmigrants—have been:

• the nation’s ability to adapt to perpetual 

demographic change

• the nation’s remarkable ability in most 

respects to make self-corrections whenever the contract with its citizenry is threatened or damaged 

The body of research detailed in the following section reveals that in the private sector, equally qualified and similarly situated citizens are beingdenied equal access to advancement into seniorlevel management on the basis of gender, race, or 
ls of corporations the

ration and pursuit of

ilable to members of

s against the best

ude those Americans

the total population,

markets, and more

approximately 57 

11

At the highest levels of corporationsthe promise of reward for preparationand pursuit of excellence is not equally available to members of allgroups.

990

0.311.323.185.28

35.61

Female
What is the Glass Ceiling?

GCC Research 3, 8, and 13* Federal Glass Ceiling Commission researchpapers, as well as testimony presented at the public hearings, clearly document that today’sAmerican labor force is gender and race segregated—white men fill most top managementpositions in corporations. According to surveys of Fortune 1500 companiesconducted by Korn/Ferry International andCatalyst over the last decade, 95 to 97 percent of senior managers—vice presidents and above—were men. A 1989 Korn/Ferry survey found that97 percent of male top executives are white. A1992 survey of Fortune 1500 companies foundthat 95 percent of the three to five percent of thetop managers who were women were white nonHispanic women. In 1994, two women were CEOsof Fortune 1000 companies. The representation of women and minorities onFortune 1500 boards of directors is also limited.Cox and Smolinski point out that less than 10 percent of the largest employers have women ontheir board of directors. According to a 1992*The numerical references cited at each heading refer to the

research papers listed at the end of this section.

Heidrick & Struggles survey, Minorities and Womenon Corporate Boards, non-U.S. citizens held 2.85 percent of the board seats of 806 Fortune companies, slightly less than the 3.11 percentcombined total held by all racial and ethnicminorities. Conversely, the American workforce is increasingly diverse. In 1950, white men comprised 65 percent of the labor force; in 1990 white male representation had dropped to 43 percent.During the same period, representation of whitewomen in the labor force increased from 24.2 percent to 35.3 percent. At the same time, minority representation in the labor force doubled, to 15.2 percent. Over the last decade,the size of the Asian and Pacific IslanderAmerican population has doubled, becoming thefastest growing of minority groups in the UnitedStates.A larger proportion of women and minorities arelocked into low wage, low prestige, and dead-endjobs, which according to Harlan and Bertheide,are not connected to any career ladder.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RESEARCH

ercent

ents

on


2000*


71.2
12.6


0.8
4.3


11.1
Minorities and 

 Research 1, 4, 7, 

rofessionals and man

vate-for-profit sector.

 sector and “third sec

gencies in health,

n; legal service, profes

organizations and

ums and art organiza

ge, 90 percent of Black

cent of Black male

nt of white and

als work in the govern

mpared to 56 percent

professionals.

n of employment is

mericans (API) who

 sector. Contrary to 

mericans, only a small

rs or managers of

t).

mission research also 

ator of advancement.

ported the ratio of

management jobs

cent in the banking

cent for managers in

of 1990 U.S. Census

who hold professional 

degrees and top management positions earned 79 percent of what white men earn. Black women,also with professional degrees and in top management positions, earn 60 percent of whatwhite men in comparable positions earn. Despite identical education attainment, ambition,and commitment to career, men still progressfaster than women. A 1990 Business Week study 

of 3,664 business school graduates found that awoman with an MBA from one of the top 20 business schools earned an average of $54,749 inher first year after graduation, while a comparableman earned $61,400—12 percent more. Wernickreports that a 1993 follow-up study of the StanfordUniversity Business School class of 1982 foundthat 16 percent of the men were CEOs, chairmen,or presidents of companies compared to only two

Despite identical education attainment, ambition, and commitment tocareer, men still progress faster thanwomen.

13

African-AmericanWhite

Executives, Managers and Administrators
(By Race and Gender)
Public Administration

% of Occupation 70

605040302010

Source: 1990 Census, 5% PUMS data file

HispanicAPI

3.6

47.5

0.65.2

4.8

31.9

1.33.6

Male Female

0

56.9

41.6
percent of the women. At the level below those

top posts, 23 percent of the men in the 1982 classwere now vice presidents and 15 percent weredirectors, compared to 10 percent and 8 percent,respectively, of the women. Some data support the optimism that the 25 CEOsexpressed about the progress of women. For example, between 1982 and 1992 the percentage ofwomen who held the title of female executive vicepresident increased from four percent to nine percent; the percentage who held the title of senior vicepresident increased from 13 percent to 23 percent.In comparison, between 1982 and 1992, the percentage of African Americans who held the title of vicepresident or above increased from one percent to2.3 percent. During the same period, the percentageof Hispanic top managers increased from 1.3 percent to 2 percent, and the percentage of Asiansenior managers increased from .4 percent to 1.8percent. The small numbers of minorities and womenthroughout management makes statistics on therate of change in representation misleading. Forexample, if two out of three Black male managerstake early retirement, a firm experiences a 67 percent decline in representation.The Business ImperativeAnother reason for optimism is the growing bodyof evidence which indicates shattering the glass

ceiling is good for business. Organizations thatexcel at leveraging diversity (including hiring and promoting minorities and women into seniorpositions) can experience better financial performance in the long run than those which are not effective in managing diversity.Cox cites a Covenant Investment Managementstudy to prove this point. The Covenant studyrated the performance of the Standard and Poor’s500 companies on factors relating to the hiringand advancement of minorities and women, compliance with EEOC and other regulatoryrequirements, and employee litigation.Companies which rated in the bottom 100 onglass ceiling related measures earned an averageof 7.9 percent return on investment, compared toan average return of 18.3 percent for the top 100.Cox offers several other explanations about whysome businesses are motivated to eliminate the glassceiling. In the U.S., Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics collectively represent more than $500 billion a year inconsumer spending. In the automobile industryexplicit recognition of cultural differences within theU.S. market is paying off. In 1987, by targeting advertising, hiring bilingual sales people, and holding special events, a Miami Toyota dealer gained more than50 percent of the local Hispanic market and his salesincreased 400 percent over a six-year period. On theWest coast, a San Francisco Volkswagen dealershipcredited improved sales to Asian and Pacific Islander 

raging

en into

better

ng

fective
ease in overall sales per

through cultural sensi

nese Americans, family

decisionmakers for

petition for market

o factors motivating

related to glass 

d report of Ortho

yearly savings of

turnover among

sing. Recent studies

ange between 150

er or professional’s

75 percent for lower

ass reported that dur

1987 turnover among

was double that of

period, the turnover

two and a half times

dy of male and female

ons found that the

tting was a lack of

r dissatisfaction with

8

nd testimony that

examined the preparedness of minorities andwomen to advance to top management positionsconsidered preparedness in terms of corporatedevelopment of minorities and women and educational credentials. As Wernick explains, the development of businessexecutives is a long, complicated process. Chiefexecutive officers (CEOs) are generally in their50s or 60s when they assume the top position.Furthermore, they have usually spent 20 to 25years “in the pipeline.”It is also worth noting that career paths to CEOpositions vary by industry. Certain functionalareas are more likely than others to lead to thetop. The “right” areas are most likely to be linefunctions such as marketing or production or acritical control function such as accounting orfinance. Studies across industries find certain factors common to successful executives, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity. They include:broad and varied experience in the core areas ofthe business; access to information, particularlythrough networks and mentoring; companyseniority; initial job assignment; high job mobility;education; organizational savvy; long hours andhard work; and career planning. Minorities and women have limited opportunityto obtain broad and varied experience in mostcompanies. They tend to be in supporting, staff 15

Minorities and women have limitedopportunity to obtain broad and varied experience in most companies.

Annual Consumer Expenditures


By Race & Ethnicity


Total Expenditure of U.S. Consumer Market


$3,028 Billion

*Data is not disaggregated for White Non-Hispanics, American Indians, and other.

Hispanic


5.8%

API


3.1%

White & Other*


82.6%

African American


8.6%
function areas—personnel/human resources,

communications, public relations, affirmativeaction, and customer relations. Movementbetween these positions and line positions is rarein most major companies. Furthermore, careerladders in staff functions are generally shorterthan those in line functions, offering fewer possibilities to gain varied experience. Education is also an important part of an executive’s preparation. According to a 1993Korn/Ferry International UCLA report, almost 90percent of executives are college graduates. U.S.Census data show that Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans and women have the largest percentage of the work force with college or graduatedegrees, with 42 percent and 35 percent, respectively. The same source shows that college attendance is increasing for Black men and women ofall ages. Between 1982 and 1991, there was a 36percent increase in the number of AfricanAmericans, ages 20 to 44, with a college degree ormore. The picture for American Indians and HispanicAmericans is less encouraging. Only 9 percent ofAmerican Indians in the workforce hold collegedegrees. Between 1980 and 1990, the number ofHispanic Americans with bachelor’s or graduate degrees increased from 7.7 percent to 10 percent.Furthermore, the opposition to bilingual education discourages the acquisition of one of theassets that business values. According to a 1994 

Hispanic Business magazine survey of 169 Hispanicsenior managers, the majority of managers workin line positions in international divisions usingtheir bilingual and bicultural skills. However, only4 percent of Hispanic high school students gainbilingual capability by taking the minimumrequirement for Spanish literacy, according to aDepartment of Education longitudinal study.

Where are the Opportunities?GCC Studies 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, 17, and 19.Federal Glass Ceiling Commission research on theopportunities for minorities and women to advanceto top management positions in corporate Americafocused on two areas: 1) identification of growthindustries and businesses and high-demand occupations and their relation to opportunities foradvancement, and 2) identification of possibilitiesresulting from changes in the structure of work, newtechnologies, and the demands of a global economy.Gender distribution is more prominent than race distribution across industries. Women aremore likely than men to be clustered in services;finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE), and inthe wholesale/retail trade industries. Nearly 75percent of employed women work in these industries.Growth IndustriesThe industries expected to grow the most between1990 and 2005 are service/retail trade; FIRE;wholesale trade; transportation, communications,

n
17

Restructuring can present problems aswell as opportunities for minoritiesand women in management.

struction.

ed to have growing

nd top executives

l trade, especially 

ments; finance and 

 carriers); and 

services, auto services,

cial services, and 

nt services. 

est opportunity for

ent and decision

es of industries: those

ess services); those like

hange, i.e., deregula

ed; and those with a

nsurance, banking).

nt changes in the

ies seven ways in

ucturing can limit

ers, professionals, and

an increase in exter

s the number of inter

ation of layers of man

 3) hiring of indepen

sinesses to perform

e stringent perfor

anagers who remain;

y required of managers; 6) increased importance of team work; and 7) a shift of employment from manufacturing to services. As Hamlin’s research on the impact of downsizing and restructuring in nine companies found, in more than half the companies, white women and—to a somewhat lesser extent—minority men have increased their representation in management both in absolute numbers and in proportion to white men between 1990 and 1994. Restructuring can present problems as well as opportunities for minorities and women in man- agement. In some cases the last hired are the first fired. On the other hand, when early retirement is part of the restructuring process, higher level positions may become available, thereby increas- ing advancement opportunities. Hamlin’s study showed that white male managers who had senior- ity and were eligible for relatively generous buy- out packages were most likely to take early retire- ment or choose other forms of severance during downsizing. Comparison of Industries—Women The industries with the highest percent of women managers were FIRE (41.4%), services (38.9%), retail trade (38.5%), transportation, communica- tion, and public utilities (25.6%), and wholesale trade (20.9%). Manufacturing (15.9%), agriculture (14.5%), construction (10.4%), and mining (9.8%) had the lowest percentages.
best in

owth,

gard

on

The proportion of women employees who are managers is the closest to that of men who are managers in transportation, communications, andpublic utilities (10.1%; 15.2%), with the construction industry second (6.4%; 9.9%). Manufacturingand FIRE showed the biggest proportional differences. Predominately female industries have larger percentages of women in at least mid-level managerialpositions than do predominately male industries.Furthermore, women appear to be advancing bestin industries with relatively high growth, thoseundergoing change with regard to regulation, andthose highly competitive and thus dependent onmarketing and flexibility.Comparison of Industries—MinoritiesDepartment of Labor analyses of 1990 EEOC datafor minorities (men and women) find that theindustries with the highest percentage of minoritymanagers are retail trade (13%), transportation,communication, and public utilities (12%), services (11%), and FIRE (11%). Agriculture (1.3%),wholesale trade (0.9%), manufacturing (0.8%),mining (0.7%), and construction (0.6%) had thelowest percentages.The proportion of minority employees who aremanagers is the closest to that of non-minoritieswho are managers in transportation, communication, and public utilities (7.7%; 15.0%), with the retail trade industry second (9.2%; 21.0%).

Agriculture and construction had the biggest differences between the proportions. However, a study of Hispanic executives in theFortune 500 industrial and 500 service industries(HACR 1993) found the highest percentage ofHispanic officers in beverages (3.8%), soaps andcosmetics (2.4%), building materials (1.9%), andmotor vehicles and parts (1.1%). These sub-industries are all in the manufacturing sector. Officerrepresentation for Hispanics in all others industrial sectors was below 1 percent, and has the lowest percentage of FIRE and transportation,communication, and public utilities. An analysis of the 30 companies listed as bestplaces for Blacks to work in the February 1992

edition of Black Enterprise found 8 of the 30 

companies were in the consumer products industry. Telecommunications, automobiles, other manufacturing firms, oil, chemical companies, and banking/financial services had 3 mentions each.Representation of minorities in an industry is not directly related to their advancement to management, as is the case with women. However,like women, minorities have the best chance ofadvancement in industries with relatively highgrowth, those undergoing change with regard to regulation, and those highly competitive andthus dependent on marketing and flexibility.(Note industry charts on next page.)
Finance

3.51.61.75.2

0.5

32.8

1.23.2

Male Female

62

37.7

2.48.41.76.1

1.0

25.6

0.33.4

Male Female 

African-AmericanWhite

% of Occupation 60% of OccupationSource: 1990 Census, 5% PUMS data file

HispanicAPI

2.6

44.8

1.83.4

2.6

37.6

2.65.0

Male Female 0

African-AmericanWhite

Source: 1990 Census, 5% PUMS data file

HispanicAPI

3.2

44.0

0.52.0

3.0

40.7

1.74.2

Male Female 0

Insurance

8.6

30.3

52.6

47.8

49.7 49.6

5040302010605040302010

19

ANAGERS, AND ADMINISTRATORS (By Race and Gender)

s abbreviated as API
Utilities

2.31.73.52.8

2.6

39.1

1.72.0

Male Female 

2.48.41.76.1

1.0

25.6

0.33.4

Male Female 

African-AmericanWhite

% of Occupation 100% of OccupationSource: 1990 Census, 5% PUMS data file *API males sample size too small

HispanicAPI

3.1

71.9

0.0*3.1

0.8

17.2

0.80.7

Male Female 0

African-AmericanWhite

Source: 1990 Census, 5% PUMS data file

HispanicAPI

1.2

53.4

2.42.7

0.3

36.2

1.82.1

Male Female 0

Wholesale Trade

70

0.3

45.4

68.6

30.3

78.1

19.5

59.7

40.4

80604020605040302010

ANAGERS, AND ADMINISTRATORS (By Race and Gender)

s abbreviated as API
21

eeded

was able to conduct

funding, it is clear

emented with a 

study to determine

activities that would

ling glass ceilings and

orities. A study similar

ucted at Harvard dur

ding the advancement

dd considerably to

at perpetuate the glass

rious remedies in 

 of women and

upper management.

both the elements 

frastructure that may

he career progress 

al individuals within

e selected organiza

n, white men, and

The results of this

significant dimension

sioned and reviewed

ndson and Nkomo,

Work Place

by African-Americans.

ool of Management,

echnology and Stella

M. Nkomo, Belk College of BusinessAdministration, University of North Carolina atCharlotte. Paper prepared for the Glass CeilingCommission. On file.2. Braddock, David and Bachelder, Lynn. 1994.The Glass Ceiling and Persons with Disabilities.University of Illinois at Chicago. Paper preparedfor the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.3. Burbridge, Lynne. 1994. The Glass Ceiling inDifferent Sectors of the Economy: DifferencesBetween Government, Non-Profit and For-ProfitO rganizations. Wellesley College Center forResearch on Women. Paper prepared for theGlass Ceiling Commission. On file.4. Catalyst. 1993. Successful Initiatives forBreaking the Glass Ceiling to Upward Mobilityfor Minorities and Women. Paper prepared forthe Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.5. Cox, Taylor and Smolinski, Carol. 1994.Managing Diversity and Glass CeilingInitiatives as National Economic Imperatives.The University of Michigan. Paper prepared forthe Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.6. Golen, Amy. 1994. The Impact of the GlassCeiling on the Professions. Draft working paperprepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.

The Federal Glass CeilingCommission was directed to “conduct a study of opportunities for,and artificial barriers to, theadvancement of women and minorities to management and decisionmaking positions in business.” The study included a variety of activities, including analyses of current academic andbusiness research, empirical studies,data analysis, focus groups, surveys,and public hearings. The componentsof the research are listed in alphabetical order.
7. Hamlin, Nancy; Erkut, Sumru; and Fields,

Jacqueline P. 1994. The Impact of CorporateRestructuring and Downsizing on theManagerial Careers of Minorities and Women:Lessons Learned. Paper prepared for the GlassCeiling Commission. On file.8. Harlan, Sharon L. and Bertheide, CatherineWaite. 1994. Barriers to Workplace AdvancementExperienced by Women in Low-PayingOccupations. Colorado State University. Paperprepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.9. James, K. et al. 1994. Barriers to WorkplaceAdvancement Experienced by Native Americans.Paper prepared for the Glass CeilingCommission. On file.10. Leonard, Jonathan. 1994. Use of Enforcement

in Eliminating Glass Ceiling Barriers. School ofBusiness, University of California, Berkeley.Paper prepared for the Glass CeilingCommission. On file.11. Mauricio Gastón Institute for LatinoCommunity Development and Public Policy,University of Massachusetts. 1994. Barriers to theEmployment and Work-Place Advancement ofLatinos. University of Massachusetts at Boston.Paper prepared for the Glass CeilingCommission. On file.

12. Schwartz, Debra B. An Examination of theImpact of Family-Friendly Policies on the GlassCeiling. 1994. Paper prepared for the GlassCeiling Commission. On file. 13. Shaw, L.B. et al. 1993. The Impact of theGlass Ceiling and Structural Change onMinorities and Women. Paper Commissioned for

the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.14 Thomas, Roosevelt et al. 1994. Impact ofRecruitment, Selection, and CompensationPolicies and Practices on the Glass Ceiling.Morehouse College. Paper prepared for the GlassCeiling Commission. On file.15. Tomaskovic-Devy, Thomas. 1994. Race, Ethnic

and Gender Earnings Inequality: The Source andConsequences of Employment Segregation. North

Carolina State University. Paper prepared for theGlass Ceiling Commission. On file.16. Wernick, Ellen. 1994. Preparedness, CareerAdvancement, and the Glass Ceiling. Paper prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.

17. Woo, Deborah. 1994. The Glass Ceiling and

Asian Americans. University of California,Berkeley. Paper prepared for the Glass CeilingCommission. On file.18. Woody, Bette and Weiss, Carol. 1994. Barriersto Work Place Advancement Experienced by
23

iversity of 

per prepared for the

On file.

taries

ondson and Nkomo,

eiling vs. The

ptions of White and

Managers.

ment Project. 1994.

A

ective on the

aper prepared for the

On file.

 Asian Pacific

e Glass Ceiling. Lee

d for the Glass Ceiling

S. Bureau 

er Center for Census

994. Reference

f U.S. Bureau of the

ta Sample Files.

ng Commission. 

arch and Education of

ucus Foundation.

1994. The Impact of the Glass Ceiling on AfricanAmerican Men and Women. Reference documentation: Datasets of U.S. Bureau of the Census Public Use Microdata Sample Files. Prepared forthe Glass Ceiling Commission. On file. 24. The Tomás Rivera Center. 1995. Wage

Differentials Between Latinos and Anglos: AStatistical Portrait and Its Implications toGlass Ceiling Issues. Reference documentation:Datasets of U.S. Bureau of the Census Public UseMicrodata Sample Files. Prepared for the GlassCeiling Commission. On file.

Surveys and Focus Groups25. Henderson, Lucius S. III et al. 1994. Reporton Six Focus Groups with Asian, Black andHispanic Executives in Three Cities on IssuesRelated to The Glass Ceiling in CorporateAmerica. Paper prepared for the Glass CeilingCommission. On file.26. ———. 1995. Final Report on Two FocusGroups with American Indians on Issues Relatedto the Glass Ceiling in Corporate America. Paperprepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.27. McGuire, Georgianna and Nicolau, Siobhan.1994. In Their Own Words: CEO Views ofDiversity at the Top. Paper prepared for theGlass Ceiling Commission. On file.

WHAT ARE THE GLASS CEILING BARRIERS?
all’ to

m in

yees

al,

rd Dole

d Cross

f Labor

king the 

agement

Many of the same barriers that keep women and minority men from achieving their full potentialat lower levels of organizations continue to constitute the glass ceiling that keeps even the most qualified from advancing to top management.

Ann M. MorrisonThe New Leaders: Guidelines on Leadership Diversity in America

Ann Morrison’s study of a number of the nation’smost progressive businesses supports what theCommission research reveals. There are two majorareas of discrepancy which affect the advancement of minorities and women to senior managementpositions in business. They are:

• the discrepancies between the widely 

accepted stereotypes implying that minorities and women are unsuited for senior management, and the successful performance of many minorities and women who are in senior positions; and

• the discrepancies between the diversity 

that corporate leadership says it needs 

and wants at the top, and what appears to be happening—or not happening—in society and in the corporations to support the leadership agenda.

The hard data and anecdotal information demonstrate that minorities and women are making progress in the private sector. (Korn/Ferry International and UCLA 1993). However,satisfaction with that progress must be temperedby the fact that the rate of change is discouragingly slow. Despite the recognition of corporate leadership that inclusion is a bottom-line issue, a glassceiling is still firmly in place and barriers to the advancement of minorities and women continueto exist on three levels: societal, internal, and governmental.

Societal Barriers that Affect the Glass CeilingThere are two major Societal Barriers that engender and reinforce a glass ceiling for minoritiesand women. They are: 

• The Supply Barrier—Opportunity and 

Achievement 

• The Difference Barrier—Stereotypes, 

Prejudice, and Bias 

WHAT ARE THE GLASS CEILING BARRIERS?
t

p at the glass ceiling,

ont door and into the

umbers of minorities

ethnicities are

r to Corporate

eide 1994). Some

merican, American

ander American, and

nities are dispropor

g the working poor.

s are overrepresented

part-time and seasonal

condary economies,

loyment. Mobility is

here is a lack of finan

 of educational attain

a strong supporter of

n on all levels, (most

f a number of school

n lies outside the

Corporate leadership

 excellent schools, it

such as school-to-work

provide scholarship

n education reform

ote one.

The Difference Barrier:Stereotype, Prejudice, and Bias Most stereotypes are not created out of thin air.Some may result from wide publicity given to theactions of those who are a minority within a group.For example, the exploits of African American,Asian, or Latino gang members or drug users areregularly reported in the media. This affects howthe general public views all members of these communities, a point that was strongly made at the

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission’s New York public hearing by Charles Kamasaki, a vice president for the National Council of La Raza. Other stereotypes reflect fantasies from the entertainment industry which has given us several generations of faithful African American servants,American Indian “savages,” treacherous and mysterious Asians, and Latina “spitfires of the silverscreen.” Still other stereotypes result from faultyor narrow interactions with a particular segmentof a group that lead to generalizing from the particular. If the only Hispanics or Asian and PacificIslander individuals one ever meets are waitersand parking lot attendants, the tendency is tobelieve that “they are all like that.” Stereotypes canbe absorbed and unconsciously become thebeliefs upon which we act.Corporate leadership alone cannot eradicate attitudes that stem from widespread acceptance ofstereotypes. On the other hand, Ann Morrison 27

Large numbers of minorities andwomen of all races and ethnicities are nowhere near the frontdoor to Corporate America.
reports in The New Leaders: Guidelines on Leadership

Diversity in America that of all the barriers to corporate advancement identified, it is prejudice thattops the list, or the prejudgment that someone“different,” such as a female executive, is lessable to do the job. Therefore, it is incumbentupon business to demand internal norms of practice and behavior that eliminate the impact of bias and prejudice on the hiring and advancement of minorities and women. To do so, it mustaddress the layers of difference that relate to thecomfort levels of those in charge. The major differences that lead to discomfort are: 

• Cultural differences • Gender difference• Color-based differences

Cultural differences are the ones that businessleaders are most often willing to talk about. Infact, they themselves sometimes identify culturaldifferences as barriers that impede the advancement of minorities and women. As one corporateexecutive stated during an interview,

“Whether you’re talking about the factory flooror the Board room, you have to have a comfortand safety zone. You have to speak the samelanguage. It’s socialization, culture, and classthat are causing the problem.” (Hispanic

Policy Development Project 1994).

A most revealing comment on the unconsciousresistance to differences is this:

“What’s important is comfort, chemistry, relationships, and collaborations. That’s whatmakes a shop work. When we find minoritiesand women who think like we do, we snatchthem up.” 

Gender difference is not about minorities. It’s about the roles women—all women regardlessof color or ethnicity—are expected to fill. In theminds of many white male managers, business isnot where women of any race or ethnicity weremeant to be—certainly not functioning as thepeers of white men. Many white men don’t likethe competition and they don’t like the tension.The perception on the part of women that mendon’t respect them as professionals and don’twant to mentor them is borne out by the comments of male middle-level managers who saythings like—

“This man/woman thing is always going to bea problem. If you build a relationship with awoman people always assume that it is personal.” (Nicolau 1994).“It’s always going to be tough to figure out howto treat the women, but now it’s worse and I’drather not be in a mentoring relationship withthem.” (Nicolau 1994).

ejudice

ment

as a

do 

rrison 
Such categories as managerial, executive, and administrative are too

broad to be useful in glass ceilinganalyses.

29

inescapable but

hem. These are 

ause they are not

clusively ethnic. 

nt question is, 

ver we may be. 

ur society has devel

ated, and often

based on gradations in

 a system as the

cations that were used

ally permissible, but it

face and it can be and

nmaking, sometimes

unconsciously. It is

s, to American

 Islander Americans,

who are described in

brown, yellow, and

t make society culture-,

an demand and

e and behavior 

eotyping in the

stantially diminished 

ard and on a grand

ioral change in how

The Government Barriers that Affect the Glass CeilingResearch sponsored by the Federal Glass CeilingCommission pinpointed three GovernmentalBarriers to the elimination of the glass ceiling.They are:

• Lack of vigorous and consistent monitoring 

and law enforcement

• Weaknesses in the collection and 

disaggregation of employment-related data

• Inadequate reporting and dissemination of 

information relevant to glass ceiling issues

Data CollectionOnly the public sector has the resources to gathernational, regional, and state data on education,status in the workforce, and compensation. Thecategories used by governmental data collectionagencies do not provide the information that isneeded to track and monitor accurately theprogress of minorities and all women. (SeeAppendices: Composition of the U.S. CivilianLabor Force, by Sex and Hispanic Origin). Suchcategories as managerial, executive, and administrative are too broad to be useful in conductingdetailed glass-ceiling analyses.It is significant that a number of the CEOs volunteered the information that the reportingcategories required by government agencies donot yield accurate profiles of their staffs in termsof race and ethnicity, gender, and level of management responsibility. One CEO scoffed at 
“. . . the absurdity of the categories—they don’tget at what they should want to know—it’scriminal what people of ill will can get awaywith using those categories.”

The issue raised by the CEOs regarding the collection and disaggregation of compliance dataaffects all data related to the glass ceiling. It is notreadily available in contexts and forms that clearlyreveal whether minorities and women are advancing in management positions in the private, public,and non-profit sectors. What is available is broadbrush, and in many cases has to be arrived at byworking backwards from statistics—for example,compensation levels that hint at status or levels ofresponsibility. In other cases, the datasets that contain the needed information are not large enoughto permit detailed disaggregated analyses. ReportTwo of the Federal Ceiling Commission will offerrecommendations about how governmental datacollection and disaggregation can be improved inorder to provide a better understanding of the roleof minorities and women in management.Reporting and DisseminationResearchers, corporate leaders, focus group participants, and advocates all agree that the governmentagencies play a very limited educational function.They collect data and monitor the progress ofminorities and women, but do little to provide information in useful forms to the public who are mostinterested and need to know what is happening. 

Law EnforcementThe historical record shows that if affirmativeaction programs required of federal contractors areto be effective, government monitoring and sanctions are required. (Leonard 1994). While generalagreement exists that there is room for improvement, neither surveyed corporate leaders norminority male executives who participated in focusgroups called for any drastic changes in currentcompliance requirements. In fact, the majority ofthe CEOs interviewed stated that law enforcementhad been useful in “keeping us aware” or “keeping iton the front burner,” despite the inconvenience of

“more paperwork downstairs.”Jonathan Leonard’s paper prepared for the FederalGlass Ceiling Commission demonstrates the weaknesses of past efforts to improve employmentopportunities for minorities and women throughvoluntary action. When the threat of enforcementis not real, the contract compliance program ceasesto have any demonstrable positive effect on minority and female employment.

The Internal Business Barriersthat Affect the Glass CeilingCorporate leaders say that they want to removethe barriers that obstruct access to the top. Rareindeed is the white male high-level executive whopublicly opposes the principle of inclusion.Corporate leaders are talking the talk of inclusionyet minorities and women express dismay and
Corporate leaders say that they want

to remove the barriers that obstructaccess to the top. Rare, indeed, is thewhite male high-level executive whopublicly opposes the principles ofinclusion. 

31

hat they perceive to be

eir corporate advance

ference between what

wants to happen and

Hispanic Policy

 If we are to begin to

nce exists, we must

ns:

g cause that we must 

/structural barriers 

e to remove the glass 

 

on CEO survey, focus

 by Woo, Bell and

as, Wernick, Woody

ndent research con

anic Policy

, Morrison and

ass ceiling exists

f many white males

ng—losing the corpo

nd losing opportunity.

el white male man

minorities and women

hreat to their own

hey fear that they are

e. White male middle

ho were interviewed

in independent studies, frequently alluded to lossof opportunity. The following comments from“Off the Record,” an unpublished manuscriptmade available to the Federal Glass CeilingCommission by the Hispanic Policy DevelopmentProject, are illustrative: 

“Look, you change the cast, you change the play. We are talking about more than pleasant diversity. We are talking about control.” “If they are in, there’s less of a chance for me.Why would I want a bigger pool? White mencan only lose in this game. I’m endangered.”

Those corporate leaders who have successfullyaddressed these internal business barriers to theadvancement of minorities and women are thosewho have squarely confronted the reality that their

priorities and the priorities of their middle- andupper-level managers are not always the same. Many surveyed CEOs—even those who favoredinclusion and readily admitted that there wasupper- and middle-level white male resistance—tended to underestimate just how threatenedsome of the “white men in the middle” are by theinclusion of minorities and women. CEOs are notthreatened by the newcomers. As a consequence,the following business-based barriers to theadvancement of minorities and women are notalways being as forcefully addressed as they should
be even in companies that have made a commitment to inclusion.Internal Structural Business BarriersOutreach and Recruitment Barriers—Most companies still prefer to grow their own leaders.Those who do not engage in active recruitmentcampaigns for minorities and women are notgoing to make much progress in advancing them.Most companies recruit on college campuses fortheir potential executives of the future. The individuals who are recruited are the “best and thebrightest.” Business leaders are very clear aboutthis. Business seeks and recruits only the “cream ofthe crop” as prospective corporate leaders. Business also competes. Those corporations withsubstantial recruitment budgets actively vie for thetop students from the top schools. Competition isso keen for some groups—African American men,for example—that some smaller companies reported that they can’t even schedule visits to campusesthat are likely to have these candidates. They feelthat this is a major barrier to their achieving diversity. CEOs of larger companies agreed with them,reporting that they identify promising candidatesin college in their freshman year and commit tothem with scholarships or internship arrangements.It is important to note that corporate leaders didnot express concern about finding African

American women. In fact they reported that it was“easy to find top-quality Black women.” What is notclear is whether the recruiters envision the samepotential futures for the men as the women. AreBlack men being recruited for the same kinds ofmanagement jobs as are Black women? Are theybeing judged by the same standards?Asian and Pacific Islander American men presented no recruitment challenges, accordingto the CEOs who were interviewed. They said thatthey know where to find them; they go after themand place them in professional positions. Theyalso reported no problem in recruiting Asian andPacific Islander American women. When it came to other groups, not knowing where tolook emerged as a recurrent theme and barrier.American Indians appear nowhere on the radarscreens of most businesses and Hispanics onlyappear around the edges. There was a general feeling expressed by CEOs that “we don’t know where to

look for Hispanics.” Indeed, several had recruited

foreign nationals who spoke Spanish and who hadbeen trained in U.S. business schools. CEOs ofHispanic-owned businesses, however, report thatthey can find highly qualified Hispanics with“whatever credential you want” to fill top jobs. They

agree with the mainstream CEOs that “the mainstream guys just don’t know where to look.”
Corporate America has not 

demonstrated the flexibility required toexpand its traditional recruiting networks.

33

orporate America has

ility required to

ting networks. Few

w and different

nd women. Most have

rms to find minority

eck: NY Hearing

n the initiative to

mple, a member of

 Association of

ts (AESC)—which has

estified at the Los

AESC is a major pro

dergoing a re-exami

dard guidelines asn advancing diversity.

does not happen

e still reluctant to

expanding their net

ced that a market

mpany candidly stated

nto the minorities

re that it is worth

building them until

es.”

Another said,

“Listen, I’m meeting my bottom line and I wantto find the people that the client wants. My reputation is based on my track record of gettingthem candidates they are comfortable with. I can’t bring in too many minorities andwomen.”

Some corporate leaders say they have been unableto find enough top-quality minority candidatesfrom top graduate schools, and have resorted torecruiting proven managers from their competition or from the military. (One CEO declared,“We steal, pirate and seduce—all of the above.”) On

the upside, this practice has produced a cadre ofhighly paid, experienced minority male managers.On the down side, individuals who make too manylateral moves are, in the opinion of many of theCEOs who were interviewed, less likely to be invited into top management because it is assumedthat they are likely to move on. Furthermore, mosttop executives still are “company men” who have

come up through the ranks.The Corporate Climate Barriers—Once individuals have been recruited, differing communication styles and ideas of what is appropriate and acceptable behavior can knowingly or inadvertently create barriers to theiradvancement and can influence supervisors’ evaluations of their performance and potential. 
Today the prevailing culture of many businesses is

a white male culture. As the CEO of a majornational retailer said:

“The old-line companies are run by the white‘46 long’ guys who practice inappropriate malerituals that are dysfunctional to business. Malebonding through hunting, fishing, and sportstalk is irrelevant to business. Too much socalled ‘strategic planning’ takes place after thebars close—that kind of male fellowship ritualis irrelevant to business.” 

It may be irrelevant, but it thrives. Commissionresearch, testimony at public hearings, and comments made in the focus groups all spoke to thedifficulty and stress that minorities and womenexperience living in two worlds that are in someways incompatible. Minorities and women frequently related how hard they tried to discern thenorms and rules of the white male corporate climate and to conform to them. Some went on tosay that no matter how hard they tried to conform, it didn’t help. They feel excluded from theformal and informal networks that promoteadvancement. One participant in a focus group described thecultural gulf that minorities and women experience as the inability to build “kinship” with whitemen. Several echoed this view when they spoke ofhow they were excluded from “going out for beers”

or “to the gym” with the boss. They saw this exclusion as a barrier. They felt that those who wereinvited to the beer-bonding sessions or the gymhad better chances of promotion. Many focus group participants spoke of the difficulty of decoding the corporate communicationstyle, both across the gender line and between cultures. Much has been written about the differingways in which men and women communicate andtherefore perceive each other. Less hard data isavailable about what different ethnic and racialgroups consider to be appropriate ways of communicating in given situations and settings.Still other focus group participants expressed discomfort at the corporate practice of includingfamilies in business-related social events. In theircultures, wives are not expected or encouraged toparticipate in business-related matters. The participants explained that they were willing to adapt totraditional corporate norms but were dismayedthat workplace acceptance required an invasion oftheir family privacy and violation of their culturalpractices. One man’s question posed the dilemma, “How much do I have to deny who and what I amto succeed in this company?”Be it modes of dress, modes of communication, ormodes of socializing, many minorities and womenfeel that the corporate climate selects them out of

advancement. Unfortunately, many business leaders

ly

scern

e male

m to
35

mfort minorities and

h, public hearings,

show that minorities

nnot overcome this

how they modify their

orporate climate. One

to accept the white

utes the good life. But

emonstrate excellent

rds, it doesn’t 

e frustrated when they

 their frustration trans

Hearing 1994). Anger

cism, sexism, and sexu

inorities and women

to internalize their

ould not said that they

titude” or “a chip on my

d, only increased to

ates to how white men

s more minorities and

te positions, some

ve that minorities and

mposing different 

 styles on them. They,

 Some envision the

extremes—white men won’t be able to get jobs, allwomen will sue men who pay them compliments,and if their houses are on fire they won’t be rescuedbecause the firefighters will be women who can’tcarry them. Many white men feel at risk. They usedto “know the rules” and they competed only againsteach other. Now those that they excluded from thegame have become players and some white menfear that minorities and women may gain power andexclude them. It is interesting that few white menperceive the historical denial of opportunity suffered by minorities and women as “loss.” The loss

they see is that which they fear will happen to them.White male anxiety is understandable but it contributes to the preservation of the glass ceiling anddenies business the diversity it needs to remain competitive.The Pipeline Barriers—The corporate pipeline hasa series of glass ceilings that can block the access ofan individual to the top. White male anxiety and thepersistence of a traditional corporate culture caninfluence how and whether middle-level supervisorsdirect the career paths of minorities and womenover or under these multiple glass ceilings. If the message from the CEO at the top is not clear and doesnot demand accountability, minorities and womenare often subject to the policies and practices thatact as barriers to their advancement. The major barriers identified by Commission research, CEOstudies, and focus groups are these:

White male anxiety is understandablebut it contributes to the preservationof the glass ceiling and denies business the diversity it needs toremain competitive.The corporate pipeline has a series ofglass ceilings that can block the accessof an individual to the top.
• Initial placement and clustering in 

relatively dead-end staff jobs or highly technical professional jobs 

• Lack of mentoring• Lack of management training• Lack of opportunities for career 

development 

• Lack of opportunities for training tailored 

to the individual

• Lack of rotation to line positions or job 

assignments that are revenue producing 

• Little or no access to critical developmental 

assignments, including service on highly visible task forces and committees

• Different standards for performance 

evaluation

• Biased rating and testing systems• Little or no access to informal networks of 

communication

• Counterproductive behavior and 

harassment by colleagues 

It is important to understand that, in any given setting, these practices are tailored to different groupsin different ways, but the end result is the same—they all strengthen the glass ceiling. 

IN CONCLUSIONCorporate leaders estimate that it takes 20 or 25 years in a corporation to achieve a high-level management position. That means that businesses who

sought inclusion in the late 1960s are now crackingthe ceiling, while most of those who started later arefar behind. Using that same measure, businessesthat are just beginning to diversify their workforcesare unlikely to see significant change at the seniorlevels until well into the 21st century. This is notmeant to be a justification for lack of progress. It is awarning—the later a business starts, the later it willget where it is going. Change comes hard and it carries a price tag. It isnot painless. However, it can be handled well or itcan be handled poorly. Companies have made thetransition from exclusion to inclusion while continuing to prosper. The information in the next section, What Works to Overcome The Business Barriers? is

drawn from their experiences. One focus group participant succinctly summed upwhy and how the citizens of a pluralistic nation muststrive to work together—

“My first impression is that there is an ‘usagainst them’ mentality. So you must remove theracist thoughts that lie deep in the soul. And youdo that by removing all doubts about intention,remove the myths about upbringing.Understanding and familiarity breed togethernessand together we shall prosper as one.”
WHAT WORKS TO OVERCOME THE BUSINESS BARRIERS?
“The theme of the future must be inclusion, not

exclusion—inclusion not at the expense of anygroup, but to the benefit of all.”

Solomon TrujilloPresident and CEOUS West Marketing Resources

The societal, government, and internal business

barriers identified in the previous section areinterrelated. They form a maze as well as a set ofhurdles. There is, therefore, no one golden paththrough, over, under, or around the glass ceiling.Corporate America alone did not erect all thesebarriers and it alone cannot be expected toremove them. However, barriers internal to businessmust be removed from within, and most corporateleaders recognize this. They understand that bothindividual and organizational change are requiredto open up the old networks and to change thefamiliar old ways of doing things. This section,What Works to Overcome the Business Barriers?describes the experiences of those companies thathave committed themselves to dismantling theglass ceiling. It is divided into three parts:

Part I, Characteristics of Successful Programs, identifies the organizing principles and elements common to successful programs. 

Part II, Case Studies, presents brief case studies of

comprehensive programs implemented by threehighly successful and profitable companies. Part III, 100 Corporate Practices, summarize information on successful corporate practices. This

information - in table form - is found in theAppendix. 

WHAT WORKS TO OVERCOME THE BUSINESS BARRIERS?
e easily is evidenced by

ting the glass ceilings.

re moving ahead and

vely. Although the

r plans differ accord

 companies, the 

common to all 

tives: 

ort

he organization

ceptions and

untability

sive (Catalyst 1993).

AMS HAVE 

rong and sustained

k when the CEO and

vocates for change and

nize that time alone

barriers to the

and women. 

Consequently, their strategic business plans include strategies for advancing minorities andwomen. Each CEO and leadership team mustdemonstrate that inclusion of minorities andwomen is a top business priority. Otherwise thebest-laid strategic plans designed to change how abusiness recruits, hires, develops, and promotes itsworkforce will fail. In the words of Ann Morrison,“it is the proactive, relentless intervention ofsenior executives in the organization that makesthe most difference.”

SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS ARE SPECIFIC TO THE ORGANIZATIONSuccessful programs begin by identifying theinternal barriers specific to the corporate cultureand the working environment of minorities andwomen. No two companies are alike. Corporateleaders need to be alert to the danger of benchmarking against the programs of other companieswithout first identifying their own internal barriers to the advancement of minorities andwomen. What works in one situation may not beeffective elsewhere. Programs must be tailored tomeet specific needs. 39

Successful programs have strong andsustained CEO support. Programswork when the CEO and senior-linemanagers are advocates for changeand act accordingly.

TERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS 

ARE INCLUSIVESuccessful corporate efforts to remove barriers arenot exclusive to minority men or to women andthey do not exclude white males. Many white meninterpret a policy of inclusion of minorities andwomen to mean that the opportunities of whitemen are being limited. Some believe that asminorities and women gain advancement, whitemen will lose the opportunities they have historically enjoyed. On the contrary, inclusive programsdo not subtract from the leadership pool—theyadd to it by making opportunities available to allby removing the barriers that have historicallyexcluded minorities and women. Public testimony and CEO comments supportresearch findings that businesses have shiftedfrom programs that addressed the specific needsof minorities and women to more systematicapproaches that include all qualified employees. CEOsreport that inclusive initiatives make good sensefor the following business reasons: 

• The entire organization benefits from 

accountability, leadership training, career development, succession planning, mentoring, and diversity training that all are good for all individual employees. 

• Programs targeted at only one group may 

contribute to a stereotype that the members of that targeted group are inadequate or unqualified. 

• Programs that are open to all qualified 

employees overcome suspicions aboutselective treatment. This meets a concern expressed by senior executives. 

Companies that have made progress in eliminating glass ceiling barriers with minimum disruption have attacked it from two directions. Theyhave emphasized common needs of all employees forconstructive performance appraisal, frequentfeedback, coaching, and mentoring. These techniques improve the work environment andadvancement opportunities for everybody. At thesame time, they have addressed the differences, real orperceived, that affect the opportunities of differentemployees for development and advancement. And,they have systematically monitored the development and advancement of particular groups within the employee population.

SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS ADDRESS PRECONCEPTIONS AND STEREOTYPESDiversity training—training that addresses stereotypes and preconceptions, issues of sexual andracial harassment, cultural differences, and stylesof communication—has been used by many corporations in their efforts to eliminate the glassceiling. Diversity training is useful for debunking

ograms

 of

ystem

 
f minorities and

ss, but diversity 

the glass ceiling 

e careful not to 

a panacea, thereby

y and attack internal

as three common 

uired to participate.

not separate top 

- and middle-level 

e and participation of 

ortant and signals 

n are not isolated for 

 special programs 

dvantage of appearing 

omings” of the group.

994). 

on

xclusively the domain

ommunication were a 

understood what other

sarily by what they said

has changed on the

agement suite.

g their own styles of 

oliferation of styles

isunderstanding.

Misunderstandings cost money. Business can illafford breakdowns in communication. Corporateleaders have become increasingly aware of theneed to overcome barriers to communicationsand of the need to bridge internal communication gaps. Companies are providing training onthe differences in communications styles in orderto sensitize all employees to the subtleties of thesedifferent styles. Such training helps employees tounderstand the meanings of the words and thebody language of their colleagues.

Cultural DifferencesA perception shared by many minority men andby many women is that they are expected to playby white male rules in order to get ahead or even tobe accepted in a corporate culture. There is nodoubt that a certain level of conformity isrequired in business as it is throughout the largersociety. However, as business management increasingly reflects the pluralistic nature of U.S. society,many businesses have realized that the harmony—and therefore the efficiency and effectiveness—of the workplace requires greater sensitivity to cultural differences.The businesses that have moved towards diversityare those that have undertaken extensive trainingfor everyone—from the CEO on down—and havethen evaluated organizational attitudes, behaviors,expectations, practices, and policies in an attempt to establish a way of treating and judging allemployees that is as neutral as possible.

Diversity training is useful fordebunking myths about the suitabilityof minorities and women for careersin business, but diversity trainingalone will not solve the glass ceiling problem.

41
In some corporations, those traditional business

norms that are not acceptable in some societiesand are not directly relevant to the functioning ofbusiness are no longer used to judge employees.Other companies have eliminated some of the traditional male rituals—for example, they no longersponsor annual fishing expeditions or golf tournaments as corporate events. Successful Programs Emphasize AccountabilityIn all organizations, but especially in large ones,managers down the line generally carry considerable responsibility and wield great power in theirdomains. Therefore, the top leadership team ofany business intent on change must communicateits desire down the line and then support its message with clearly defined expectations.Accountability reinforces the message from thetop that progress toward inclusiveness is being assessed and will be rewarded. Managers must beheld accountable for the development andadvancement of minorities and women. Goals andtimetables must be agreed upon, measurableresults must be established, and incentives,rewards, and penalties must be tied to performance in meeting the goals and achieving results. Those CEOs who demanded this kind of accountability report that when the initial grumbling subsides, managers begin to compete to achieve andthe rate of change is accelerated. Several CEOs

cautioned that it is important to emphasize to allmanagers that inclusion does not mean changingstandards. Merit and performance remain thebasis for selecting potential senior managers.

Successful Programs Track ProgressSuccessful programs require constant attention,oversight, and review in order to ensure thatprogress is steady and that course corrections aremade as needed. Corporate leaders report thateffective programs rely on a tracking system thatmonitors the progress of high potential minoritiesand women to make sure that they acquire abroad range of experience in core business areasand are able to compete for leadership positionsat all levels. Successful Programs are ComprehensiveSingle-pronged programs have little effect on glass ceilings. Isolated interventions here or there,however brilliant, do not result in lasting change. For example, programs that help employees balance work/family responsibilities should be maintained and strengthened because they are undeniably beneficial to all employees. However, they dolittle to attack structural barriers in the corporateculture and work environment. This point was emphasized by a testifier at theFederal Glass Ceiling Commission public hearingin New York City. Speaking as an expert on issuesof diversity and managerial and professional-tech- 

able

cement
es the glass ceiling

ructural barriers to

oming it may involve

 also involves

made progress in

 are those using com

gned to bring high

men into the corpora

 up within the corpo

tment get people in.

eer development, 

d assessment and pro

e on up.

ent

identification of

ements in any long

glass ceiling. A busi

and recruit minorities

reers is unlikely ever

positions. The same is

 not identify and

inorities and women

ve minorities and

me through the glass

ne strategy. Proven

strategies include:

• Providing internships targeted to minorities 

and women during their undergraduate years as a means of identifying potential managers. Internships have proven to be extremely effective first steps in the identification and development of minority and female employees and managers.

• Emphasizing the responsibility of managers 

for recruitment. Some high-level managers have served on corporate teams that recruit and interview on college campuses. Other managers have been rewarded for identifying and recommending nontraditional candidates.

• Using executive search firms that specialize 

in placement of women and minority men. Often owned by women or minority men, these “headhunting” firms have their own networks that lead to candidates who are often invisible to traditional search firms.

• Making executive search firms accountable 

for bringing forward the best candidates available regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity by emphasizing that the firm is expected to identify top-quality candidates with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. The CEOs who employed this strategy say that they are getting a better mix of candidates than they did before making their expectations very clear to the search firms.

• Asking female or non-white CEOs for 43

A business that does not seek out andrecruit minorities and women early intheir careers is unlikely ever to havethem in leadership positions. 
advice and referrals. CEOs who have sought 

advice and referrals report that this not only identified candidates, but also strengthened their credibility with skeptical female and minority candidates.

• Recruiting entry-level candidates in groups. 

One Fortune 1000 business that has begun to recruit heavily from historically Black colleges and universities reported that many graduating seniors preferred to be hired in groups of two or three. Most were from rural areas, had little or no experience living in metropolitan areas, and had maintained close family and community ties through frequent visits home during their college years. Because these candidates would be placed in year-long management training programs in major cities far from their homes, the business attempted to ease the transition to an urban corporate culture. The CEO felt that the company’s flexibility in addressing the candidates’ sense of isolation did not detract from successful business practices. In fact, it demonstrated to the candidates an understanding that was likely to be returned in their loyalty and commitment to his business.

Leadership and Career DevelopmentProgramsUnless minorities and women with outstandingpotential are placed on the “star track” or the “fasttrack” and are then included in long-term leadership and career development programs, they areunlikely to be promoted into the positions thatlead to the top. Development programs are longrange and broad-based. They are designed tobuild skills that managers need to lead a companyin a changing competitive climate. Whereas training programs are typically short-term and highlyspecific, development programs meet long-termgoals along the 20 to 25 year career path to seniormanagement.Successful glass ceiling initiatives identify andmonitor the progress of high potential managers.The initiatives ensure that the managers acquirethe broad range of experience in core businessareas necessary to compete for senior leadershippositions. Successful leadership and career development programs share four common characteristics:

• Information about criteria for eligibility is 

clearly stated in writing and widely distributed

• High potential individuals are identified at 

all levels of the organization

• Training and educational opportunities are 

made available to all employees who have met those performance, skill, and knowledge criteria
A career path process identifies the

objective performance, skill, andknowledge criteria for moving fromone level in a job to the next, enablingindividuals to plan their own growthand advancement .

 identifies the objec

l, and knowledge

om one level in a job 

individuals to plan 

 advancement 

ernick 1994). 

f career development

are much the same for

white men. They

 assignments and

ect the career options

r company. They

 non traditional job

ents broaden the base

re and visibility in dif

nd provide opportuni

ies in an environment

assignments. They

r leadership through

d special assignments.

ways existed in the

ontext, mentors are

can be depended

ghts and provide guid

e the performance

unior employees.

hat having a mentor

dividual’s career

ent. The person who

makes it to the executive suite without the supportand encouragement of a mentor is rare indeed.Minorities and women seldom have strong mentors to guide them through the corporate thickets.(Some reasons for their lack of mentors will bepresented in the Group Environmental Scans.)Over the past decade, corporations have focusedon this shortcoming by providing structured programs. They have established formal mentoring programs for minorities and women who havetraditionally been excluded from the informalmentoring process. Formal mentoring programsmake the process more widely available, more efficient and meaningful, and more equitablethan is often the case with informal mentoring. Research done by Catalyst for the Glass CeilingCommission shows that the following elements arecommon to the most effective programs: 

• Objectives are linked to a business goal• Support of top management• Comprehensive planning (including 

guidelines and training)

• Involvement of protégé’s supervisor• Voluntary participation• Monitoring and evaluation

Businesses are not limiting themselves to mentoring programs to provide career guidance and support. Employee-sponsored networks and affinitygroups also support career development and provide leadership opportunities through confer- 45
ences, seminars, and workshops. One participant

described the value of networks in these words:

“[We] share strategies and information that is unavailable elsewhere. Those who are close to or through the glass ceiling tell others where thecracks are and what size hammer to bring.”

Assessment and PromotionOutreach, recruitment, leadership training,career development, mentoring, and networksaffect who is going to move into senior management. Businesses have clearly marked paths to thetop and those individuals who aspire to seniorleadership have to get onto those paths and thenmove along them. The rate at which one movesalong is controlled by assessment of performancein the various jobs that represent the stops alongthe way. Assessment and promotion can be, and often are, subjective decisions. Minorities and women often feel that they are evaluated unfairly—that stereotypes and prejudice are filtersthrough which they and their performances arejudged.The companies that have been most successful inovercoming subjective judgments and that, therefore, have better track records of promotingminorities and women, recommend adoption ofthe following practices and processes: 

• Clearly written job descriptions that define 

responsibility and expected outcomes

• Cross-divisional Assessment and Promotion 

Committees to review promotion and succession decisions, reduce personal and subjective opinion, and place maximum emphasis on merit

• Vertical and horizontal organization of 

work and working relationships to provide and support opportunities for lateral mobility 

• A formal system of open communication 

whereby the criteria for success is clearly stated and available to all employees 

• Feedback on performance and information 

needed for career planning is available and accessible to all employees (Catalyst 1993).

These practices demystify and equalize advancement and promotion processes and policies.

The Next StepCorporate leaders perceive change in the businessenvironment to be the factor that is driving 

business to take a hard look at the glass ceilingand remove the barriers that keep minorities andwomen stalled. The first step in any successful initiative is to take a hard look at the organizationitself—the presence, status, and opportunities ofminorities and women within the corporate culture. Part II, Case Studies of Successful Programs,

describes three companies whose leaders took ahard look at their organizations, did not like whatthey saw, and did something about it. 

have

rough
ommission has found

awareness of glass ceil

vercome glass ceiling 

oneer initiatives to

ntinue to do so. The

ffered by these

ct on the lifelong

people of color who

 families daily care,

romotions and 

s section briefly

e companies—Xerox

mble, and IBM—that

glass ceiling barriers

e and profitable.

dership—Almost 

on, the founder of

e value of the corpora

nd respecting people.”

elieves that a diverse

mpetitive edge. 

ects senior managers

alanced workforce

and holds them accountable for achieving thosegoals. In turn, senior managers hold their managers to the same standards. An annual memoentitled Balanced Workforce Performance, reports theworkforce participation of minorities and womenand summarizes progress in meeting the goals.Under its Minority/Female Supplier Program, thecompany also holds its vendors to high standardsof workforce diversity while expanding their business opportunities. In 1992, Xerox spent $196 million with minority- and women-ownedbusinesses.Outreach and Recruitment—Xerox has a longstanding and successful employee referral systemin which all employees are encouraged to referfriends and relatives to apply for employment. In the 1960s, Xerox initiated special efforts torecruit women and minority men, beginning with Booster, a collaborative program with UrbanLeague affiliates, and Step-Up, a minority outreach program in Rochester, New York. Today the company has one team of African Americanmanagers who serve as liaisons with historicallyBlack colleges and universities and another team 

47

“Workforce diversity is a priority atXerox and adds value to our business.Diversity of our workforce requires anopenness by all employees in respect toage, race, gender, and thought.”

CEO Paul Allaire

UDIES OF SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS
of Hispanic managers who coordinate efforts to

recruit Hispanic men and women.Training—All employees are kept aware of company policies on issues sexual, racial, andethnic harassment. A brochure highlighting thecompany policy is given to every employee. Xeroxinstituted workshops in sexual harassment prevention in 1982.Development—High potential employees arecounseled on the steps necessary to advance theircareers. Their job assignments support theiradvancement—for example, of the 80 Xerox managers currently on international assignments,13 are women and 23 are minorities. A key element of the succession-planning process is toimprove the representation of minorities andwomen in upper management—currently 20 percent of Xerox vice presidents are members of minority groups and 12 percent are women.Twenty-four percent of the corporate officers arewomen and minorities 1.

Mentoring—Caucus groups are fundamental tothe company’s mentoring activities. All groups areemployee-initiated and employee-funded. Theyconduct workshops, conferences, and individualmentoring activities on management processes,career planning activities, and work/family issues. 

1The category “minorities” includes both men and women, so that a femaleemployee is counted here both under the category “women” and as aminority.

The company also has support groups based onsexual orientation, disability, and functionalexpertise.Work and Family—Xerox’s Life Cycle Assistancecombines a variety of work/family programs thatinclude income-based subsidies for child care, customized medical benefits, an employee assistance program, and tuition aid for employees.
dership—More than

mble’s President

r to his senior 

company simply had

ployment for African

n Edwin Artz sends 

ore than 100,000

mpany’s diversity 

 conviction that, in 

managing a strong,

 to achieving our busi

business unit has spe

ent and advancement

 well as plans for

on hiring, promotions,

e entered into a 

surement System, he ability to track

he number of women

evel has doubled in

mber of minorities at

as tripled.

—P&G provides 

duate Engineering 

he National Urban

ogram, and the

s Colleges’ Cluster

Program. In 1993, 47 percent of the interns werewomen and 46 percent were minorities. P&G provides leadership and support for several programs designed to attract minority students to engineering and science and the company provides support to numerous women’s andminority organizations.During the past 10 years the company’s record of hiring and promoting minorities and womeninto management has been strong, with womenaveraging approximately 40 percent and minoritymen approximately 25 percent of new hires.Training—All employees participate in diversitytraining. The company’s goal is to create a business environment in which individual differences are not only valued but celebrated and prized.Development—Development programs are customized to give each employee opportunities,tools, and skills needed to realize his or her fullpotential. P&G College, designed to reach allemployees, is staffed by senior managers whoteach basic business courses fundamental to business success.Mentoring—Dozens of networking and supportgroups exist throughout the company—for example, Women Supporting Women (WSW) and the Asian American Self Directed Learning 49

“Developing and managing a strong,diverse organization is essential toachieving our business purpose andobjectives.”

Chairman Edwin Artz
Conference. WSW’s annual workshop brings

together mid-level women managers to discuss job growth and development issues. The LearningConference helps Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans understand cultural differences andperceptions that affect business operations.Experienced P&G managers serve as counselors,coaches, guides, and advisors to less experiencedemployees and are available to all employees upon request.

Work and Family—P&G considers family-friendlypolicies as an investment that pays off in attractingand retaining employees. Family-friendly programs include child care leave, adoption assistance, on-site medical screening, employeeassistance programs, tuition reimbursement forcollege courses, flexible schedules, and financialsupport of nearby child-care facilities.
dership—In 1935,

sional women in 

Watson declared, 

me kind of work for

uis V. Gerstner, Jr., 

rategic and tactical

 diversity the subject

ers. He wrote,

y to be of real 

s. As the marketplace

e, IBM’s competitive

gh a workforce

iversity of the 

e growing diversity

als for minorities 

here they are under

of achieving represen

ty at all levels in the

nnual appraisal

s or her efforts in

diversity profile.

d for each minority

se analyses compare

oyees with their 

white and male peers.

Outreach and Recruitment—IBM was the firstcompany in the U.S. to support the United Negro College Fund in 1944, its initial year. The Company began active college recruiting athistorically Black colleges in the 1950s. In 1972IBM initiated the Faculty Loan Program whichallows employees to take up to a year off to work for a college, at full IBM salary, in projectsaddressing the needs of disadvantaged, female, or disabled students. More than 1000 employeeshave participated. In 1991 IBM established theMinority Campus Executive Program. AfricanAmerican, American Indian, Asian and PacificIslander, and Hispanic American executives serveas liaisons with the presidents of 24 colleges thathave large/predominantly African American,Hispanic American, Asian and Pacific IslanderAmerican, and American Indian populations.IBM recruits from colleges and universities that have significant numbers of women andminority students. Critical to recruitment arethese three principles:

• Equal employment and affirmative action 

are treated as business objectives

• Line managers at all levels are accountable 

for progress in meeting diversity objectives

• Investing time and effort in recruiting and 

sustaining a supply of diverse employees long-term, continuing success in meeting diversity objectives 51

“. . . IBM’s competitiveness will beenhanced through a workforce whichreflects the growing diversity of the external labor force, and the growingdiversity of our customers.”

CEO Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. 
Training—All company diversity training 

programs use an IBM video, “Valuing Diversity: A Competitive Advantage.” Diversity councils identify, recommend, and implement plans and programs to enhance workforce diversitymanagement. The councils meet regularly andcoordinate roundtable exchanges and focusgroups to discuss opportunities, challenges, andconcerns of the workforce. Training in sexualharassment prevention is an integral part of allemployee training.Development—Attendance at IBM’s executiveseminars is an important training experience inthe company—in 1993, 22 percent of thoseattending were women and 7.7 percent wereminorities. In the same year, 25 percent of thosewho attended IBMs advanced management schoolwere women and 15.7 percent were minorities.A key developmental experience is an international job assignment—an experience outside of theU.S. in a different culture and work environment.From 1991 to the end of 1993, more than 500employees participated—15 percent were womenand 9.6 percent were minorities 1.

It is a requirement that the opportunity to use the Employee Development Plan process be 

1The category “minorities” includes both men and women, so that a femaleemployee is counted here both under the category “women” and as aminority.

offered to each woman, minority, Vietnam-era veteran, and person with a disability. TheEmployee Development Plan is a document usedin partnership between the employee and themanager to understand and maximize strengths,and to identify and address weakness. It also provides a vehicle to discuss career aspirations and to establish a plan to help achieve reasonablecareer objectives.Mentoring—The goal of IBM’s MentoringProgram is two-fold. First, it provides a place where women and minorities, and people with disabilities can go for “penalty-free advice”; andsecond, to provide senior employees and managers the opportunity to have a variety ofcoaching, developing, and managerial experiences with people who are different from them.Mentoring begins as soon as an employee joinsIBM. The program supports employees at three levels:

• Officer Level—Mentors guide selected 

women and minorities who have been identified as potential corporate officers

• Corporate Level—Mentors guide selected 

women and minorities who have been identified as potential executives

• Noncorporate Level—Mentors guide new 

employees to provide early career assistance and maximize their career growth.
going goal in this 

hese programs are

ient tools to achieve

/Life Programs are

ees be productive

family needs.

ork hours and flexible

ave program, and

t. Work/Life

nd 1991 provided

ograms, and led to 

rojects/programs.

mitment to the 

upport. In 1989, IBM

for Dependent Care

Initiatives, a $25 million investment made over theyears 1990-1994. During that period more than500 child care/elder care projects were funded incommunities where IBM employees live and work.In addition, in 1992, IBM was one of the 11“Champion” companies that funded TheAmerican Business Collaboration for QualityDependent Care. It was the largest collaborationin U.S. history that included 156 organizationsand invested 27 million dollars in 355 projects in 45 communities.

53
In its examination of corporate glass ceiling 

initiatives, the Federal Glass Ceiling Commissionfound that comprehensive, systemic approachesare more likely to have lasting positive impactthan isolate, one-shot or ad hoc approaches.Because they are designed to overcome the structural barriers specific to the business, differentglass ceiling initiatives emphasize different components. However, research suggests that effectiveinitiatives include components of the seven elements listed below. (The summary tables areorganized by the following element headings andare found in the Appendices.)

• Leadership and Career Development

AAA—American Automobile AssociationAT&TBarnett BankConnecticut MutualContinental InsuranceCorning Glass Works, Inc.Fannie MaeGannett Co., Inc.Hewlett-Packard Co.JC Penney Co., Inc.Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance CompanyMorrison & FoersterNew England Telephone - NYNEX

Pacific Gas and ElectricSC Johnson WaxTom’s of MaineUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroUS WEST

• Rotation/Nontraditional Employment

American AirlinesAvon Products, Inc.Chubb & Son, Inc.Con EdisonE.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company

• Mentoring

AT&TChubb & Son, Inc.CIGNADow Jones & CompanyE.I. du Pont de Nemours & CompanyExxon Research & Engineering Co.First Interstate Bank of CaliforniaJC Penney Co., Inc.New England Telephone - NYNEXPitney-Bowes, Inc.Procter & Gamble

• Accountability Programs

Baxter Healthcare CorporationCorning Glass Works, Inc.Square D Co.

PART III: 100 CORPORATE PRACTICES
dge

ctric & Gas Company

nitiatives

c.

Y Silicone 

ivision

rvices

hnic Institute

for Women of Color

e Women’s 

Networks

 Inc.

Reserve University

Roche

c.

Racial Awareness 

en & Co.

 Nemours & Company

 Inc.

ft

3MMCA, Inc.North Broward Hospital DistrictPitney-Bowes, Inc.Port Authority of NY & NJRaychem CorporationRyder Systems, Inc.Tenneco, Inc.Texas Instruments

—(d) Elimination of Sexual 

Harassment

Apple ComputerAT&TE.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company

• Family-Friendly Programs

Eastman Kodak CompanyFel-Pro, Inc.John Hancock Financial ServicesJohnson & JohnsonMarquette ElectronicsNationsBankSC Johnson WaxPacific Gas and ElectricJC Penney Co., Inc.Tandem Computer, Inc. US Sprint

—(a) Flexible Work Arrangements

Arthur Andersen & Co.Corning Glass Works, Inc.Eastman Kodak Company North Carolina National Bank Pacific Bell 55
The San Francisco Bar Association

Sidley & AustinSkadden, Arps, Slate, 

Meagher & Flom 

Steelcase, Inc.Tucson Medical Center

—(b) Parental Leave

Aetna Life & CasualtyCorning Glass Works, Inc. IBMProskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn

—(c) Dependent Care

Allstate Insurance CompanyAmerican Express CompanyAmoco CorporationChampion International CorporationIBM CorporationJohnson & JohnsonJ.P. Morgan, Inc.Motorola, Inc.Philip MorrisStride Rite CorporationThe TravelersWork/Family DirectionsXerox Corporation
THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN

tool corporations use to monitor key forces—demographic, economic, technological, political/legal, and social/cultural—

s—customers, competitors, suppliers, and labor—that affect the corporation’s ability to earn profits in the marketplace. 

It identifies strengths and weaknesses and opportunities and threats.

“The Concrete Wall” African Americans

“More Than Glass” American Indians

“The Impenetrable Glass” Asian & Pacific Islander Americans “The Two-Way Mirror” Hispanic Americans “The Classic Glass Ceiling” Women
Corporate leaders, individuals preparing for 

corporate advancement, researchers, and government officials agree that a glass ceiling exists, andthat it operates to exclude minorities and womenfrom top levels of management. In that respect, itis a glass ceiling with very few openings except forwhite non-Hispanic males. Although all affected groups experience the glassceiling as a serious limitation, the issues are notthe same for white women and women of color.They are not the same for women and minoritymen, and they are not the same for men of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Therefore,The Environmental Scan is divided into separate sections for African Americans, American Indians,Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, HispanicAmericans, and women.Each section examines the perceptions of groupmembers regarding the glass ceiling, the CEO perceptions of the group vis-à-vis the glass ceiling,and the popular stereotypes applied to the group.The pictures that the perceptions and stereotypespaint are then compared to the pictures thatemerge from analyses of available basic laborforce, education, placement, opportunity,advancement, and compensation information. 

(It is important to note that consistent data cannot always be provided across the groups,either because it has not been collected orbecause the datasets that contain it are not largeenough to support disaggregation.) Before focusing on the individual groups it ishelpful to look at the overarching perceptions,insights, and realities that make up the big pictureof how minorities and women are faring in theprivate sector.

CEO PERCEPTIONS OF THE GLASS CEILING

“Business is changing the way it does business because the climate—the whole environment—has changed.”“Glass ceilings are bad business.”

Under its mandate to do original research, theCommission contracted with researchers to conduct in-depth interviews with CEOs of variouskinds of corporations throughout the country inorder to secure up-to-date CEO views about theglass ceiling. 

the

ion,

white

ey are

nority

for

nic

THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN
ed in the Federal

urvey perceived change

 to be the factor that

s glass ceiling issues.

they are changing the

e of recent dramatic

fundamental to 

graphics of the graphics of the 

arkets

on of the marketplace 

 that, in order to 

changing national and

onments, businesses

ges. Business leaders

top quality people of 

that businesses need 

uccessfully, and

gardless of gender, 

essential to the health 

usiness.

merged from 

ns of the nature of

act on business: 

Os interviewed per

 as something that did 

longer does. Although they agree that parity between men and women has not yet been achieved—either in terms of decisionmaking jobs or in compensation—they believe that women have proven themselves to Corporate America over the past two decades and therefore are about to break through the glass ceiling in increasing numbers. 

• The CEOs interviewed have not 

internalized the broadened definition of the glass ceiling and are less likely to think of a glass ceiling as something that applies to minority males. Rather they attribute the scarcity of minority males at the top—who they first think of as African Americans—to a lack of qualified candidates, asserting that demand is high but supply is limited. Most described themselves as desperately seeking minority males for jobs at all levels, from top executives down to management trainees. 

• CEOs recognize that negative attitudes of 

some white males reflected in stereotypes, prejudice, and bias can and does hinder the advancement of minorities and women.Most acknowledge that resistance to minorities and women can be severe, especially “at the beginning,” and they understand that stereotypes conjure up the preconceptions, misconceptions, prejudice, and bias that influence 59

An overwhelming majority of theCEOs interviewed perceive the glassceiling as something that did affectwomen but no longer does.
corporate behavior in ways that can only 

solidify the glass ceiling. However, CEOs report that the high performance of minorities and women is slowly changing those negative attitudes, negating the argument that “diversity hires” equal underperformance.

• All CEOs interviewed strongly affirm the 

principle of merit. They declared—perhaps in reaction to the negative connotation of “diversity hires”

—that all recruits and 

employees should meet the same standards of preparedness, excellence, and performance, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity. 

• CEOs called attention to the fact that it is 

easier to institute change in good times than bad times. When a business is growing the inclusion of minorities and women is perceived as less of a problem because there is room for everybody. Conversely, when a business is not growing, or is downsizing, white males perceive inclusion of any new category of players as discrimination against white men that threatens their security. In times of downsizing and takeovers, “white male anxiety,” as described by Secretary Reich, “runs high just as it does for all other employees regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity.” 

HOW THE PERCEPTIONS OFMINORITIES AND WOMEN AND FACTUAL EVIDENCE RELATE TO WHAT THE CEOs PERCEIVEFederal Glass Ceiling Commission research conducted by Catalyst and others, and independentstudies conducted by Korn/Ferry Internationaland Heidrick & Struggles support the CEOs’ perception that minorities and women have madesome inroads into executive, administrative, andmanagerial positions in the past 20 years. However, white non-Hispanic males continue tohold an overwhelming majority of all management positions in the private sector—95 to 97 percent—and the advancement of others variessignificantly by gender, race, and ethnicity as evidenced in the Group scans that follow.Furthermore, the optimistic perceptions of theCEOs are not always shared by minorities andwomen inside corporations. They assert that theadvancement of white and non white women andminority men is blocked, and that minorities andwomen are still severely underrepresented at thesenior levels of Corporate America. Available datathat is cited in the following scans support thisperception.A representative of Korn/Ferry International, an executive recruitment firm, testified at the Los Angeles Public Hearing of the Federal Glass
rn/Ferry surveys of

1000 industrial and

es that were conduct

John E. Anderson

ment of the University

how steady progress 

male and female cate

y dramatically illus

men and women and

rmous.pondents 

 1982 and 1992

males

982 1992

97.3 95.0

1.0 2.30.4 1.81.3 0.20.0 0.50.0 0.2

00.0% 100.0%

Racial/Ethnic Origin of Respondents in Korn/Ferry International 1979 and 1989Surveys of Senior Level Males

1979 1989

Caucasian 99.1 96.9African American 0.2 0.6Asian 0.1 0.3Hispanic 0.1 0.4Other 0.1 0.0No Response 0.4 1.8Total 100.0% 100.0%

As noted before, research also supports the assertion of those CEOs who say that inclusion acrossthe board has been good for business. For example, the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School ofManagement at Northwestern University, reportedon a 1993 study conducted by the CovenantInvestment Management firm that rated the performance of the Standard and Poor’s 500 on thehiring and advancement of minority men andwomen, and on compliance with EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission and otherregulatory requirements. That study then compared these ratings to the annualized return oninvestment on the stock of these companies overthe most recent five-year period. It found that thestock market performance of the firms that hadgood glass ceiling records was approximately 2.4times higher than that of the firms that had poorglass ceiling records. 61
In another study compiled by four business school

professors examining the “impact that public service announcements of government awards forexemplary affirmative action programs have stockreturn behavior of winning firms.” Twenty-eightcompanies were chosen and provided definitiveresults supporting diversity management’s positiveimpact on corporate profitability. The averagereturn on the day of the announcement of winning the award was 0.459% and a more substantialraise of 0.581% was recorded for the day followingthe announcement, for a two-day total of nearly1.0%.Research also supports the perception of corporate leaders that it is good business to findand keep good employees. CEOs are aware ofwhat it costs to develop managers and what it costs to lose them if they leave because theybelieve their advancement is limited. A promisingmodel being developed by Professors Ann Barteland Anna Duran of Columbia School of Business(described at the Glass Ceiling Public Hearing in New York City) is beginning to reveal a similar pattern of recruitment, replacement, and unrealized potential costs associated withmaintaining a glass ceiling. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is an economicimperative to retain employees to leverage corporate investment in recruitment and careerdevelopment. 

Commission research (Woo, Hispanic PolicyDevelopment Project, Bell and Nkomo, MauricioGastón Institute, James et al., Wernick, Woody andWeiss, focus groups and the CEO Survey) as well a review of recent literature on managementdiversity, support the CEOs’ perceptions that negative attitudes of some white males can and dohinder the advancement of minorities andwomen.Americans in general are threatened by recentstructural changes in the economy and the natureof work. White men in particular feel threatenedby the demographic shifts that are altering theethnic and gender mix on the factory floor and inthe conference and board rooms. Not only dopeople have to change how they work, they arealso being simultaneously required to change withwhom they work. This is a serious issue and it hasspawned a specialized training industry to helpbusiness help their employees adapt to diversity.The case studies in this report indicate that companies that undertake sensitive and fair strategiesfor change can level the playing field for minorities and women. With time and training they canovercome the very real and understandable anxiety of all employees. Although the CEOs’ perception that it is easierto press for inclusion in times of growth than intimes of retrenchment is undoubtedly true,Commission research shows that minorities andwomen at the senior- levels did not lose groundover the last four- or five-year period of restructur- 

t

nior

he last

uctury at least because

ain through early

igible white males who

ongest. Federal Glass

h and testimony from

 that, at senior levels,

moved out, creating

n and women.

hat follow provide facts

y the legislation—on

rities and women inportunities, and the

ccess to decision

erest of neutrality the

 are presented in

er does not imply that

rtant than another.

ans and older

d in the Commission’s

s recognize that both

groups face barriers to their advancement to decisionmaking positions in management.)

63

Gross Domestic Product by Industry
(Industries as a % of GDP)Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Economic Analysis-1992

Industries included in this report represent 93% of Gross Domestic Product. 
The remaining 7% is concentrated in the Agriculture and Mining Industries.

0% 5%

Manufacturing 17.7%

8.8% Transportation &
 Public Utilities

Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade

Business Services

Finance, Insurance


& Real Estate

Public Administration

9.3%

6.6%

18.4%

19.6%

12.6%

10% 15% 20% 25%

Percent of GDP
GENERAL BACKGROUND

“There are far more Black persons who grew up inviable, stable, upward-striving Black families thanotherwise.”

Andrew Billingsley, Ph.D.Climbing Jacob’s Ladder:The Enduring Legacy of African American Families

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 12.1 percent

of United States citizens are African Americans.The African American population is, like HispanicAmericans and Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans and American Indians and EuropeanAmericans, a group which is diverse within itself.Just as European Americans are not all “typicalwhites,” so African Americans are not all alike.The African American population includes U.S.-born persons whose families have been here formore than 300 years, persons of Caribbeandescent, and recent immigrants from Africa. TheAfrican American population has a complexityand diversity that is sometimes ignored or overshadowed by popular negative perceptions of amonolithic underclass. 

African Americans have demonstrated a strongtradition of self-help throughout AmericanHistory. They also have a long history of valuingeducation and encouraging their children to getdiplomas and degrees. And they have a solid history as entrepreneurs and professionals. A Blackbusiness class has grown and flourished outsidethe corporate culture. The glass ceiling question iswhether Black Americans are prepared to growand flourish within the mainstream corporate culture.The information in this environmental scan isdrawn from several sources: extensive public hearings, CEO interviews and African Americanmale executive focus groups, as well as from unpublished research on African American women thatwas made available to the Glass CeilingCommission. These sources highlight the differentviews of African American preparedness and opportunity for upward mobility in Corporate America.Research papers presented to the Glass CeilingCommission identified stereotypes of AfricanAmericans. The quantitative data comes fromCommission-sponsored research, private research,and analysis of U.S. Census data. The term AfricanAmerican and Black is used interchangeably.

“THE CONCRETE WALL” AFRICAN AMERICANS
rican Americans 

managed and/or

ties were interviewed

Ceiling Commission

bout their perceptions

g, developing, and 

the target groups.

African Americans

mmarized here.

of these CEOs inter

the “glass ceiling” in

when reminded that it

virtually all interpreted

frican American men. 

Os who were surveyed

can American men

ir organizations,

 business. They 

n American men as

raphy, and the fact

business is with city

king in with an all

eaker negative.”

“If I go to Washington, I need Black representatives to interact with the people who can give mecontracts.”

PreparednessThe CEOs who were interviewed shared a perception that there is a shortage of high potential, college-educated Black men. Statements that illustrate this perception include:

“There are more women and more minoritywomen who end up at the top of their classesthan there are minority men in that category. I don’t know why that is; I think it has to dowith the modern culture that puts pressure onyoung minority males. What I do know is that I hire on merit because I have to compete to stayin business. I have to cream [recruit from the top decile] and there aren’t that many

minority guys who can cut it.”“The push for minority males came later thanfor women, so there are fewer at the upper middle levels in the company or the industry.Within the company they are not a part of theage/experience cohort that is eligible for topmanagement, and the same is pretty much truethroughout the industry—we are all looking tosteal top quality candidates from each other, butthey weren’t let in early enough—now we are alldesperately watching the pipeline.” 65

The CEOs who were interviewedshared a perception that there is ashortage of high-potential, college-educated Black men.
Opportunities 

With two exceptions, the CEOs interviewed saidthat they are eager to increase African Americanmale representation in their businesses. They saidthat they recruit actively; they also said the number of qualified, credentialed African Americanmen is small and competition for the best and thebrightest is intense. They made it clear that theyare always on the lookout for top quality Blackmales and know that their competition is doingthe same. They perceive well-educated and experienced African American men as havingunlimited opportunities in Corporate America.

“It is a highly competitive market for minoritymales, even at the beginning professional levels.We recruit from the top five to ten percent of a graduating class and the top minority candidates have been recruited by the big firms,with scholarships and internships, since theirfreshmen years—we aren’t big enough or richenough yet to compete with that approach.”“I tried for three years to recruit at [deleted]and couldn’t get the time of day until I finallygot a Black vice president who was an alumnus. But it’s still a problem. In our business ifwe are going to compete we have to get the verybest. Well, the big guys go in and pick off thebest because they can identify them in the freshman year—they give them scholarships and internships and lock them in. We can’t affordthat yet so we don’t have a chance.”

Most of the CEOs perceived themselves as sensitive to issues of equity. Almost all expandedupon their self-perceptions by emphasizing theimportance of adhering to corporate standardsand considering merit when promoting minoritymales. One such comment was—

“Watering down standards does nobody anygood. It hurts that business and it hurts thegroup, because it increases the resistance to thenext person from that group.”

Other IssuesCEOs are worried about their failure to retainAfrican American men in the positions that normally lead to top management positions. Theattrition rate at the executive-trainee and middlemanagement levels is high. CEOs say that sometimes middle-level African Americans leave toaccept better offers, but in other cases the reason or reasons they choose to leave remainsmysterious to the CEOs.

“On the entry and journeyman levels, we havegood Black representation, but we are low on the upper levels. We had one Black male VicePresident , a lawyer and an MBA, who left usto be Secretary for Economic Development for thestate—a golden opportunity for him, a loss forus. Another Black male, a retired three-star general, was about to come on, but took anothervery prestigious job at the last minute—our loss. The competition is brutal.”
op schools, and we

ercent from those

n, Black and white.

he Black men when

g program—they

 bottom quarter of

oing on and we don’t

rking with consul

erviews, we are try

ng so we can fix it.

white faces? Are they

e environment? 

ot expected to succeed

Women

ing 

myth of the Negro, the

her. If she escapes

myth of the Negro

White

oman?

es in the 

South

feelings of African

rom an unpublished

gress made available

Commission by its

 and Dr. Stella M.

eported here for the

first time with special permission of theresearchers. Their study based on a survey of 238African American women managers and 477 whitewomen managers is one component of a largeron-going investigation, Life Journeys of Women inCorporations.Bell and Nkomo found that the African Americanwomen in their sample tend to feel they are laboring under the double burden of racism andsexism. Their findings also showed significant differences in the career perceptions of AfricanAmerican and white women. For example,

• Compared to the white women, African 

American women felt that they received less organizational support.

• African American women did not perceive 

their work to be as significant as did the white female respondents.

• African American women felt that they 

were in positions where they had less control and authority than did their peers who were white women and they believed that their jobs were less likely to allow them to use their skills and knowledge.

• African American women’s perceptions of 

their relationships with their bosses were less positive than those of the white women. 

• Compared to the white female 

respondents, African American women were more conscious of their racial identity at work, felt less accepted by their 67

African American women did not perceive their work to be as signif icant asdid the white female respondents.
colleagues at work, perceived less collegial 

support, and perceived a higher level of sex discrimination at work.

(In an earlier 1990 study, Dr. Bell found that many African American women in professionaljobs felt pressured by bicultural stress, the result of the contradictory pull between their own cultural identity and the pressure to conform to a corporate identity that is both masculine and white. Those who conform in order to beaccepted may simultaneously feel that they havebetrayed their own cultural identity.)

• African American women were less positive 

than white women about how their companies managed race and gender relations and their employers’ commitment to the advancement of women, Hispanics, and people of color.

• African American women and white women 

were equally satisfied with their career progress, although African American women were less satisfied than white women with their salaries.

In order to explain some of the distinguishing differences in the organizational experiences ofwhite and African American women managers,Bell and Nkomo changed the metaphor fromglass ceiling to concrete wall.

Bell and Nkomo explain that white women feelthat they are held down by a glass ceiling. Glass isdangerous and it can injure those who break it,but it can be broken. Furthermore, glass is clear—those below a glass ceiling can see through it andlearn by observation. They can see those aboveand they, in turn, are visible to those who areabove the glass ceiling. Visibility, sometimesknown as “face time,” is a critical factor in breaking through the glass ceiling. African American women, on the other hand, feel that they face a concrete wall. It is almostimpossible for one person alone to poke a hole in a concrete wall. Furthermore, those closed inbehind the wall cannot learn about the organization because they are isolated from the mainstream of organizational life and, worse, they areinvisible to the decisionmakers on the other side. The research findings are borne out by the statement of an African American woman who testifiedat the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission PublicHearing in New York City. She declared,

“Yes, there is a ceiling. That’s not news in our community. Indeed, for African Americans,everyone who comments on it seems to call it theconcrete ceiling or the concrete wall. But forthose of us at the [deleted] we say that both of

these terms really are descriptions of good, oldfashioned racial discrimination in recruitment, 
performance evalua

ther terms and 

n worse. They are

men managers, and

ated to be less than

have a non-existence.

—no ceiling, no glass

othing.”

etrable wall was also

ale executives in the

Men 

ing

 a brick wall.”

in this section is

made by African

who participated in

he Federal Glass

ply with the

onduct original

g to the glass ceiling. 

resented being

labeled as “a minority.” They perceived it as a labelused to imply inferiority.

“‘Minority’ means ‘lower’ or ‘less,’ and I don’tsee myself any lower or less than anybody else.”“They are forcing that word, minority, upon us;to keep beating it in our heads to remind us thatwe are less than. We have to act accordingly.I’ve never subscribed to that point of view.”“I don’t think it was by mistake that the word‘minority’ was thrown out when we as Blackpeople sought to have equal opportunity.” 

The Glass Ceiling ItselfAfrican American participants perceive this barrier as virtually impenetrable for most Black men.They view it not as a glass ceiling but as a brick

wall. They believe that corporate America considers them “a necessary evil” because of the changingdemographics of the marketplace, national andglobal. Despair and resentment were voicedtoward the permanence of the glass ceiling—the respondents believe the barriers to theirupward job mobility will not be removed in theirlifetimes. They believe their talent, education andexperience are not valued in corporate America.At the same time, they feel they have no choicebut to continue to fight against what they considerunfair and outright racist patterns in corporateadvancement. 69
“I’ve seen it. Not so much in a personal sense . . .

but I’ve seen the figures. . . . I worked in payroll . . . only one Black out of 100 staffmembers would be making between $50,000and $75,000. If the salary goes over $100,000the numbers become zero for minorities. Whenyou get to the executive levels there are 35 people, most making close to a half a milliondollars a year . . . and not one Black person out of 35.”“I’m experiencing that right now. They bring ina new CFO [Chief Financial Officer] . . . .even though I’ve been running things. They payhim twice as much as me and I’ve been there 10years. I see the salary differences between Blacksand whites. Every single white secretary, eventhe floater, makes $8,000 more than the oneminority secretary.” “It’s a cement wall. You’re not getting past thispoint, my friend. When they bring in a minority, the best day on the job for some people wastheir first day on the job. I can name about fivecompanies that come to mind. They hired you,they have a three year in and out policy . . . It’sa consistent pattern . . . Your chances of becoming a mover and shaker here, I’d soonersee a pig fly. It’s not going to happen.”“As a Black man in Corporate America, you’rejust a low number. You’re non-existent. You’re 

an endangered species. They know it. They willhire Black women before they hire one Blackman, and they know why they do it.”

Glass Ceiling Impact on Jobs and CareersBlack male executives who participated in theFederal Glass Ceiling Commission AfricanAmerican focus groups agreed that education is aprime prerequisite for getting through the glassceiling, although some felt that without an IvyLeague education it was difficult for anyone to getthrough. They also agreed that although experience and education count for something inCorporate America, the glass ceiling is aboutsomething other than those qualifications. Theysee the acceptance and rise of other minoritiesand women as a discriminatory tactic designed tokeep Black men from advancing to the top ranksof Corporate America. They spoke of their feelings of always being judged as African Americans,rather than as individual men.

“The perception is that you get less quality education from a minority school. It’s that one little issue that makes it either positive ornegative on whether you get into the pipeline.Just the name of the school.”“Once you get in the door, after you’ve made it inside the door, you have to be four, five, sixtimes better than the average person, the averagenon-Black, the average Caucasian, in order for you to get to where you should be.”

ber.
es

ns?

break my bones, 

rt me.” 

hyme

fies stereotypes, 

as, as a barrier to job

all too often become

who are making 

dvancement, and as 

riers for individual

ss of individual 

 emphasized that only

viewed in a Commission

ns about the suitability 

e- or top-level corporate

at they need and want

out the ranks of their

g difficulty finding and

an American men.

n’t enough “top-quality

dy” for top-level jobs

about advancing

 “before they are ready.”

he difficulty, if any,

ized organizational

otypes about African 

entifies the following

stereotypes about African Americans:African American men are stereotypically perceived as lazy/ undisciplined/ always late/ fail topay their taxes/ unqualified but protected by affirmativeaction/ violent/ confrontational/ emotional/ hostile/aggressive/ unpredictable/ unable to handle stressful situations/ threatening/ demanding/ militant/ loud/and less intelligent than other racial or ethnic groups. African American women are stereotypically perceived as incompetent/ educationally deficient/aggressive/ militant/ hostile/ lazy/ sly/ and untrustworthy.Stereotypes must be addressed because they imply factual bases for glass ceiling barriers. Forexample, epithets such as lazy and educationally

deficient and unqualified but protected by affirmative

action can be refuted by data on labor force participation and educational attainment. Stillothers—for example, confrontational or aggressive

or demanding or militant—may result from the

reactions of many African American men andwomen to their perceptions that they have beendiscriminated against in the workplace. Many are frustrated, angry, and in despair; they haveprepared themselves for advancement and theyhave been excluded from opportunities foradvancement. Experience has taught them to be on guard, a reaction that they perceive as sensible and others perceive as threatening. 71
THE REALITY CHECK:

Perceptions and Stereotypes-Versus the FactsThe Basic Facts

• In 1990, the U.S. Bureau of the Census reported that African Americans comprised 12.1 percent 

(30,000,000) of the total population.

• The majority of African American men work for a living. In fact, the total African American male 

labor force participation rate (63.1 percent) increased by 5.5 percent between 1980 and 1990 compared to an overall 4.2 percent increase for whites.

— In 1990, 68.8 percent of African American men, ages 20 to 24, were in the labor force, as 

compared to 77.9 percent of their white male peers.

— In the same year, 83.0 percent of African American men, ages 35 to 44, were in the labor force, as 

compared to 85.9 percent of their white male peers. (Bureau of Labor Statistics 1991).

• The majority of African American women work for a living. In fact, the total Black female labor 

force participation increased by 11.9 percent between 1980 and 1990, compared to an overall 12.0 percent increase for their white female peers.

— In 1990, 63.2 percent of African American women, ages 20 to 24, were in the labor force, as 

compared to 71.7 percent of their white female peers.

— In the same year, the percentage of African American women, ages 35 to 44, in the labor force was 

higher (79.0 percent) than that of their white female peers (76.6 percent.) (Bureau of Labor Statistics 1991).

• By the same token, in 1990 14 percent of Black families had annual incomes $50,000 and over; 29 

percent had annual incomes $25,000 -$49,999; 31 percent had annual incomes of $l0,000-$24,999.(Bureau of the Census 1990).

• African Americans have a successful business tradition and experience as managers and 

entrepreneurs. Between 1982 and 1987, the number of Black owned firms increased by 37.6percent, from 308,260 to 424,165. The number of employees of these firms increased by 81 percent, from 121,373 to 219,685. Their annual payrolls increased by 191.3 percent from $948,l08,000 to $2,76l,105,000.(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1982, 1987).

• In 1990, the top 100 African American Industrial/Services Companies employed 33,300 persons 

and had total sales of $4.3 billion. (Billingsley 1992). 

• The U.S. Department of Labor, Survey of Consumer Expenditures data shows that in 1993 

African Americans represented a $257 billion consumer market.
ican Americans 

s Prepared to 

ays placed high value

s power to overcome

hat the number of

in college rose 

n 1960, through that

portunities in 

m, to a peak of

lingsley reports that

ement was the most

ack bachelor’s degree

ks earning degrees in

n that year alone.

erparts who graduated

ed their managerial

hen. It is evident that

merican college gradu

he last decade. That is

inding that equal 

s not guarantee that

getting through the

fairly compensated.

d by Census data,

mission research and

• According to the 12th Annual Status 

Report of the American Council on Education, entitled Minorities in Higher Education, the absolute number of collegeeducated Black men and women of all ages is increasing.

—Between 1982 and 1991, the proportion of the African American population, ages 20 to 44, with four or more years of college increased by 36.2 percent. —In the same period, the proportion of African Americans 35 to 44 years of age completing college increased by 52 percent.

• At the same time, African American men 

and women are half as likely as white men and women to be college graduates according to the 12th Annual Status Report of the American Council on Education, entitled Minorities in Higher Education.

—In 1989, Black men earned 4.6 percent (22,363) of the bachelor’s degrees awarded to men that year, compared to 84.5 percent (407,142) earned by white men.—In 1989, Black women earned 6.7 percent (35,702) of the bachelor’s degrees awarded to women that year, compared to 84.7 percent (452,557) earned by white women. 73

Equal educational attainment doesnot guarantee that Black men andwomen are getting through the glassceiling or that they are fairly compensated.
• The American Council on Education 12th 

Annual Status Report, shows a similar pattern at the master’s degree level.

—In 1989, 3.5 percent (5,200) of all master’s level degrees awarded to men went to Black men and 73.5 percent (109,184) went to white men.—Also in 1989, 5.5 percent (8,876) of all master’s level degrees awarded to women went to Black women and 82.6 percent (132,423) went to white women.

• Furthermore, the report shows that as 

college costs increase, the gap between African American and white 20 to 29 yearolds who complete college also increases. Between 1982 and 1991, the proportion of African Americans 20 to 29 years of age completing four or more years of college decreased by 6 percent, while the proportion of their white cohorts completing college increased by 13 percent. 

• Black men and women with college 

degrees are more likely to be in executive, managerial, and administrative positions than are Black men and women without degrees. That is not surprising. What is surprising is that the pattern for white women indicates a nearly equal proportion of white women with only high school educations in the same top positions as are Black men and women with college degrees. This suggests that equal 

educational attainment does not level the playing field for Black men and women. 

• Black women are underrepresented in 

private sector administrative, executive and managerial positions for each educational level. Black and white women continue to be underrepresented in these positions despite their college degrees. White men are overrepresented in top positions regardless of education level. Table 1presents the data. 

• Table 2 demonstrates that white men 

have 68 percent more of the executive, administrative, and managerial positions than should be expected at this educational level-—all things being equal. This table illustrated that white men are overrepresented in top positions regardless to educational levels. Black women are the most underrepresented group in executive, administrative, and managerial occupations for each educational level, when compared to Black men and white non-Hispanic men and women.

ers are

esent

ustries

on.
VE, AND MANAGERIAL OCCUPATIONS BY RACE*, 

T, AND SEX, 1990

Percent in Occupations

White Black

M F MF

oma 63.5 28.9 4.6 3.0

49.5 46.1 1.9 2.5

55.2 38.8 2.7 3.2

67.5 26.6 2.9 3.0

MINISTRATORS, 

59.8 34.7 2.6 2.9

es 47.7 38.5 5.0 5.2

ns)

tives, administrators, and managers, those with: less than a high school diploma compose 

otal; 4 years of high school compose 22.0 percent of the total; 1 to 3 years of college compose 

total; 4 or more years of college compose 53.1 percent of the total.cutives, administrators, and managers, those with: less than a high school diploma compose 

otal; 4 years of high school compose 35.4 percent of the total; 1 to 3 years of college compose 

total; 4 or more years of college compose 36.1 percent of the total.

tives, administrators, and managers, those with: less than a high school diploma compose 

otal; 4 years of high school compose 19.6 percent of the total; 1 to 3 years of college compose 

total; 4 or more years of college compose 51.3 percent of the total.

cutives, administrators, and managers, those with less than a high school diploma compose 

otal; 4 years of high school compose 22.8 percent of the total; 1 to 3 years of college compose 

total; 4 years or more years of college compose 48.0 percent of the total.

whites only

S File 95% Confidence Interval

 African American Men and Women.

dation’s Institute for Policy Research and Education

.

75
TABLE 2

PERCENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF RACIAL GROUPS COMPARED TO PERCENT OF RACIALGROUPS IN EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND MANAGERIAL OCCUPATIONS, 1990Degree White Black

MF MF

Less than high school diploma 37.7 42.0 7.5 8.84 years of high school 38.4 47.6 5.1 6.11 to 3 years of college 41.0 53.2 4.4 6.04 or more years of college 48.3 39.9 2.7 3.4Ratios: % in Top Positions/% in Educ. CategoryLess than high school diploma 1.68 0.68 0.61 0.344 years of high school 1.30 0.97 0.37 0.411 to 3 years of college 1.35 0.73 0.61 0.534 or more years of college 1.40 0.67 1.07 0.88Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, PUMS File 95% Confidence IntervalSource: The Impact of the Glass Ceiling on African American Men and Women.Source: Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Institute for Policy Research and EducationPrepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission.*White men have 68 percent more of the executive, administrative, and managerial positions than should be expected at this educationallevel—all things being equal.
merican Managers?

nities Available 

ed as part of a Federal

udy maintained that 

ricans are hard to find

tive, and managerial 

unities for African 

portionately in the 

ocal, state, and 

on-profit sector 

ncies in health, 

on, legal services, 

membership 

ociations, and 

nd arts organizations.)

ericans comprise 12 

opulation, African 

nders are less than 

presented in top 

ustries as would be 

proportion in the total 

otal employment in 

rivate sector indus

ck men and women 

5 percent of those who 

glass ceiling.

c Use Microdata (5%) 

ive, administrative,

and managerial representation in major industriesby gender, race and ethnicity presented in Table 3(following) shows that in 1990:

• Black men held only 2.3 percent of the 

executive, administrative, and managerial jobs in all private sector industries; they held 3.9 percent of these jobs in the public and private sectors combined.

• Black women held 2.2 percent of the 

executive, administrative, and managerial jobs in all private sector industries; they held 4.6 percent of these jobs in the public and private sectors combined.

• Private sector industries that showed the 

most progress in promoting Black men to executive, administrative, and managerial positions were—

—communications (3.7 percent) —business services (3.5 percent)

• Those industries in which Black men had 

made the least progress were—

—wholesale trade (1.2 percent ) —other professional services 

(1.2 percent) 

—manufacturing (1.6 percent)—construction ( 1.9 percent)

• Private sector industries that showed the 

most progress in hiring and promoting Black women to executive, administrative, and managerial positions were—

—communications (4.9 percent) —insurance (3.0 percent)

Black men with professional degreesin these top positions earn only 79percent of the income of white menwith the same degrees and positions.

77
• Those industries in which Black women 

had made the least progress were—

—construction (0.3 percent)—wholesale trade (0.3 percent)—business services (0.5 percent)—manufacturing (0.9 percent)

• Black men have been more successful 

than Black women in gaining executive, administrative, and managerial positions in business services, construction, entertainment, manufacturing, personal services, transportation, and wholesale trade. When industries that are heavily influenced by public sector employment are excluded, the only industry in which Black women have been more successful than Black men in gaining top positions is communications. 

A 1990 Business Week profile of the chief executives

of the 1000 most valuable publicly held U.S. companies showed that the critical career path for senior management positions in CorporateAmerica historically has been finance, marketing,or operations—those areas that are likely to bedirectly related to a corporate bottom line.Therefore, it is significant that African Americanmen and women are underrepresented in finance,marketing, and operations. 

• Research indicates that African Americans 

are not in the functions that lead to 

the top. 

—Like white women and minorities other than Blacks, African American managers (men and women) are concentrated in staff functions rather than line positions. —African Americans who are at the professional and managerial levels in major mainstream corporations are clustered in the areas of community relations, public relations, personnel and labor relations, and affirmative action/equal employment opportunity areas. 
79

VE, AND MANAGERIAL OCCUPATIONS FOR MAJOR INDUSTRY

D SEX, 1990

Percent in Occupations

White Black Hispanic Asian

M F M F M F M F

44.8 37.6 2.6 2.6 3.4 5.0 1.8 2.6*

51.6 32.8 3.5 0.5 5.2 3.2 1.7 1.2

47.6 36.6 3.7 4.9 3.3 1.8 1.6 1.674.6 15.6 1.9 0.3 1.7 0.9 0.3 0.3

35.4 45.3 3.5 4.3 2.7 5.5 0.8 0.838.4 48.3 1.6 4.5 0.8 2.9 1.6 0.8

50.2 38.1 2.5 1.0 4.1 1.5 1.5 —16.2 66.7 1.3 2.5 1.6 4.4 — 0.929.9 50.2 2.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 1.7 1.7

44.0 40.7 3.2 3.0 2.0 4.2 0.5 1.7

62.9 23.3 1.6 0.9 2.8 2.0 2.3 0.9

41.3 40.4 3.4 2.5 4.3 2.8 2.5 1.9

47.5 31.9 3.6 4.8 5.2 3.6 0.6 1.3

41.7 39.1 2.3 2.6 4.6 4.3 3.5 1.7

16.4 65.6 3.1 7.2 1.0 3.6 0.5 0.558.4 25.6 2.4 1.0 6.1 3.4 1.7 0.3

71.9 17.2 3.1 0.8 3.1 0.7 — 0.8

53.4 36.2 1.2 0.3 2.7 2.1 2.4 1.8

52.8 37.8 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.5

49.4 35.9 2.3 2.2 3.5 3.1 1.7 1.2

39.8 36.3 3.9 4.6 6.4 5.0 1.5 1.3

0 percent due to rounding errors.

S File 95% Confidence Interval

n African American Men and Women.

dation’s Institute for Policy Research and Education

n.

he percent composition of each of the four racial groups for each industry category. African

in the executive, administrative, and managerial occupations in every single industry category.
Compensation:

—How are African American Managers Being Compensated?

Human capital theory suggests that individuals arerewarded in their current jobs for their pastinvestment in education and training. By this reasoning, individuals with comparable education,training, and experience would achieve similarlevels of career success. The research indicatesthat race and gender affect the evenhanded application of this theory. (Congressional BlackCaucus Foundation’s Institute for Policy Researchand Education 1994). Equal educational preparation and job experience do not lead to equaladvancement for African American women andmen—both groups continue to lag behind whitenon-Hispanic men and women. An analysis of 1990 PUMS file prepared by theCongressional Black Caucus Foundation’sInstitute for Policy Research and Education showsthat the average pay of white men in executive,administrative, and managerial positions is higherthan the average pay of white women, Blackwomen, or Black men at the same educationaland occupational levels. Even among those withprofessional and doctoral degrees, white men, onthe average, earn substantially more.For example, as the following table shows, Blackmen with professional degrees in these top positions earn only 79 percent of the income of

white men with the same degrees and positions;Black women earn only 60 percent of the averagesalaries earned by their white male counterparts.It appears that they are either not getting the verytop jobs in these categories or, if they are in toppositions, they are not being rewarded equally.
81

VE, AND MANAGERIAL OCCUPATIONS BY RACE*, EDUCATION ATTAINMENT, INCOME, AND GENDER

5% Confidence Interval


n American Men and Women Prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission


s Institute for Policy Research and Education


ment level for African Americans and whites. Even when one secures an executive, administrative, or managerial occupation, black men, white women, and black women in these


ite men.

l Degree Professional Degree

230 54,171741 71,114876 61,995414 90,610

Masters Degree

34,00647,23438,39157,371

Bachelors Degree

30,58432,00131,33847,181

4 or More Years college

32,45240,93932,33250,052

1 to 3 years college

24,26226,02725,19538,588

4 years of H.S.

22,73225,53422,01533,074

Less than H.S.

18,629 7,20320,87630,275

Less than Bachelor’s

23,29123,94723,23034,862

ness Services, Communications, Construction, Entertainment, Manufacturing, 


Utilities Industries

(PRIVATE SECTOR ONLY)
TABLE 5EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND MANAGERIAL OCCUPATIONS BY RACE,* SELECTED INDUSTRY, MEAN INCOME, AND SEX, 1990

(Private Sector Only)

Ratio

Mean Income Black/

Industry White Black White Male

MF MF MF

Business Services $45,560 $29,037 $36,338 $29,037 79.7 63.7Finance, Real Estate & Insurance 59,240 29,366 34,299 32,286 57.9 54.5Manufacturing 58,366 31,662 48,152 38,055 82.5 65.2Retail 36,439 23,540 22,592 21,863 62.0 60.0Transportation 50,677 38,768 39,275 39,275 77.5 77.5Wholesale 58,283 29,125 25,819 — 44.3 —Other Profession 51,024 26,773 22,808 21,124 44.7 41.4Source: Bureau of the Census, 1990 PUMS File, 95% Confidence IntervalSource: The Impact of the Glass Ceiling on African American Men and Women.Source: Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Institute for Policy Research and EducationPrepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission.*Analysis of 1990 PUMS data files also shows that income deficits for Blacks in top positions compared to white men in top positions varyamong industries. This table shows, Black men and Black women in top positions in the finance, real estate, and insurance industries earnon average about half the income of white men in these industries, and Black men and women in top positions in the wholesale trade and business services industries average less than half the salaries of white men in these industries' top positions.
83

ies, CEO interviews,

utive focus groups,

ed for by the Federal

ndicate that the major 

 of African Americans

ly small pool of 

th the educational 

or senior 

ns.

s that overlook or do 

mericans with the 

an Americans are not 

positions.

at makes white 

s reluctant to 

ericans.

mal communication 

managers to mentor 

n or women.

eling and exclusion 

o assignments that 

periences. 

o assignments that 

nteraction with senior 
GENERAL BACKGROUND

Native American and Indian are designations forthe indigenous peoples who inhabited theWestern Hemisphere when the Europeansarrived. Just as with other races and ethnicities,it is misleading to consider American Indians as a one big group. The U.S. government recognizes more than 298 Federal reservations, 4 Federal trust land areas, 217 Alaskan NativeVillage Statistical Areas, and 17 Tribal JurisdictionStatistical Areas in Oklahoma. In addition, thereare 12 state reservations. The size of state and federal reservations range from holdings as largeas the State of Virginia to small plots of no morethan several acres. Indian tribes speak more than200 languages. Other aspects of their cultures differ as much as their languages do.What American Indians do share is a unique 

political status as members of sovereign nations.The U.S. government entered into treaties withthe sovereign Indian nations and has trust responsibility for them. Administration of thetrust is lodged in the Department of Interior and the policy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs is determined by Congressional committees.

American Indians are the only people under the Interior umbrella. Because the situation ofAmerican Indians is so unique and so unfamiliarto most other Americans, a very brief history follows so that the status of American Indians relative to the glass ceiling and their feelingsabout it can be better understood.Overall, American Indians are poor in materialgoods and wealthy in undeveloped assets. OneIndian leader has described them as “land rich anddirt poor.” It is estimated that 80 percent of thecountry’s untapped natural resources belong toIndian trusts. Some American Indian leaders saythat their lot would be easier if they were simply impoverished and not in possession ofthings others need and want: water, land, coal, oil,gas, timber, minerals, and fish. U.S. Indian policyfrom the beginning when Indians were called “savages,” was designed to acquire Indian landand resources and to destroy tribal society. Laterstrategies, such as the establishment of Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Indian boarding schools thatremoved American Indian children from theirfamilies, and the termination of tribal land holdings under the 1887 Dawes Act, devastated life in many tribal communities.

“MORE THAN GLASS” AMERICAN INDIANS 

(Members of Sovereign Nations)
In 1990 only 3,277 American

Indians 18 years of age and over hadearned graduate degrees of any kind.

nvestigation revealed a

at had weakened

amaged the health of

eir land base. (For

mentation of the

 as the “Allotment

s and individuals lost

n acres that the tribes

er peace treaties 

 until 1934 was 

ged by the Indian

nerstone of that 

ognition of the 

that ended efforts to

d culture. Since that

d its ups and downs,

ship has fought stead

and the retention of

s are still struggling 

ced assimilation. 

dian wars of the nine

tter of ancient history

Until recently,

f these wars had

s to current genera

American slaves had

s to their children and

orts at assimilation

hat often disregarded

s and the cohesion of

American Indian families have shaped AmericanIndian perceptions of the majority society. ManyAmerican Indians are suspicious of whites. Giventhe prejudicial treatment to which the averageAmerican Indian has been exposed in “Indiancountry,” it is hardly surprising. American Indian leaders point out that manyIndian people have no interest in enteringCorporate America. Indian leaders estimate thathalf of the Indians who earn MBAs or equivalentdegrees are employed with Indian tribes or ventures. For example, one hundred percent ofthose who earned MBAs through the First NationsScholarship Fund have returned to reservations todedicate their skills and talent to Indian people.(Bureau of the Census 1992). The overall number,however, is small. In 1990 only 3,277 AmericanIndians 18 years of age and over had earned graduate degrees of any kind. Generally, CEOs do not think about AmericanIndians as candidates for management jobs. TheAmerican Indian men and women who participated in the focus-group research expressed dismayat the general population’s ignorance of their history and status as sovereign nations. They confirmed the CEO perception that few are in theranks of corporate management, and describedthe barriers they confronted which included clashes of cultures and values. The stereotypes ofAmerican Indians that emerged from Commission 85
research are negative. They distort perceptions of

the suitability of American Indians for businessleadership.THE PERCEPTIONSHow CEOs Perceive The Glass CeilingAnd American Indians: Only one CEO in the Glass Ceiling Commissionsurvey mentioned American Indians. He recalledhiring one in a professional position. Althoughthere have been some senior managers in the private sector, American Indians are, for all practicalpurposes, invisible at the top management level inthat sector.How American Indian Men and WomenPerceive the Glass Ceiling:

“The glass ceiling is that thick!”

[Holding hands a foot apart.]

“It’s more than glass. It comes from lack ofknowledge , as you’ve been hearing here, and it comes from the entrenched group of peoplethat are in positions at certain levels and theypick and choose . . . about how decisions aremade . . . so you can get to a certain level and that’s it!”

Within almost every Indian culture there existstrong oral traditions that bind the generations

together. The oral tradition binds and linksIndian societies. In order for non-Indians tounderstand Indians it is fundamental that Indianstell their own story. The written word cannot capture the rich experience of the oral tradition orthe systematic bonding of generations to generations. Their content and perceptions aboutCorporate American have to be heard in theirown words to be understood. It is for this reasonthat the report includes extensive quotes from the oral focus panel discussions of what theAmerican Indian participants said.Here is what the American Indian men andwomen who participated in the focus groups told us.The “Minority” LabelFocus group participants declared the term“minority” to be incorrect and offensive whenreferring to American Indians and suggestive ofinferiority when applied to anyone. They view it as a convenient term for others to use who do notconsider themselves “minority.” They interpret theword, whether it is number-based or color-based,as putting people in a lesser position. 

“It’s easier for someone else to come upwith this nomenclature, whatever youwant to call it, so that they can aggregate or disaggregate.” 
87

“It connotes less than able, less thanwilling, less than something. It’salways less than something . . . needing special treatment and special careand unable to make it without specialhelp.”

term ‘minority’

norities or 

minority number

numbers and fall

k at you and just

of people and

zably of color 

sume you’re 

y. And there’s

se that’s how

 in this country.”

Euro-Americans,

ns, Polish people,

ns and all, but

rities. Or are

only people of

men.”

mittees, they put

her . . . one of

ng to the choir,

eyond that . . . If

busy, in their lit

hing, maybe

hese guys alone.”

re always placed

ty things, and

ything out, even

though they’re not the problem, the problem is some other place, then itbecomes kind of competing for resources . . . so it’s always putting things in away that will maybe even create somenegative things.”

The “Native American” LabelFocus group participants also rejected the “Native American” label. Their comments andexplanations include the following:

“No offense, but that’s the wrong term.Everybody’s a Native American that’ssecond generation whether you’re coming from Africa or from Ireland—we’reAmerican Indians.”“. . . that’s ‘P.C.’ [politically

correct]in Washington.”“Native American can be very inclusive. Even though American Indian isa misnomer, it’s been around a lotlonger than Native American. . . [We]kind of like it.”

The Ceiling ItselfFocus group participants believe that the glassceiling is lower for American Indians than forother groups. Furthermore, they believe that itstems from lack of knowledge on the part of 
non-Indians, many of whom rely on stereotypes.

This, in turn, forces American Indians into theburdensome and never-ending role of educator.

“The image is ‘not qualified,’ so we getstuck lower sooner and the glass isthicker.”“Few of us even get that opportunity.”“It depends on how white you look.”“And how male you look.”“As far as the glass ceiling, here again,I’ve never had a problem as a woman,it’s always because people didn’t likemy brown skin, because I wasAmerican Indian.”“You’re not going to keep trying to bashand break a ceiling that’s so thick. You sort of acquiesce and move on tosomething else—or get creative . . .There are some of us who can run circles around some of the people who aremaking decisions and who do it as wellor better but it’s not ever going to be anopportunity.”“The glass ceiling is at a lower level. It confronts you—[you] butt up

against it sooner in business and ingovernment . . . you encounter it fasterthan other groups of people, if you’re aNative woman versus an Anglowoman, you will probably hit it fasterand get stuck at a lower level . . .”“It is a perpetual education process. . .people are so ignorant of the realfacts.”“We are one percent of the population---and it is our task to educate the other99 percent?”“We need to put out more information.We have to re-educate our male society.. . . American Indians have to spendfull time educating. Same thing withthe glass ceiling for women.”

Glass Ceiling Impact on Jobs and Careers

“. . . had to work harder to prove themselves . . . not just a Native Americanor American Indian problem, I thinkit’s for anyone that comes from adiverse community that’s not part ofwhat mainstream Corporate Americaor mainstream Federal America sees,which is a predominantly Anglo whitemale environment. They tend to have 

e that

erican
pinion, in my 

e successful, to

ed, and to move

ry difficult

n but also being

them to take me

rcumvent that

 across by a

ken seriously.” 

n the equal

r something like

ve the opportuni

other places in

y American

I didn’t have

ions to really

 If you really

present systems,

 have to know

 don’t get the

n develop 

er been preju

 was a woman.

ainst very often

n.”

The focus-group participants also identified fourissues that are relevant to their status in Americaand their participation in Corporate America. The issues are —the unique legal status ofAmerican Indians as members of sovereignnations, their holy days and religious obligations,the culture conflict between traditional values and perceived corporate values, and their ties totheir communal land base. The statements thatfollow are drawn directly from the focus-group discussions.Unique Legal Status as Members of Sovereign Nations

“In the sense of protocol, it would beFederal government, tribal government,state government, local government . . .the minute you leave the res* your status is different”“American Indians (not NativeAmericans) have dual citizenship inthe United States and in their ownnations. So, I think something like thatshould be understood.”“The United States deals with Indiansbecause of sovereignty, not becausethey’re minorities, and that’s the way it *res = reservation 89
should be, because it’s been a long,

hard struggle, to say that we have thatright. We’re governments and we canpetition another government—that’sthe U.S. government—because we havethe right to do that.”“We try to get away from reference toIndian people as minorities because it’sa government-to-government sovereignnation distinction which is uniqueamong all groups of people within thecontinental U.S. and elsewhere.”“In California, the cities, some counties, refer to Indians as ‘the minority ofminorities.’ We always make it a pointto say, ‘That’s how you view us, but inreality we are going out of the minority,we are the first Americans, we areAmerican Indians and we have a special relationship with the government.’”“A lot of people don’t know, for example, that there are Indian courts,our own court system. . . an issuethey’re not used to, because they’re usedto state courts or municipal courts.”

Holy Days

“Our first education at home from ourcultures is our spiritual education, ourreligious education. We’re not going topreschool, or Montessori school, orkindergarten, we’re going to SundaySchool and churches or whatever religious classes. . . .There has to beroom for understanding—respect.”“When you’re talking about the holydays and ceremonial days in Indiancountry, where schools cannot operatebecause the tribe has decided they haveto have everyone in the family, from thesmallest baby to the oldest man, doingthese full day ceremonial dances,which are prayers—and we all come

from different religious backgroundsand we all have different holy days.”“Because I’m not of the Christian persuasion, when I need time off formidwinter ceremonies, unlike peoplewho celebrate Christmas and getChristmas-time off, I would rathertrade those days for midwinter ceremonies and use sick or annual timeto attend ceremonies, but that’s moreimportant to me.” 
g to maintain

ponsible to your

o your boss—

edule, 40 hours

day, who takes

giving, Martin

dents’ Day. He

ur honoring the

cut pine

day to prepare

ull day. If you’re

 say, the 26th

one for 400 years

day long. If that

esday, that 

hat dance

job responsibili

ot to be an

we can fit

parate nations

ulture.”

eived 

ate America] 

nization that

does not conserve

ter to the values

h is to conserve a

values are at 

loggerheads and will be at loggerheads,until somebody says there are differentthings out here that are more importantthan money.”“We’re not brought up to think in thoseterms—our parents didn’t belong toCorporate America, so that’s the lastthing we’re brought up to think about.”“Our kids are off the reservation. We’regiving them that extra option we didn’thave---I explain to my children, ‘Here’sanother choice for you.’. . .I did, in fact,send them off to Corporate America.”“Family and community is more important. I was raised to contribute tomy community and there was no question about what I was going to doin life. There was no discussion. ” “I saw a poster when I was over inLondon. It said, ‘After you cut down thelast tree, after you’ve killed the last buffalo, after you’ve poisoned the laststream, it is then that you will realizethat you can’t eat money.’ And that goesback to the values that most Indian people have.”

91
“I think that’s an impediment if mainstream society is willing to sacrificefamily to climb the corporate ladder—people who come from more traditional,family-centered backgrounds who arenot willing to do that —there’s a priceyou’ve got to pay, you’ve got to decide if you’re going to turn your face fromwhere you come from —to let go ofthat.”“So when it comes time to go in and getyour first real job and you get your corporate uniform, your nice little suitand your pumps and you get your hairdo, and you start doing the things thatthey tell you in school, this is how you goin and work in Corporate America andthis is how you succeed. It doesn’t matter that you’ve played the game andyou got good grades and you learnedhow to do what it is you do. There aresome things you grew up not knowingabout that it seems everyone sittingaround you knows how to do, what todo . . . There are people around me whogrew up in that environment, so theywere very comfortable with what theywere doing. Those kinds of thingsthat make you comfortable in thatenvironment are the kinds ofthings that get you recruited intomanagement programs.”

“Indian people aren’t as transient . . .Most people don’t want to move awayfrom their communities and so in orderto rise in Corporate America you’ve gotto be mobile and if it’s a choice betweenyour family and a job, you really have tothink. It has to be an ideal opportunityfor you to take that chance.”“And I’ve heard traditional people[from] a reservation environment,

they’ve walked in two worlds, and donesuch a good job, then when they gohome, they’ve paid a price—‘Are you anapple?’ ‘Are you to be trusted?’ ‘Are youan Indian or have you sold out?’ Thereare all kinds of trade-offs.”“When I think of Corporate America,it’s all profit-driven and those are notthe values I would promote . . . If it werea bank at home providing a service topeople, I would support that, but not fora profit motive. I was not brought upthat way.”

Ties to the Communal Land Base

“I think that’s who we are, AmericanIndians, our own land base and ourpeople. . . . We have very strong ties tothat land base wherever it may be andevery Indian has that sense of ‘I‘ve
l a part of my

hing that I do

eople as a whole

nd Corporate

a sense of that

creage, or 

fferent.”

ast frontier in

ast piece of

ast piece of river

ted. There’s a

Corporate

arge timber 

o get their mitts

t take National

they can’t take

gement

ng to get at

e it’s genera

and hundreds

old. Our 

way and we’re

base belongs to

unal. It’s held

S. government

it shrinks daily .

ereignty. . . .

hreat to our

e.”

What are the Stereotypes about American Indians?American Indians are subjected to discriminationand prejudice in the regions of the country inwhich they are concentrated. In these areas theyare frequently viewed as threats: as irresponsible drivers/ drunken/ and lazy members of the welfare ranks.

Discrimination in housing, jobs, accommodations,and schools are part of life for many AmericanIndians who live off reservation. A paper commissioned by the Glass Ceiling (prepared by a consortium of scholars, Keith James,Chris Lovato, Willie Wolf, and Steve Byers entitled, Barriers to Workplace Advancement Experiencedby Native Americans) showed that studies of nonIndian views of American Indians found that“Indians” were considered to be most deficient in theappearance and assertiveness deemed necessary for management. American Indian men are consideredmore physical than mental—given to risky behavior thatis not consistent with the presence and control needed formanagerial positions.The stereotypes of American Indians are reflections of the two ways most non-Indian Americansare exposed to American Indians. First, many non-Indians see or read in the mediaabout American Indians who have suffered sustained poverty, lack of adequate education, lackof jobs, attacks on their culture, and lack of hope. 93
These individuals perceive all or most American

Indians as dysfunctional people. Second, most non-Indians are affected—consciously or unconsciously—by Hollywood“Indians,” the ones who endlessly rode downbuttes to attack the white settlers’ wagons thatwere drawn in a circle. These individuals perceiveAmerican Indians as “the bad guys.”As one participant in the American Indian focusgroups said,

“I hate to repeat them . . . alcoholism,the jokes about Indian time, lack ofeducatio. . . .There’s just a whole seriesof negative tags that have been perpetuated in movies and in the media aboutnative peoples in general. First, wehave to overcome that. . .”

Few white Americans have any accurate knowledge about the history of AmericanIndian/white relations and even fewer have hadthe opportunity to appreciate the strength andperseverance it has taken the Indian nations tosurvive. Few non-Indians are familiar with the formal and informal American Indian leaders—menand women—who have struggled to preserve theculture and dignity of their people over generations of deprivation.

Stereotypes and BarriersThe American Indian men and women who participated in Glass Ceiling Commission focusgroups perceived stereotypes as barriers to opportunity and advancement in Corporate Americaand discussed the role of stereotypes in erectingcorporate barriers. In their words:

“It starts with all of these misconceptions . . . it filters down. You can seethat it does get worse when it gets downto the individual level in the workplace,and the barriers are both in CorporateAmerica and I would think in theFederal Government.”“They think that Indian people arevery poor, that they have nothing, theconcept that is portrayed.”“Buckskin and feathers . . . I looked atthis poster and I thought, that’s reallynice, the only person in traditionaldress was the Indian—why is this person the only person in traditionaldress . . . Why don’t you have thisBlack person dressed possibly in theirgarb from Africa? And this Latino?You know, Indian people do dress justlike everybody else dresses, too . . . We are contemporary. Am I dressed inbuckskin to attend this meeting?” 
nforce that.”

merican

ucceed.”

ses that expecta

dian] employees

 society, they

ike. They want

certain stereotype

of different 

break down

a promise to an

o open up doors

s. . . breaking

g deal to me.

 sharing with

t of the motiva

porate America,

ot in the door,

 a quota,

qualified, 

and that 

 the face of 

om the native

c or any other

“There’s an expression I’ve heard, I’mvery uncomfortable with it, aboutNative peoples as being the ‘shadowculture.’ . . . It used to be the only timewe were portrayed in movies and presswas when something bad happened, thenegative image of a people who can’tcontrol their own destiny. CorporateAmerica might see that and think, well,if they can’t even survive in their owncommunities we’re going to inherit allthese problems? . . . It’s constantly aneducation process . . . so heaven forbidyou don’t do a good showing becausethen you’ve shot down the rest. It’s aburden.”

95
THE REALITY CHECK:

Perceptions and Stereotypes -Versus the FactsThe Basic Facts

• It is estimated that there were 5,000,000 indigenous people on the continent when the white man 

arrived. By the time “the West had been won,” 250,000 survivors remained within what is now the borders of the contiguous 48 states.

• The American Indian population is one of the fastest growing groups in the United States. The 

1990 Census reported that the population totaled 2 million.

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) data reveal that in 1991, 1,001,441 American Indians lived within 

its jurisdictional areas on reservations or adjacent lands. This makes American Indians a very rural population.

• Bureau of the Census data showed that in 1990, 402,827 American Indians resided in ten urban 

areas: Los Angeles, Tulsa, New York, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, Phoenix, Seattle/Tacoma, Minneapolis, Tucson and San Diego, each of which has American Indian populations exceeding 20,000. In 1990, more than 500,000 plus American Indians lived outside BIA jurisdiction in other urban or rural areas. Significant numbers of American Indians move frequently to and from Indian lands which makes it difficult to pin point the exact percentages of on- or off-reservation residency.

• American Indian leaders often describe reservation communities as underdeveloped countries as 

evidenced in the following statistics.

— The Bureau of the Census 1990 publication, Social and Economic Characteristics: American Indians 

and Alaskan Natives Areas, indicated that annual per capita income on the ten largest reservations ranged from $3,113 to $4,718; that 56 percent of American Indian households earned less than $15,000 per year.

— There are wide variations in the American Indian unemployment rate data from one place to the 

next. In general, unemployment is substantially higher in reservation areas than anywhere else. In 1990, the overall unemployment rate for Indian workers nationally was 14.4 percent. According to the Indian and Native American Employment and Training Coalition, the unemployment rate for Indian workers within the boundaries of federal reservation and trust land areas was 25 percent.

— The American Indian population suffers from the highest incidence of alcoholism, tuberculosis, 

and suicide of any ethnic group in the United States. (James 1994).
The high school dropout rate of

American Indians is 36 percent, thehighest overall dropout rate of anyethnic or racial category.

rican Indians

Prepared to 

 America?

ainment show that few

red for private sector

ducation reports that 

out rate of American 

 the highest overall 

thnic or racial 

ly high among youth 

oarding schools. 

en cited as the cause. 

nment level of 

ncluding Eskimos and 

tween 1980 and 1990 ably below the level of 

Only 9 percent of 

the workforce hold 

orts that 5,899 

years and older have 

though 34,721 have 

nce. College dropout 

ally among American 

come to college from 

conflict is often cited 

ting factor to the 

• The 1990 U.S. Census also reports that only 

3,277 American Indians 18 years or older hold post graduate degrees. 

Placement and Opportunity:

—Where are American Indians in Corporate America?—What Opportunities are Available to Them?

General American Indian Labor Force Trends:The material well-being of any community restslargely on the shoulders of its working people. If acommunity’s workers have the skills needed tomake them productive citizens, the communitywill have the foundation on which to build itslong-term success. If those workers are fullyemployed at decent jobs, the community will prosper and can prepare its people for positionsabove the glass ceiling. Earned income fromemployment is the cornerstone of almost everycommunity’s economy.These factors are true in American Indian andAlaska Native communities as they are in others. Itis the labor force in Indian communities that isthe bedrock of their economies. However, the wayin which the labor force is defined for mostFederal statistical purposes—the segment of thepopulation, age 16 and over, that is either in theArmed Forces, employed in the civilian laborforce, or actively looking for work in the civilianlabor force—is a concept that does not fit theIndian population well. It misses many who are 97
of the

erial

jobless and some who are technically employedbut need unsubsidized jobs. The conventionallabor force definition also overlooks subsistenceand other productive but traditional activities thatremain important customs in many Indian communities. Nonetheless, all of the federal data collected through surveys at the individual Indianhousehold level use the standard definition of thelabor force in their classification of the workingage population.The key characteristics of the Indian labor force,drawn from the Census counts of 1970, 1980 and1990, are shown in Table 6.Perhaps the most striking feature of these numbers is the enormous growth they show in theIndian labor force between 1970 and 1990. Theraw numbers have increased nearly four times injust two decades.The labor force growth reflects a sharp rise in thesize of the American Indian and Alaskan Nativepopulation. Some of this growth comes fromthose who are now reporting themselves asAmerican Indians on the Census forms. Some is aresult of more complete Census coverage of theAmerican Indian population. Some is a product ofthe fact that the 1970 figures in Table 6 do not

include Alaska Natives, a population which isincluded in the 1980 and 1990 numbers.

At the same time, the number of AmericanIndians in the labor force has gone up significantly as a result of natural increase—more births thandeaths. The labor force increase in each decade isalso attributable to the fact that more AmericanIndian people are participating in conventionallydefined employment and job seeking activities.American Indians in ManagementAccording to the 1990 Bureau of the Census, only7,862 American Indians held executive, managerial, or administrative positions. Little of thisemployment for men or women was in the privatesector and a lack of a clear definition of “privatesector” further confuses the picture. Is the executive, managerial, and administrative employment in the private sector on- or off-reservation,or is it in a mainstream company located on areservation or in a tribal enterprise? As oneAmerican Indian expert in economic development pointed out, “There’s a big difference betweenbeing a manager at IBM and a manager of the NavajoJitney Service.”There does seem to be agreement among knowledgeable American Indians that almostthree-quarters of American Indian women managers work in government employment, but once again it is not clear if these women areemployed by tribal, federal, state, or local governments. It is frequently stated that thesewomen fill lower-level management jobs in tribaloffices, but there are as yet no reliable data.
an Indian men and

umber of those who

 management posi

w. Little has been done

dians Compensated?

f American Indians in

k of data on American

to compare the 

ndian managers with

managers in similar

IN SUMThe major barriers to the representation andadvancement of American Indians in private sector senior management are these:

• Lack of educational opportunity which 

drastically reduces the pool

• Lack of attention to the upward mobility of 

American Indian employees

• Belief, based on bias and acceptance of 

stereotypes, that American Indians are not able to perform managerial positions in mainstream business 

• Preference on the part of some American 

Indians to devote their talents to reservation economic development or to Indian-owned and -managed businesses that are consistent with their religious and cultural values.

99
TABLE 6

AMERICAN INDIAN LABOR FORCE TRENDS: 1970-1990

1970* 1980 1990

Characteristic Census Census CensusPopulation Age 16 & over 452,938 1,022,411 1,395,009In Labor Force 221,733 598,626 865,703In Armed Forces 7,836 14,147 14,391Labor Force

Participation Rate 49.0% 58.6% 62.1%

Civilian Labor Force 213,897 584,479 851,312Employed 190,233 507,614 728,953

Male 116,467 286,687 388,911Female 73,766 220,927 340,042

Unemployed 23,664 76,865 122,359Percent Unemployed 11.1% 13.2% 14.4%

Male 15,308 46,884 70,981Percent Unemployed 11.6% 14.1% 15.4%Female 8,356 29,981 51,378Percent Unemployed 10.2% 11.9% 13.1%

Note: *1970 figures are for American Indian population only.

1980 and 1990 figures are for total American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut population.

Source: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Bureau of the Census
UND

e Asian and Pacific

ased from 1 million to

e racial group with the

65 Immigration Act

gely responsible for

ich created diverse

American communities

ns, cultural, social,

Yet many Americansthin the Asian and

ommunities and they

ng of their participa

sector.

 image of Asian and

described in the 

eotyping has generat

ic Islander Americans

norities. Insofar as this

occupy the status of

 contemporary United

cy makers and corpo

n and Pacific Islander

miss the idea that they

uire serious attention.

In fact, the U.S. Census disaggregates the Asianand Pacific Islander American community intoten categories and there are significant differences among them that relate to birthplace, thetime and circumstances of their entry into theUnited States, their educational attainment, theireconomic status, and the roles they play in the private sector. Data are aggregated under theterm “Asian and Pacific Islander Americans.” It has been shortened to “API Americans” in thisreport. The categories included by the Census inAsian and Pacific Islanders are these:

• Chinese • Vietnamese • Filipino • Hawaiian • Japanese • Other Southeast Asian • Asian Indian • Other Asian • Korean • Pacific Islander 

The CEO Survey interviews and the Asian andPacific Islander Male executive focus groups(assembled by the Glass Ceiling Commission),highlight the differences in the views of corporateleaders and the views of Asian and Pacific IslanderAmerican executives on the access, status, andupward mobility of Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans in corporate America. The CEO interviews mirror the popular view that Asian and

RABLE GLASS”ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER 

AMERICANS

101
Pacific Islander Americans are the model minority, unaffected by glass ceiling barriers, while the 

focus groups reveal how Asian and Pacific IslanderAmerican men perceive substantial obstacles totheir advancement in business. (Unfortunately,there are as yet few reports on Asian and PacificIslander American women’s attitudes.Observations from community leaders suggestthat they encounter a glass ceiling similar to thatencountered by Asian and Pacific Islander men.The data support that view (U.S. Bureau of theCensus - PUMS 1990). The following section onstereotypes, drawn from the Commission research,explains how even positive labels can turn negative and become barriers to upward mobility inthe private sector.THE PERCEPTIONSHow CEOs Perceive the Glass Ceiling and Asian and Pacific Islander AmericansThe overwhelming majority of the CEOs interviewed in the survey commissioned by theGlass Ceiling Commission think of the glass ceiling in terms of women. When reminded that italso affects minority men, almost all interpreted“minority” as African American. In fact, only twoof the non-minority CEOs even mentioned Asianand Pacific Islander Americans without beingreminded of that group. When asked directly,CEOs answered that they were agreeable to promoting Asian and Pacific Islander Americans to

top levels, but only the CEO of an internationalinvestment firm said that he was actively seekingthem. (Such lack of outreach may help to explainwhy less than one one-hundredth of one percentof all corporate directorships are held by Asianand Pacific Islander Americans.)It is not clear whether CEOs do not perceive Asian and Pacific Islander Americans as a minorityor whether they simply do not perceive them asbeing employees with management potential They believe that Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans “assimilate” economically and sociallywith ease.

How Asian and Pacific Men Perceivethe Glass Ceiling The information presented in this section, drawn from comments made by Asian and Pacific Islander American male executives whoparticipated in focus groups sponsored by theGlass Ceiling Commission, indicates that Asianand Pacific Islander Americans feel they are beingheld back by a glass ceiling. They feel that they arenot being treated equitably and they believe thattheir superior educational achievements and highperformance is not translated into access to seniordecision making positions.The “Minority” Label
103

 American Indians,mericans perceive the

e. None of the Asian

an men who partici

fied themselves as

ty” meant a lack of

ifferent appearance.

ultural differences

n cultures, they

considered in the

white men. They per

and harder working

ts and are confident

white colleagues. 

y in the eyes of

s. They want to 

don’t consider us 

t that positive 

s where they talk

g there with a group

raise my hand, 

rity. They don’t 

er focus group partic

glass ceiling but saw it

ups. Although they

ssimilated and accepted, they recognize that they experience difficulty reaching the top levels of management. Older Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in the focus groups are resigned to look to the future, believ- ing that if they do not rise above the ceiling, their children and their children’s children will. Younger participants expressed greater frustration at their inability to crack the glass ceiling. They see it as a challenge. At present they feel that the image of a non white CEO, even one who is an Asian and Pacific Islander American, does not appeal to Corporate America or the American public, but they are confident that their talent will be recognized and eventually rewarded. “You can put it this way. I see the ceiling and I tried [to shatter] it once, twice, a third time. I give up . . . I reach the ceiling, I can see it, I can do it . . . You keep bumping it.” “. . . You haven’t seen a CEO of a large corporation that’s Asian. Most of them may be senior vice president or some of these other rankings. But when you get higher, you fit the image better if you have a white person in charge of that. It appeals to a lot more people. Socially, it’s more acceptable to have a corporation headed by a white male.” “If you compete with the same level 
[of Caucasians] as a minority, then you have

a disadvantage. . . You’ll still be held back; leftbehind. If you’re extremely ingenious or create something, you could reach the top. There is a chance.”

Glass Ceiling Impact on Jobs and CareersAsian and Pacific Islander Americans expressedthe opinion that corporate culture is a white-maleculture that values aggression and socializing overhard work and merit. They feel that admittance tothe top levels of corporate culture requires learning how to work within the dominant white-maleculture. They want to do this without sacrificingtheir principles. 

“I notice that a guy who is the highest rankingAsian in my company behaves like a typicalwhite officer. Sometimes a little bit nasty, veryaggressive, outspoken. I can see that’s how hegot to that level. . . .He’s very demanding atmeetings. Maybe that’s how he fits into thatupper management.”“I had a superior who was a typical white. He was getting upset at me because I never getupset. . . .When I had my review. . .he gave mea low rating. . . . He said that the reason wasbecause, ‘You don’t get upset with your staff.You don’t reprimand them.’ I said, ‘Excuse me.I talk to them, but I don’t scream at them.’”“I was told, ‘Hey, you’re going to have to step

on people. You may not like it, but. . .’ I said,‘That’s not my nature.’ My Asian mentor toldme, ‘After these many years, you’re going tohave to do what the white man says or you’renot going to be successful.’”

What are the Stereotypes About Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans? Glass Ceiling Commission studies, testimony presented at the Commission’s Public Hearings,and CEO interviews consistently identify stereotypes, along with prejudice and bias, as a majorbarrier to job advancement.Despite the fact that, prior to 1965, immigrationlaws singled out Asians for exclusion based onrace, today they are perceived as the kind ofminority/immigrant group others should emulate. Asian and Pacific Islander Americansand immigrants alike are perceived as intelligent/hard-working/ highly educated/ occupational successful/ patient/ polite/ non-confrontational/ non-violent/law-abiding/ politically passive/ culturally resourceful/detail-oriented/ and good at science, engineering, and

technology. These generalized perceptions haveenabled Asian and Pacific Islander Americans togain initial entrance to Corporate America.However, these same stereotypes do turn negative. Asian and Pacific Islander Americans arealso perceived as passive/ unassertive/ indirect/ moreequipped for technical than people-oriented work/ and
ial. As Shattering the

of the Organization of

hat the fields of sci

pend as much on

as do other 

e of this belief]

 a stereotype for

walks of life. They are

workers. but are not

ons that require 

h as management.”

s was addressed by a

s Public Hearing in

er, who had described

Asian American

face when sooner 

hit a barrier 

n as the glass 

. . there is still not

 a lot of negative

omen are perceived 

as content with the status quo/ inflexible/ lacking interpersonal skills and political savvy. They are oftenalso confronted with the dual stereotypes of the

obedient and motherly figure or the exotic and fragile

“China Doll.” Co-workers do not consider Asianwomen to be threats to their jobs, but neither dothey consider them to be tough enough to begroomed for leadership.

THE REALITY CHECK: 105
Perceptions and Stereotypes -Versus the Facts

The Basic Facts

• The Asian and Pacific Islander American population doubled between 1980 and 1990 when the 

Bureau of the Census reported 7.3 million Asian and Pacific Islander Americans. It is the third largest minority after African Americans and Hispanic Americans.

• Sixty percent of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans were born outside the United States.• The Asian and Pacific Islander American population is projected to total 9.9 million by the year 

2000 and it will represent 4 percent of the U.S. population.

• In 1990, the Bureau of the Census reported the total population by national origin groups as 

follows: Chinese 23%; Filipino 19%; Japanese 11%; Asian Indian 11%; Korean 11%; Vietnamese 8%. The remaining population represents 21 other categories of other Asian and Pacific Islander Americans.Islander American population was concentrated in five states—California, New York, Hawaii, Texas, and Illinois.

Asian and Pacific Islander Americans as Managers

• The corporate sector is a major area of employment for Asian and Pacific Islander Americans.• Asian and Pacific Islander Americans are seriously underrepresented in private sector 

management.

• Asian and Pacific Islander Americans have been found to earn less than non-Hispanic whites in 

comparable circumstances when factors such as age or educational level are controlled for.

• According to the 1990 Census, all Asian and Pacific Islander Americans 25 years of age and over 

have earned at least a bachelor’s degree and 14 percent had a graduate or professional degree.

• In 1993, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans represented a 94-billion-dollar consumer market 

according to the Asian and Pacific Islander Center for Census Information and Services.

The Participation of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in Corporate America 
Asian and Pacific Islander

Americans as a whole are above thenational average in terms of educational achievement at both thehigh school and college levels.

Islander Americans 

nt?

nd Pacific Islander

ed to become 

s a picture of one of

ared groups in the

mphasizes the impor

s a reward for secured

shows that Asian and

s a whole are above the

 educational achieve

l and college levels. 

 of Asian and Pacific 

n the workforce who 

r had completed high 

75 percent of the total 

nd older who had 

ol. 

ege completion is 

cent of the general 

ated with a bachelor’s 

ereas almost twice that 

ent—of Asian and 

icans have earned 

urths of the highly 

acific Islander 

 are foreign-educated 

itially came to the 

U.S. as foreign students.

According to the Asian and Pacific IslanderCenter for Census Information and Services, highuniversity and college enrollment among Asianand Pacific Islander Americans is attributable notonly to their population growth but also to theirhigh rates of academic preparedness. Once admitted to college, they tend to do well and have relatively low dropout rates. Persistence and performance are reflected in their high representationat subsequent educational levels. Although Asianand Pacific Islander American women continue tolag behind men in rates of post graduate education, women contributed significantly to theincrease in the overall representation of Asian andPacific Islander Americans in higher education.The most impressive gains made by Asian andPacific Islander Americans were at the bachelor’sand master’s levels where the number of degreesawarded more than doubled between 1979 and1989. While the rate of gain for doctorates issomewhat lower according to the National Centerfor Educational Statistics, the 46 percent increasein doctorates earned during this period by Asianand Pacific Islander Americans puts them aheadof all other groups, including whites. A less encouraging picture emerges when educational attainment is disaggregated by 107
TABLE 7

NATIONAL ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN EXECUTIVES, ADMINISTRATORS, ANDMANAGERS OF PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES BY ETHNICITY, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, AND SEX, 1990

Total with Exe/Admin/Mgr Exec/Admin/Mgr

Bachelor's Degree with Bachelor's Degree % of Total

Ethnicity Male Female Male Female Male FemaleTotal API Population 506,811 571,925 44,175 23,397 8.7 4.1Chinese 124,622 138,199 9,925 7,382 8.0 5.3Filipino 109,125 182,696 5,736 6,082 5.3 3.3Japanese 82,885 80,828 15,262 3,835 18.4 4.7Asian Indian 71,255 64,232 5,587 2,429 7.8 3.8Korean 52,075 58,028 4,475 2,045 8.6 3.5Vietnamese 27,729 16,502 496 495 1.8 3.0Hawaiian 5,263 4,574 414 266 8.0 5.8Other Southeast Asian 11,203 8,564 566 246 5.1 2.9Other API 22,704 17,302 1,714 617 7.5 3.6

Total with Exe/Admin/Mgr with Exec/Admin/Mgr

Master’s/Prof. Degree Master’s/Prof. Degree % of Total

Ethnicity Male Female Male Female Male FemaleTotal API Population 321,164 197,481 26,043 7,627 8.1 3.9Chinese 105,297 65,033 7,935 3,102 7.5 4.8Filipino 29,422 34,471 1,475 1,198 5.0 3.5Japanese 33,028 22,164 3,608 844 10.9 3,8Asian Indian 87,718 41,863 8,882 1,430 10.1 3.4Korean 32,309 16,749 1,660 527 5.1 3.1Vietnamese 8,792 3,707 439 158 5.0 4.3Hawaiian 1,596 1,595 114 38 7.1 2.4Other Southeast Asian 5,645 3,735 347 31 6.1 0.8Other API 17,357 8,173 1,583 299 9.1 3.7

Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, PUMS File; 95% Confidence IntervalCopyright 1994 Asian/Pacific Islander Data Consortium, ACCIS San Francisco, CA• The total API population with college degrees is 1,597,381. Nationally, 77 percent of the total API population has less than a 

Bachelors’. The API males with a Bachelor’s who are Executives/Administrators/Managers nearly doubles the female population in the same occupational category (This only represents, BS/MA/MS of professional degrees. This excludes Doctorates and Associate college degrees.
Compared to other racial and ethnic

groups, Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans viewed as a group are likely to be overrepresented in the sciences.

hen that the dispari

ample,

erican population is 

21 percent of the 

n population hold 

fessional degrees 

onal Center for 

 

 Islander Center for 

nd Services also 

ational achievement of 

st of these groups—ompleted a bachelor’s 

ast Asians, Filipino 

w only slightly better 

ment or completion.

rities among Asian

an male and female

nd managers holding

ofessional degrees. 

ander men are twice

 Islander women to

Pacific Islanders 

Americans in Corporate America?—What Opportunities are Available to Them?

Overall Table 8 shows the number and percentage

of APIs in the top four industries. Asian and Pacific Islander Americans are concentrated inretail trade, finance, professional and related services, and manufacturing.Compared to other racial and ethnic groups,Asian and Pacific Islander Americans viewed as a group are likely to be overrepresented in thesciences, with very little difference between thosewho are native- or foreign-born. Ever since WorldWar II Asian and Pacific Islander American scientists and engineers—native-born and foreign-born—have been a dominant and growing minority in scientific and technical fields, especially through the 1970s, when hightechnology research and development fueled thegrowth of the aerospace and defense industries.The 1965 Immigration Law creates the occupationcategory which enables America to recruit highlyskilled and professional workers such as thosefrom Asia to help develop these fast growingindustries.It is striking, then, to learn from glass ceilingresearch that American-born Asian and Pacific 109
TABLE 8

ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN EXECUTIVES, ADMINISTRATORS, AND MANAGERS OF PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES: TOP FOUR INDUSTRIES, 1990(Number and percent of total API male/female working-age population (16 years and over) with specified degree)Male Populationwith Bachelor’s Degrees with Master’s Degrees1. Manufacturing (n = 12,019; 27.2%) 1. Manufacturing (n = 9,210; 35.4%)2. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

(n = 6,562; 14.9%) (n = 3,618; 13.9%)

3. Retail Trade (n = 6,209; 14.1%) 3. Professional and Related Services 

(n = 2,643; 10.1%)

4. Other Industries (n = 5,461; 12.4%) 4. Retail Trade (n = 2,395; 9.2%)Female Populationwith Bachelor’s Degrees with Master’s Degrees1. Professional and Related Services 1. Professional and Related Services 

(n = 4,959; 21.2%) (n = 1,936; 25.4%)

2. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

(n = 4,917; 21.0%) (n = 1,620; 21.2%)

3. Manufacturing (n = 3,626; 15.5%) 3. Manufacturing (n = 1,603; 21.0%)4. Retail Trade (n = 2,698; 11.5%) 4. Wholesale Trade (n = 614; 8.1%)Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, PUMS File; 95% Confidence IntervalCopy Right 1994 Asian/Pacific Islander Data Consortium, San Francisco, CA.
an foreign-born

r echelons of the

le formal schooling

rucial credentials that

h-paying professions,

roduce upward 

c Islander American

ionals. In fact, Asian

an men are well 

 in the workforce, 

ed in executive

rly, Asian and Pacific

despite their mobility

ven less likely than

merican men to be

 as managers. 

d Pacific Islander

nistrators, and

it Companies by

nment, and Sex. 

esearch shows that

merican professionals

rivate employment

te, local, and federal

yet, the same research

ssionals—the category

managers come—

members of manage

Asian and Pacific

 better suited for 

people-oriented 

r reason why they are

not considered leadership material. They and aregrossly underrepresented in authority positionscompared to whites. This attitude concerning leadership potential isalso reflected in the small number of Asians whoserve on the boards of directors of the major corporations. The 1992 Heidrick and Strugglesstudy of 806 of the public Fortune companiesrevealed that Asian and Pacific Islander Americanwomen held less than one one-hundredth of onepercent of the seats and Asian and Pacific IslanderAmerican men held less than two-tenths of onepercent of the seats.Compensation:

—How are Asian and Pacific Islander Americans Compensated?

The socioeconomic status of the various Asian andPacific Islander Americans national origin groupsdiffers markedly. Many of the misconceptionsregarding favorable economic status of Asian andPacific Islander Americans are fed by statisticaldata that is not disaggregated by national origingroup, age, or gender, and does not adjust for thegeographical concentration of these populationsin metropolitan areas of New York and Californiawhere wages and salaries, along with the cost ofliving, tend to be far higher than the rest of thenation. However, even without such adjustments, the lowpromotion rates of Asian and Pacific Islander

111
earnings. Even with English fluency and U.S. 

citizenship and comparable or even higher levelsof education, the average annual earnings ofAsian and Pacific Islander Americans continue to be lower than their white counterparts in thesame occupations. According to some findingsstill emerging from an analysis of the NationalScience Foundation surveys, they are less likely tobe in managerial jobs than African Americans andHispanic Americans, and when promoted to middle- or upper-levels of management, are more likely to receive lower economic returnscompared to whites occupying similar positions,even though they are also likely to be more qualified in terms of education and work experience. (While the data in the National ScienceFoundation surveys suggest that the pattern ofblocked upward mobility is most apparent in corporations, Woo’s glass ceiling paper entitled,Barrier to Work Place Advancement Experienced byAsian Americans finds evidence of the same phenomenon in other areas, such as law, journalism,government, and academia.)Glass Ceiling research finds that despite higherlevels of formal education than other groups,Asian and Pacific Islander Americans receive alower yield in terms of income or promotions.Some research has even suggested that foreignborn Asian and Pacific Islander Americans experience increasingly lower returns despite more yearsof education than their white counterparts and

that their returns often decrease as education andage increase. Although this phenomenon is sometimes attributed to language difficulties of foreignborn Asian and Pacific Islander Americans,research indicates that foreign-born whites faceno such blocked mobility. This suggests the existence of racial barriers or the possibility thatEuropean employees with English-language difficulties are treated differently than are those whoimmigrated from Asia or the Pacific Islands.

IN SUM
C ISLANDER AMERICAN POPULATION EXECUTIVES, ADMINISTRATORS,

TE-FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES. NUMBER OF CASES, BY ETHNICITY,

T, AND SEX, 1990

Educational Attainment

Total BA/BS BA/BS MA/MS Doctoral

180,232

49,600 20,484 16,310 10,564 2,242

11,855 9,502 7,666 1,97

8,629 6,808 2,898 264

27,215 13,290 11.428 2,493 85

6,930 5,507 1,426 49

6,279 5,921 1,067 36

39,500 16,046 18,685 4,369 410

9,678 14,927 3,566 382

6,468 3,748 793 28

25,446 6,412 7,450 9,947 1,637

4,208 5,305 8,689 1,505

2,204 2,145 1,258 132

16,275 8,019 6,091 1,918 247

4,511 4,218 1,533 223

3,508 1,873 385 24

5,649 4,135 942 559 13

2,429 460 416 13

1,706 482 143 0

5,046 4,219 675 152 0

1,888 409 114 0

2,331 266 38 0

2,968 1,838 768 339 23

1,069 542 326 23

769 226 13 0

8,533 4,320 2.221 1,791 201

2,665 1,659 1,505 201

1,655 562 286 0

S File; 95% Confidence Interval

Data Consortium, ACCIS San Francisco, CA

ned by the table columns. The Asian Indians represent the most educated of the API 

the lowest percentage of Exec/Adm/Mgr with less than a BA/BS, and the highest percentage 

gree.

113
TABLE 10

NATIONAL FOREIGN BORN ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN POPULATION EXECUTIVES,ADMINISTRATORS, AND MANAGERS OF PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES. NUMBER OF CASES,BY ETHNICITY, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, AND SEX

Educational Attainment

Ethnicity/Sex Total BA/BS BA/BS MA/MS/Prof DoctoralTotal API Population 133,628Chinese 38,998 16,610 11,325 9,020 2,043

Male 9,637 6,948 6,759 1,852Female 6,973 4,377 2,261 191

Filipino 20,267 8,298 9,757 2,163 49

Male 4,322 4,662 1,202 49Female 3,976 5,095 961 0

Japanese 19,106 6,007 10,357 2,506 236

Male 4,101 9,439 2,205 208Female 1,903 918 301 28

Asian Indian 24,635 6,085 7,210 9,742 1,598

Male 4,035 5,269 8,503 1,466Female 2,050 1,941 1,236 132

Korean 15,027 7,527 5,517 1,760 223

Male 4,373 3,936 1,408 223Female 3,154 1,581 352 0

Vietnamese 5,510 4,100 838 559 13

Male 2,394 460 416 13Female 1,706 378 143 0

Hawaiian 251 206 25 20 0

Male 24 25 20 0Female 182 0 0 0

Other Southeast Asian 2,918 1,788 768 339 23

Male 1,052 542 326 23Female 736 226 13 0

Other API 6,916 3,476 1,730 1,566 144

Male 2,240 1,449 1,380 144Female 1,236 281 186 0

Source: Bureau of the Census 1990 Census PUMS File 95% Confidence IntervalCopy Right 1994 Asian/Pacific Islander Data Consortium, ACCIS San Francisco, CA
dvancement of Asian

ans into decisionmak

n business are these:

ce of the popular 

and Pacific Islander 

ected by the glass 

ce of the stereotype 

 Islander Americans 

sionals and 

ot suited for 

hip

gnorance of the 

d difference among 

nder groups

d data to use in 

of the diverse Asian 

roups 

rstanding by other 

eriences of foreign 

and Pacific Islander 

c Islander American

ecause of the glass

verall. Corporations

has been to overseas

n drain. Other Asian

an professionals, 

ceiling, have left large

ectronics industry—

repreneurs. It is in

such small businesses that these Asian and PacificIslander Americans—trained in white-owned companies—become CEOs and competitors withtheir former employers. (In 1990 the AsianAmerican Manufacturers Association reportedthat there are more than 200 Asian Americanowned high-tech companies in the San FranciscoBay Area alone.) Data from the Natural SocialScientists and Engineers show both Asian andPacific Islander Americans and White NonHispanics are self-employed at 6 percent each.Such consequences of reverse brain drain andentrepreneurship is indicative, in the sense of theunequal opportunities Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans feel they are encountering in America.

115
TABLE 11

NATIONAL ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN POPULATION EXECUTIVES, ADMINISTRATORS,AND MANAGERS OF PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES. MEAN SALARY INCOME IN 1989 BYETHNICITY, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, AND SEX (in dollars)

Educational Attainment

Ethnicity/Sex Total BA/BS BA/BS MA/MS DoctoralTotal API Population $39,045Chinese 37,473 $25,667 $36,268 $55,239 $70,396

Male 28,672 42,257 58,852 70,667Female 21,538 29,306 45,683 68,364

Filipino 29,766 $23,903 $33,543 $42,062 $72,464

Male 25,952 39,189 50,167 81,563Female 21,642 28,293 31,231 60,080

Japanese 51,682 $36,532 $61,840 $64,890 $80,447

Male 41,800 69,587 70,442 85,371Female 26,249 30,965 39,924 13,268

Asian Indian 45,709 $22,013 $39,531 $59,327 $83,895

Male 24,776 45,309 63,368 88,677Female 16,738 25,242 31,421 29,371

Korean 32,002 $22,713 $37,553 $46,801 $81,783

Male 25,115 42,781 51,570 88,540Female 19,625 25,779 27,815 19,000

Vietnamese 28,476 $23,265 $34,560 $55,810 $70,000

Male 26,426 44,503 63,294 70,000Female 18,763 25,071 34,041 0

Hawaiian 27,914 $26,362 $30,941 $57,535 $ 0

Male 29,591 35,929 43,292 0Female 23,748 34,272 100,263 0

Other Southeast Asian 25,813 $22,746 $26,283 $37,802 $78,500

Male 25,975 26,960 36,677 78,500Female 18,257 24,659 66,000 0

Other API 31,012 $22,688 $37,626 $41,772 $40,943

Male 24,092 40,328 44,637 40,943Female 20,427 29,650 26,696 0

Source: Bureau of the Census 1990 Census PUMS File 95% Confidence IntervalCopy Right 1994 Asian/Pacific Islander Data Consortium, ACCIS San Francisco, CA• The Chinese, Japanese, and Asian Indian and Korean populations are the groups that are able to attain higher levels of education with 

high-end incomes ($75,000 plus).
N & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN POPULATION EXECUTIVES,

ANAGERS OF PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES. MEAN SALARY INCOME

CATIONAL ATTAINMENT, AND SEX (in dollars)

Educational Attainment

Total BA/BS BA/BS MA/MS Doctoral

$35,338

38,806 $30,850 $36,132 $ 63,793 $66,809

35,072 41,506 69,553 78,992

25,194 30,487 55,590 45,781

26,759 $24,472 $30,370 $ 38,861 $60,080

27,883 38,129 40,614 0

20,611 22,433 36,157 60,080

39,113 $31,249 $44,067 $ 55,336 $83,020

34,867 51,611 62,967 83,020

26,910 29,410 34,228 0

28,813 $11,743 $19,762 $ 58,356 $72,345

10,540 6,500 65,329 72,345

13,094 22,103 350 0

34,991 $24,160 $31,714 $ 83,050 $19,000

32,377 36,333 96,591 0

20,957 27,253 31,758 19,000

25,424 $15,612 $28,726 $ 0 $ 0

15,612 0 0 0

0 28,726 0 0

27,938 $26,471 $30,074 $ 62,010 $ 0

29,644 34,786 46,546 0

23,720 23,272 100,263 0

3,310 $3,310 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

2,500 0 0 0

3,727 0 0 0

29,162 $25031 $32,873 $ 35,952 $31,579

27,112 37,878 38,000 31,579

22,919 29,155 33,392 0

s PUMS File 95% Confidence Interval

Data Consortium, ACCIS San Francisco, CA

born populations have smaller incomes than their foreign-born counterparts. The mean income in 

Adm/Mgr of private-for-profit corporations exceed that of their foreign-born counterparts 

117
TABLE 13

NATIONAL FOREIGN BORN ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN POPULATION EXECUTIVES, ADMINISTRATORS, AND MANAGERS OF PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES. MEAN SALARY INCOMEIN 1989 BY ETHNICITY, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, AND SEX (in dollars)

Educational Attainment

Ethnicity/Sex Total BA/BS BA/BS MA/MS/Prof DoctoralTotal API Population $40,338Chinese 37,111 $24,458 $36,328 $53,775 $70,746

Male 27,199 41,165 57,416 70,101Female 20,670 28,650 42,892 76,995

Filipino 30,798 $23,566 $34,087 $42,551 $81,563

Male 24,787 39,381 51,947 81,563Female 22,239 29,243 30,798 0

Japanese 65,099 $42,689 $76,131 $71,954 $78,549

Male 51,048 80,057 75,055 87,337Female 24,664 35,759 49,234 13,268

Asian Indian 46,265 $22,565 $40,189 $59,348 $84,177

Male 25,386 45,574 63,325 89,112Female 17,011 25,572 31,974 29,371

Korean 31,754 $22,619 $38,160 $43,547 $88,540

Male 24,886 43,243 47,573 88,540Female 19,475 25,506 27,445 0

Vietnamese 28,556 $23,330 $35,284 $55,810 $70,000

Male 26,584 44,503 63,294 70,000Female 18,763 24,066 34,041 0

Hawaiian 27,456 $24,243 $53,500 $28,000 $ 0

Male 25,500 53,500 28,000 0Female 24,077 0 0 0

Other Southeast Asian 26,198 $23,289 $26,283 $37,802 $78,500

Male 26,354 26,960 36,677 78,500Female 18,908 24,066 66,000 0

Other API 31,444 $22,119 $38,975 $42,608 $44,650

Male 23,518 40,687 45,238 44,650Female 19,583 30,146 23,095 0

Source: Bureau of the Census 1990 Census PUMS File 95% Confidence IntervalCopy Right 1994 Asian/Pacific Islander Data Consortium, ACCIS San Francisco, CA• Tables 13 and 14 illustrate that Japanese and Asian Indian foreign born Exec/Adm/Mgr of private-for-profit corporations have a larger 

mean income than their U.S. born counterparts (Table 13). However, compared to the white male Exec/Adm/Mgr’s mean income of $50,052, all the foreign born Exec/Adm/Mgr except for the Japanese make less than white males.
N & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN EXECUTIVES, ADMINISTRATORS, AND

OR-PROFIT COMPANIES. NUMBER OF CASES BY ETHNICITY,

T, AND SEX

Educational Attainment

Total BA/BS BA/BS MA/MS/Prof Doctoral

46,604

10,602 3,874 4,985 1,544 199

2,218 2,554 907 126

1,656 2,431 637 73

6,948 4,911 1,671 330 36

3,608 845 224 0

2,303 826 106 36

20,394 10,039 8,328 1,853 174

5,474 5,498 1,361 174

4,565 2,830 492 0

811 327 240 205 39

173 36 183 30

154 204 22 0

1,248 492 574 158 24

138 282 125 0

354 292 33 24

139 35 104 0 0

35 0 0 0

0 104 0 0

4,795 4,013 650 132 0

1,864 384 94 0

2,149 266 38 0

50 50 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

33 0 0 0

1,617 844 491 255 57

425 210 125 57

419 281 100 0

s PUMS File 95% Confidence Interval

Data Consortium, ACCIS San Francisco, CA

119
GENERAL BACKGROUND

The Hispanic American population in the UnitedStates (23 million in 1992) is an ethnic group differentiated by national origin and by time and circumstance of entry into the United States. 1990 Census data show that it is geographicallyconcentrated in 14 metropolitan areas of fivestates—California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. The national Hispanic communitycomprises more than 20 national origin groupsthat vary significantly from one another. To portray Latinos as a homogeneous ethnic group is misleading. For example, the predominantgroups in the Latino community, i.e., MexicanAmericans (13.3 million), Puerto Ricans (2.6 million), and Cuban Americans (1.0 million) aregeographically concentrated in different regionsof the nation. As a consequence, the experienceof Cuban American refugees in south Florida versus Puerto Ricans in New York or MexicanAmericans in south Texas are differentiated by historical factors, education, economic opportunities, sociocultural differences of the localareas, and level of bilingualism as well as by race. Hispanics are the living Rainbow Coalition,Caucasian, African American, Asian, Indian, and

the possible combinations of the above. In thisreport, the term minority male includes white

Hispanic males and the terms Hispanic and Latino are used interchangeably.The next section shows how dramatically the views of CEOs and the views of Hispanic malesand females differ on glass ceiling issues. CEOsexpress the conviction that the inclusion ofHispanics at all levels is a bottom-line issue.Hispanics perceive a cap on how far they areallowed to go. Research reveals negative stereotypes of both Hispanic men and women—images that can undermine how supervisors judge the leadership potential of Hispanics. 

THE PERCEPTIONSHow CEOs Perceive The Glass Ceilingand Hispanic AmericansEven though most of the CEOs interviewed werein states with high concentrations of HispanicAmericans, almost all interpreted “minorities” solely as African Americans. In fact, only two ofthe non-minority CEOs mentioned Hispanicswithout being reminded of the existence ofminority groups other than African Americans. 

ow

the

ve.

“THE TWO-WAY MIRROR” HISPANIC AMERICANS
CEOs were very clear that the 

changing national demographics and the need to compete in the globalmarket required that they haveHispanics at all levels of their organizations.Being both a woman and a Hispanicin Corporate America meant carryinga double burden because of resistanceto them first as Hispanics and then as women.

ass ceiling affected

mericans, CEOs 

nging national demo

mpete in the global

ave Hispanics at all

 Several believed that

U.S.-born Hispanics

 required to move 

were especially 

ot find many U.S.-

ate in English and

u have to relate to 

 business. . . . 

n a pluralistic 

in if it can cover 

influence, we sell.

uence and we 

understand our 

nts of view within

panics who are

portant that I 

ol to learn to speak

elate in Latin

to hire foreign

nationals. Isn’t anybody teaching our Hispanickids Spanish?” 

How Hispanic Women Perceive the Glass Ceiling The information in this section is drawn fromrecords of 1993 and 1994 Aspen Institute Seminarson Hispanic Americans and the Business Community. The Hispanic women executives who participatedagreed that being both a woman and a Hispanicin Corporate America meant carrying a doubleburden because of resistance to them first asHispanics and then as women. They found it particularly difficult to build mentoring relationships with non-Hispanics who could guide theircareer advancement and they perceived that theirnon-Hispanic white supervisors focused more onoutward signs of difference than on competence.Two of their comments illustrate these points of view:

“The vice-president sought me out and told methat he was going to take charge of my career. l was delighted. Six months later he transferredacross the country, did not take me along, andnever looked back. I was left high and dry.”“I have all the credentials and I have beenassigned the job of writing copy in Englishwhich they run with no corrections. However, instaff reviews they always mention that I speak 121
to the

with an accent. When I ask them if they havedifficulty understanding me, they say, ‘No, butyou know how it is upstairs. Accents make themnervous. Why don’t you work harder to get ridof it?’ You should hear this [deleted] when hetries to speak Spanish to our customers.”

Other Hispanic women explained that they feltadrift in a sea of insensitivity where white peersand superiors didn’t know how to identify withthem or treat them.

“They keep telling me that I am not consideredPuerto Rican because I am so like them—‘notlike the others.’ That offends me. Then when itcomes time for promotion and I’m in line, I’mtold that I didn’t get it because there isn’t roomnow for another Latin woman. So what am I?”“There are minority jobs and that’s not right.But then, when something opens up in thatarea they put in a Black. That is what they consider to be a minority. So I’m not a minorityand I am not white. Where do Mexicanasbelong?”“I’ve watched and I have seen that they do notalways hire or promote the best of us. SometimesI think they just put us in to fill the quotas.They have decided just how far they intend tolet us go on the day they hire us.”

How Hispanic Men Perceive the Glass Ceiling

“Glass is nice; you can see through it. But the glass ceiling, it’s like a two-way mirror.”

Hispanic participants in the minority executivemale focus groups assembled by the Glass CeilingCommission characterized the glass ceiling as“opaque.” Hispanics believe that the glass ceilingis keeping them from moving beyond a certainlevel and they feel that they are always beingwatched and judged.The “Minority” LabelLike African Americans, American Indians, andAsian and Pacific Islander Americans, Hispanicmen considered the term “minority” manipulativeand part of a deliberate attempt to slow themdown or relegate them to a lower position. Theyconsider themselves as having accomplished“heroic” efforts to advance in the corporate world,particularly in light of the unfair hiring andadvancement practices to which they feel theyhave been subjected. Most of these Hispanic executive men believe that their advancement requirestotal assimilation and acculturation to the Angloculture and style. Some feel that they are not playing on a level field even when they do accept allthe Anglo norms. Two comments sum up howstrongly the participants felt that the minoritylabel restricts their options. 
“. . .instead of watching us shine the

bottom of your glass ceiling as if itwere your $200 shoes, open the opportunity up and let these people ofcolor play in your sandbox.”

ys felt you’re a

oes just so far.”

country club, but

s ceiling, Hispanic

d whether you want

 glass ceiling, guys.”

 it but to keep 

h the majority will

up the ladder. Once

ot going to go 

s and Careers

ments Hispanic men

he glass ceiling on

mployers—

efuses to 

ssue exists, the 

e is well aware of

ent in the workforce

“. . . a person should be hired or promoted byhis/her ability to do said work. Yet, people arepromoted more by their skin than their ability.”

What are the Stereotypes About Hispanic Americans?In a 1994 survey of middle-level managers conducted by The Hispanic Policy DevelopmentProject middle-level white corporate supervisorsadmitted off the record that they are not comfortable with what they perceive as Hispanicdifference or what they expect will be different even whennothing is immediately evident. Hispanics interviewedin the same study who had “made it” into the decisionmaking ranks attribute the dearth ofLatino peers to the widespread stereotyping andbias that shuts Latinos out. They say it requiresthem to pass ever more stringent tests to whichtheir white peers are not subjected. It shunts themto the side “even when they accept the mainstreamnorms and play by white male corporate rules.” A compilation of the Hispanic stereotypes reported in the research papers contracted by the GlassCeiling Commission (Mauricio Gastón Institute,and Hispanic Policy Development Project) revealsthat Hispanics in general are lumped togetherand widely perceived as being poor/uneducated/and recently arrived in the United States. During a

1994 focus group held at the Aspen Institute that included Hispanics and high-level Anglo corporate managers, the Anglo managers said 123
that they often heard that many Hispanic maleswere chauvinist/ domineering/ arrogant/ prone to violence/ unwilling to learn English/ not patriotictoward the U.S./ and heavy drinkers and drug userswho don’t want to work. Hispanic PolicyDevelopment Project research reveals that anexception is often made for Cubans who are perceived positively as brave exiles from communism.Otherwise Cubans are frequently perceived negatively as an overly aggressive group that has“taken over Miami.”The same Commission sources cited above showthat Hispanic women, Latinas, are frequently seenas strong and stoic/ self-sacrificing/ tied to family and

community/ under the domination of husbands andfathers/ passive/ overly emotional and educationallydeficient.Although the stereotypes applied to Hispanic menand women differ, they all have a negative impacton Hispanics as potential candidates for corporateleadership. 
types -Versus the Facts

tion grew 53 percent between 1980 and 1990 according to U.S. Census 

to 22.4 million is attributable almost equally to the birth rate and to 

presented 7.9 percent of the labor force—9.9 million workers according to 

Statistics.

panics is very strong. Adult Hispanic men have the highest rate of labor 

the nation. Census data show that the labor force participation rates of 

men in 1990 was 78.2 percent and 52 percent respectively compared to non

rcent) and non-Hispanic women (57 percent). In addition, U.S. Department 

 show that male Hispanic high school students work more hours while 

n any other group of male students.

ot recent arrivals. Census data reveal that two-thirds of the Hispanics were 

ates. The group with the highest percentage of those born in the U.S. is of 

learn English. Calvin Veltman’s 1988 study on language shift shows that 

are learning English at the same rate as other immigrants of the same poor. The 1990 Census reported that 48.2 percent of Hispanic households 

er year.

t the percentage of Hispanics who are managers and administrators is far

n-Hispanic whites who are managers and administrators.

Americans 43.0 %

6.0 %

8.0 %7.5 %

mericans 7.5 %

ted a $175 billion consumer market according to the Bureau of Labor

diture Survey. 125
The Participation of Hispanic Americans 

in Corporate America Preparedness:

—Are Hispanic Americans Prepared for Management?

Education has become an increasingly importantfactor for advancement in the private sector.Graduate degrees have evolved from helpful assets to important prerequisites to advancementand promotion. Secondary school dropout ratesare high and directly limit the size of the pool ofpotential Hispanic American managers as doesthe number of immigrants who arrive do with little education. Nonetheless, the number of Latinosattending and completing college is steadilyincreasing as is the percentage of college graduates who go on to earn post graduate degrees.

• U.S. Census data show that in 1980, 

7.7 percent of Hispanics 25 years of age and older had completed four or more years of college. By 1990 that figure had increased to 10 percent. In 1990 the percentage of non-Hispanics who had completed four or more years of college had risen to 21 percent. The proportion of Hispanics with four years of college continues to lag behind the general population. 

• In 1990 according to U.S. Census data, only 

370,000 Hispanic men and women 18 years of age or older had earned the advanced degrees that are now considered a prerequisite for climbing the corporate ladder. 

• A January 1994 Hispanic Business magazine 

survey of Hispanic senior executives in Fortune 1000 companies revealed that 60 percent of the respondents held advanced degrees—23 percent had MBAs, 12 percent had law degrees, 18 percent had master’s degrees (other than MBAs), and 7 percent had earned Ph.D.s. 

Placement and Opportunity:

—Where are Hispanic Americans in Corporate America?—What Opportunities are Available to Them?

Although the number of Hispanics earning thedegrees that business looks for has steadilyincreased, it does not represent a large pool.Hispanics continue to be relatively invisible in corporate decisionmaking positions, in partbecause Hispanic managers and administratorsare more frequently employed in government and the nonprofit sector than in the for-profit sector. The paucity of Hispanics in corporate decisionmaking jobs may also stem from the fact thatwhen they do enter the private sector they areclustered in staff jobs that lack career mobility and lack access to development programs with tailored leadership training and mentoring.

c men

lder

es that

te for
 by the Mauricio 

panic Policy 

 and with focus 

Hispanic men and 

sector are clustered in 

ty relations, human 

irs, corporate giving, 

ese positions provide 

 influential sponsors 

ers on the track to 

d high-salaried 

cy Development 

d that one of the 

the advancement of 

entoring. A number 

c middle-managers 

 by the Hispanic 

Project for a report 

ased, stated in 

are reluctant to 

rceive that they will 

tural barriers. The 

c employees who 

ect this reality. They 

nse that the white 

to mentor them.

show the size of the

y major national ori

c managers at all man

ed across the 

for-profit industrial sectors. The numbers inparentheses in Table 16 represent the percentageof managers who are Hispanic. For example:

• Mexican Americans comprise only 

4.9 percent of the retail trade managers nationwide. Hispanic representation in other industries surveyed falls below that of the retail industry.

• Puerto Ricans nationwide account for 

.7 percent of the managers in the manufacturing industry.

• Cubans nationwide account for .11 percent 

of the managers in the transportation industry although they represent .2 percent of the adult working-age population. 

The 1994 Hispanic Business survey of the Fortune

1000 companies identified 169 Hispanic seniorexecutives (vice-president or above) employed in95 major corporations. Another 174 companiesreported that they have no Hispanic senior executives and the remainder did not reply. The profile of the 169 Hispanic senior executivesshows: 

• Forty-four percent of the senior executives 

worked in the Consumer, Finance and Food and Beverage sectors. An additional forty percent were in high tech, publishing and media, telephone and utilities, and the service sectors

• The 23 women senior executives 

represented every industry except energy, food and beverage, and industrial 

127
men

 has

women

so the

senior

n

nics

• Eighty-six percent of the Hispanic senior 

executives were male

• Over 40 percent had been in their 

companies 16 years or more 

Though the number of Hispanic senior managerscontinues to be small, it has increased over the last15 years. The majority of the senior managersreported in Hispanic Business hold line positions,

frequently in the international divisions of theircompanies where their bilingual/bicultural skillsare considered assets. (It is interesting to note thatthere is a history of strong opposition to Spanishbilingualism in the nation as evidenced by EnglishOnly movements. The High School and BeyondLongitudinal Study of the U.S. Department ofEducation reveals that only 4 percent of Hispanichigh school students take three years of Spanish—the minimum for literacy even among nativespeakers—thereby failing to develop a valuable potential business asset.)Just as the advancement of women into seniorpositions in business has led to the appointmentof more women to corporate boards of directors,so the advancement of Hispanics into senior levelpositions has resulted in an increase in the number of Hispanics appointed to boards ofdirectors. In 1995, fifty-one Hispanics served onthe boards of seventy-four of the Fortune 1000corporations—41 men and ten women. Hispanic 

Business reports that this is a net increase of eightindividuals from the previous year.Compensation:

—How are Hispanic Americans Being Compensated?

Income is the fundamental indicator of socioeconomic status in the United States. A broad-brush look at U.S. Census data on thepercentage of families in Hispanic national origingroups with annual earnings above $30,000 compared to non-Hispanics paints the followingpicture:

• Mexican and Mexican Americans 31%• Puerto Ricans 23%• Cubans 40%• All Other Hispanic Groups 40%• All Non-Hispanics 53%

The income differentials between non-Hispanicsand Hispanics indicate that Mexican Americansand Puerto Ricans lag much farther behind nonHispanics than do Cubans and Other Hispanics.The following tables, prepared by the TomásRivera Center, show substantial differences in theincome of all managers by gender, by industry,and by national-origin group. Because data is notdisaggregated by level of management, there is noway to know if the remarkable differentials resultfrom varying level of management or disparatecompensation for comparable responsibility. 
istribution of Hispanics by region and by national origin based on data from

n these industries are clustered in manufacturing and retail with the 

ida and Puerto Rican women in New York. These groups are heavily 

nd professional sectors. The wholesale, transportation, and business 

ficant numbers of Hispanic managers.)

D POPULATION, BY SUBGROUP IN U.S., 1990

(% of Subgroup)

All Persons U.S.-Born Foreign-Born

13,393,208 8,933,371 (66.7) 4,459,837 (33.4)

2,651,815 2,618,963 (98.8) 32,852 (1.2)1,053,197 298,481 (28.3) 754,716 (71.7)

4,801,869 2,207,624 (46.0) 2,594,245 (54.0)

MS File; 95% Confidence Interval

arch staff

129
TABLE 16

DISTRIBUTION AND REPRESENTATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND MANAGERIAL OCCUPATIONS IN THE U.S. BY INDUSTRY, HISPANIC SUBGROUP, AND GENDER

(PERCENTAGES ARE FOR INDUSTRY)

Industry/Gender Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban Other Hispanic White TotalManufacturing

Male 112 ( .9) 21 (.2) 9 (.1) 50 (.4) 12,413 (98.5) 12,605Female 55 (1.7) 17 (.5) 5 (.2) 25 (.8) 3,170 (96.9) 3,272

Transportation

Male 50 (1.3) 7 (.2) 4 (.8) 15 (.4) 3,724 (98.0) 3,799Female 24 (1.7) 5 (.4) 4 (.3) 12 (.9) 1,374 (96.8) 1,419

Wholesale

Male 24 (1.0) 1 (.0) 6 (.3) 11 (.5) 2,366 (98.3) 2,408Female 17 (1.9) 4 (.4) 2 (.2) 5 (.6) 884 (96.9) 912

Retail

Male 120 (2.1) 11 (.2) 3 (.1) 33 (.6) 5,548 (97.1) 5,715Female 113 (2.8) 8 (.2) 3 (.1) 18 (.5) 3,865 (96.59) 4,007

Business

Male 53 (1.6) 8 (.3) 3 (.1) 20 (.6) 3,172 (97.4) 3,256Female 21 (1.4) 3 (.2) 5 (.3) 11 (.7) 1,459 (97.3) 1,499

Finance

Male 65 (1.4) 16 (.2) 6 (.1) 22 (.6) 4,531 (97.7) 4,640Female 95 (2.2) 15 (.4) 3 (.1) 19 (.4) 4,126 (96.9) 4,258

Professional

Male 47 (1.0) 10 (.2) 5 (.1) 27 (.6) 4,548 (98.1) 4,637Female 112 (1.3) 19 (.3) 6 (.1) 29 (.5) 5,951 (97.1) 6,127

Total

Male 471 (1.3) 74 (.2) 36 (.1) 178 (.5) 36,403 (98.0) 37,162Female 447 (2.1) 71 (.3) 30 (.1) 119 (.6) 20,829 (96.9) 21,496

Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence IntervalCompiled by Tomás Rivera Center Research Staff• Each row illustrates the distribution of male and female managers in a particular industry. For instance, a sampling of 

five percent of U.S. households identified 112 Mexican American men and 55 Mexican American women occupying managerial occupations in the manufacturing industry nationwide. The same sample identified 12,413 white non-Hispanic men and 3,170 non-Hispanic women occupying managerial occupations in manufacturing industry in the U.S. The percentages in parenthesis reflect the representation for those groups included in the Table.
g research, and private

ajor barriers to the

mericans in the private

pool of Hispanic 

omen who have 

s that are now 

tes for senior 

practices that 

entify Hispanic 

the necessary 

ation which steers 

 opposed to line 

hem there.

er potential Hispanic 

he Spanish-speaking 

ncy discriminates 

Hispanic Americans 

ver who do not speak 

ot speak it well.)

al differences.

omfort with cultural 

 white middle-level 

gers to be reluctant 

ote Hispanic men and 

ol of Hispanic 

anic recruits.

• Isolation from the informal communication 

networks.

• A lack of assignments that provide visibility 

and interaction with senior managers.

131
TABLE 17a

COMPARISON OF THE MEAN WAGE INCOME OF MEXICAN AMERICAN AND WHITE MANAGERS BY STATE, PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRY, GENDER, AND HISPANIC SUBGROUP

(MEAN WAGE in dollars)

California California Texas Texas Illinois Illinois

Industry/Gender Mexican White Mexican White Mexican White

American American American

Manufacturing

Male $41,456 $58,666 $30,821 $56,616 $49,998 $64,223Female 26,296 31,662 23,449 29,883 29,849 33,500

Transportation

Male 33,353 50,677 30,948 51,716 34,295 51,486Female 32,791 32,933 24,926 31,968 37,671 32,471

Wholesale

Male 41,967 58,283 32,871 57,216 33,657 60,450Female 25,686 29,125 18,037 28,340 ——- 30,425

Retail

Male 24,213 36,439 19,740 37,700 32,346 39,743Female 15,527 18,461 13,150 20,188 17,802 20,184

Business

Male 27,998 45,468 21,809 44,327 28,750 50,946Female 24,725 29,037 18,783 26,772 24,743 32,221

Finance

Male 36,894 59,240 32,061 55,769 40,200 67,531Female 23,332 29,467 19,940 23,860 28,218 30,712

Professional

Male 32,180 51,024 32,769 50,841 28,605 52,795Female 22,357 26,773 19,029 24,294 27,976 28,028

Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence IntervalCompiled by Tomás Rivera Center Research StaffThe number of cases used to determine mean wages is in some instances as few as one. Sample sizes from a 5 percent file are expectedly small. Data is provided for all cases regardless of sample size.• Tables 17a, 17b, and 17c illustrate the significant wage differentials that exist by state, industry, and gender. In California, Mexican 

American men earn approximately $17,210 less than white non-Hispanic males. Mexican American women earn $32,370 less, and white non-Hispanic women earn $27,400 less than white men in the same industry. The wage income of white males is consistently higher than Hispanic men and women regardless of state, Hispanic subgroup, and industry.
N WAGE INCOME OF PUERTO RICAN AND WHITE 

VATE-FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRY, AND GENDER

(MEAN WAGE in dollars)

New York New York Illinois Illinois

Puerto Rican White Puerto Rican White

$45,853 $62,403 $25,300 $64,223

31,448 37,160 21,333 33,500

35,096 55,671 33,000 51,486

31,857 36,081 36,500 32,471

37,654 67,696 80,000* 60,450

16,000 36,998 ——- 30,425

27,837 40,820 24,667 39,743

18,403 22,942 24,721 20,184

70,257* 54,503 29,000 50,946

29,330 37,628 23,000 32,221

40,368 70,000 13,800 67,531

29,268 37,704 10,000 30,712

35,375 52,340 29,000 52,795

24,826 30,931 19,443 28,028

c Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence Interval

h Staff

ine mean wages is in some instances as few as one. Sample sizes from a 5 percent file are 

 all cases regardless of sample size.

133
TABLE 17c

COMPARISON OF THE MEAN WAGE INCOME OF CUBAN, OTHER HISPANIC, AND WHITE MANAGERS BY STATE, PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRY, AND GENDER

(MEAN WAGE in dollars)

California California Florida Florida

Industry/Gender Other White Cuban White

Hispanic

Manufacturing

Male $54,301 $58,666 $42,047 $53,659Female 27,773 31,662 21,345 27,317

Transportation

Male 34,176 50,677 43,761 48,063Female 32,513 32,933 27,193 29,833

Wholesale

Male 50,920 58,283 45,496 53,186Female 40,980 29,125 22,808 28,160

Retail

Male 24,749 36,439 32,187 36,950Female 22,125 18,461 17,405 20,064

Business

Male 45,418 45,468 32,380 40,164Female 21,049 29,037 16,980 25,645

Finance

Male 62,528* 59,240 29,644 50,489Female 28,497 29,467 30,500* 25,672

Professional

Male 41,111 51,024 54,045* 47,585Female 26,250 26,773 45,201* 24,858

Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence IntervalCompiled by Tomás Rivera Center Research Staff*The number of cases used to determine mean wages is in some instances as few as one. Sample sizes from a 5 percent file are expectedly small. Data is provided for all cases regardless of sample size.
N WAGE INCOME OF MEXICAN AMERICAN AND 

STRATIVE, AND MANAGERIAL POPULATIONS, IN SELECTED 

STRIES BY GENDER AND STATE1

fornia California Illinois Illinois Texas Texas

xican White Mexican White Mexican White

erican American American

3.8 34.1 22.9 35.1 16.7 32.0

2.5 15.2 13.9 16.9 8.0 12.8

0.6 10.2 15.7 9.2 11.0 12.2

5.4 6.6 9.2 7.1 7.1 7.7

5.1 6.5 10.0 7.3 6.0 7.5

3.9 4.2 4.3 3.6 5.2

5.5 15.2 28.6 13.7 34.3 14.0

5.4 18.6 23.1 18.9 30.7 17.9

1.3 8.7 5.7 8.5 12.6 10.3

4.3 7.0 7.7 6.9 5.8 7.4

3.8 12.7 7.1 12.2 7.8 12.9

1.3 19.8 15.4 18.3 16.7 21.7

9.9 12.5 10.0 11.7 11.6 11.1

7.2 28.6 30.8 27.6 28.3 27.3

c Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence Interval

h Staff

ine mean-wages is in some instances as few as one. Sample sizes from a 5 percent filee are 

 all cases regardless of sample size.

e comparisons on a state-by-state basis by industry, gender, and ethnicity of the within group 

pations. Each column illustrates the within group distribution for a particular industry, etc. 

merican men in California who hold managerial occupations work in the manufacturing industry; 

hite non-Hispanic males. Also in California, 27.2 percent of Mexican American women who hold 

the professional industries; as opposed to 28.6 percent of white non-Hispanic women.

ge populations of Hispanic subgroups. Percentage are of total male and female Hispanic subgroup

135
TABLE 18b

COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF PUERTO RICAN AND WHITE EXECUTIVE,ADMINISTRATIVE, AND MANAGERIAL POPULATIONS, IN SELECTED PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRIES BY GENDER AND STATE1

New York New York Illinois Illinois

Industry/Gender Puerto Rican White Puerto Rican WhiteManufacturing

Male 15.6 30.9 35.3 35.1Female 15.0 16.8 7.1 16.9

Transportation

Male 10.2 9.3 11.7 9.2Female 9.7 5.8 35.3 7.1

Wholesale

Male 5.5 6.8 5.9 7.3Female 1.8 4.6 7.1 4.3

Retail

Male 15.6 14.4 17.6 13.7Female 10.5 13.8 14.3 18.9

Business

Male 4.7 8.4 5.9 8.5Female 8.8 8.9 7.1 6.9

Finance

Male 30.5 16.7 5.9 12.2Female 23.77 20.4 21.4 18.3

Professional

Male 18.0 13.6 17.7 11.7Female 30.7 29.8 42.9 27.6

Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence IntervalCompiled by Tomás Rivera Center Research Staff1Comparisons made in states with large populations of Hispanic subgroups. Percentages are of total male and female Hispanic subgroupmanagerial population.
TAGE OF CUBAN, OTHER HISPANIC, AND WHITE EXECUTIVE, 

NAGERIAL POPULATIONS, IN SELECTED PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT 

ND STATE1

California California Florida Florida

Other White Cuban White

Hispanic

27.9 34.1 14.5 24.3

21.0 15.2 15.4 10.7

8.4 10.2 11.8 12.3

10.1 6.6 13.5 7.0

6.2 6.5 18.4 7.2

4.2 4.2 9.6 4.2

19.0 15.2 17.1 19.2

15.1 18.6 11.5 19.1

11.2 8.7 7.9 10.3

9.2 7.0 15.4 7.0

12.3 12.7 15.8 15.2

16.0 19.8 23.1 23.2

15.1 12.5 14.5 11.6

24.4 28.6 11.5 28.8

c Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence Interval

h Staff

ge populations of Hispanic subgroups. Percentages are of total male and female Hispanic subgroup

137
TABLE 19a

COMPARISON OF MEXICAN AMERICAN AND WHITE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND MANAGERIAL POPULATIONS, IN SELECTED PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRIES BYGENDER AND STATE

(% OF STATE TOTAL)

California California Mexican White Texas Texas

Industry/Gender Mexican White American Mexican White

American American

Manufacturing

Male .9 94.9 .4 95.9 3.3 92.1Female 1.6 91.6 1.0 92.7 5.2 88.2

Transportation

Male 1.3 93.0 1.1 91.5 5.5 89.7Female 1.5 88.1 1.5 87.5 7.5 84.8

Wholesale

Male 1.0 93.6 .9 96.5 5.0 91.0Female 1.8 91.2 94.7 5.8 88.7

Retail

Male 1.9 88.2 1.4 91.4 12.7 76.7Female 2.6 88.8 1.4 90.7 12.3 75.9

Business

Male 1.6 92.8 .5 94.4 7.2 87.0Female 1.2 92.1 1.3 90.6 6.6 87.7

Finance

Male 1.3 92.7 .4 95.8 3.8 92.0Female 2.1 90.5 1.0 91.2 6.4 87.4

Professional

Male 9.4 91.4 .6 92.4 6.2 87.2Female 1.8 89.1 1.3 86.9 8.1 82.6

Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence IntervalCompiled by Tomás Rivera Center Research Staff• Tables 19a, 19b, and 19c illustrate the within state representation of Hispanic subgroups and white non-Hispanics. Thus, in 

California, Mexican American males hold .9 percent of all the managerial, while white non-Hispanic males hold 94.9 percent. Combined, the two groups hold 95.8 percent of the managerial occupations in the state industry.
139

RICAN AND WHITE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND MANAGERIAL

ED PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRIES BY GENDER AND STATE

(% OF STATE TOTAL)

New York New York Illinois Illinois

Puerto Rican White Puerto Rican White

.4 94.7 .2 95.9

1.1 89.0 .1 92.7

.9 90.7 .2 91.5

1.9 81.0 87.5

.7 95.7 .1 96.5

.5 91.4 .4 94.7

.9 90.6 .2 91.4

1.0 90.7 .2 90.7

.5 90.7 .1 94.4

1.3 90.3 .3 90.6

1.4 85.6 .1 95.8

1.4 86.2 .3 91.2

1.1 90.0 .2 92.4

1.3 86.9 .4 86.9

c Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence Interval

h Staff
TABLE 19c

COMPARISON OF CUBAN, OTHER HISPANIC, AND WHITE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND MANAGERIAL POPULATIONS, IN SELECTED PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRIES BYGENDER AND STATE

(% OF STATE TOTAL)

California California Florida Florida

Industry/Gender Other White Cuban White

Hispanic

Manufacturing

Male .4 94.9 .5 88.3Female .7 91.6 1.1 86.4

Transportation

Male .4 93.0 .7 86.6Female .8 88.1 1.4 81.2

Wholesale

Male .4 93.6 1.8 81.6Female .5 91.2 1.6 78.8

Retail

Male .5 88.2 .6 85.1Female .4 88.8 .5 86.3

Business

Male .6 92.8 .6 88.1Female .7 92.1 1.7 87.4

Finance

Male .4 92.7 .8 87.6Female .1 90.5 .8 87.9

Professional

Male .5 91.4 .9 87.3Female .4 89.1 .3 86.5

Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence IntervalCompiled by Tomás Rivera Center Research Staff
N-HISPANIC MEAN WAGE INCOME BY AGE AND EDUCATION, IN SELECTED

STRIES IN THE U.S.

(in dollars)

Manufacturing Transportation Utilities Wholesale

$30,679 $28,550 ** $34,075

36,788 33,770  

60,394 **  ** **

$32,933 $32,680 $28,665 $31,399

42,171 41,464 42,400 42,575

53,036 52,388 57,124 52,811

$32,258 $38,442 ** $34,080

54,171 51,743  

79,722 **  ** **

$42,684 $43,776 $43,884 $42,116

59,587 55,067 55,261 61,511

70,449 65,430 65,198 72,095

$51,688 $44,714 ** $35,800

63,438   ** 

48,800 **  

$52,710 $47,058 $43,745 $56,694

72,730 67,218 72,087 84,301

87,981 84,477 85,869 ** 

to Rican, Cuban, and Other Hispanic Subgroups.

ncluded in the table. (Note: Small sample sizes increase the effects of standard error. The mean 

many cases, represent the reported wages for as few as ten cases due to the size of the sample and the

managerial occupations.)

essional degree completed.

c Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence Interval

h Staff

141
CON’T—TABLE 20

HISPANIC* AND WHITE NON-HISPANIC MEAN WAGE INCOME BY AGE AND EDUCATION, IN SELECTEDPRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT INDUSTRIES IN THE U.S.

(in dollars)

Ethnicity/Age/Education Retail Business Finance Insurance ProfessionalHispanic/25-34

Some College $20,490 $23,002 $25,478 ** $20,784College 30,069 38,448 26,417 ** 26,029Post College   **  ** 38,080

White Non-Hispanic/25-34

Some College $23,805 $27,747 $28,458 $29,449 $23,424College 30,612 37,029 38,391 36,004 31,533Post College 37,280 38,785 62,301 ** 36,974

Hispanic/35-44

Some College $37,928 $30,289 $35,773 ** $22,747College 38,750 46,289 54,231 ** 34,848Post College   83,205 **  38,552

White Non-Hispanic/35-44

Some College $32,204 $37,623 $37,199 $39,016 $28,879College 45,979 54,121 60,318 61,259 42,314Post College 65,549 67,729 84,879 74,629 51,530

Hispanic/45-54

Some College $32,181 $33,262 $55,414 ** $29,949College   **  ** 39,800Post College   **  ** 41,725

White Non-Hispanic/45-54

Some College $35,562 $42,917 $40,570 $50,293 $32,123College 59,649 65,426 70,984 73,640 47,910Post College   **  ** **

*Includes Native-born Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Other Hispanic Subgroups.**Cells with less than 5 cases are not included in the table. (Note: Small sample sizes increase the effects of standard error. The mean wagesof Hispanics in this sample, in many cases, represent the reported wages for as few as ten cases due to the size of the sample and the relatively low number of Hispanics in managerial occupations.Post College means graduate degree or professional degree completed.Source: 1990 Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata (5%) Sample; 95% Confidence IntervalCompiled by Tomás Rivera Center Research Staff
143

of who they’ll 

ly or subconsciously,

ops into their minds

of what a manager

g Public Hearing

hio

94

EO, is simply a 

orkplace not separate

”

Women

ND

men still exists, despite

ecade women have

in the largest U.S. cor

rcent of senior posi

ar too few in 

s in the labor force.

ow. For example, in

1992, Korn/Ferry sent out a survey to 2,165 seniorwomen executives in the Fortune 2000 industrialsand service companies. When Korn/Ferry selected for analysis those women who were in the 1000largest industrials and 500 largest service industries, they found that only 5 percent of thosesenior women are minorities. (It is important tonote that most research on women in executivepositions has relied on the Fortune 2000 companies. Relatively little is known as yet about what ishappening to women in non-Fortune 2000 or middle-sized businesses, although that is where mostwomen are employed.) Many of the 439 femalesenior executives who participated in a 1992Korn/Ferry International Survey are not convinced that the battle is won, their views of thefuture are generally optimistic. The Fortune companies’ influence in the marketplace is substantial. They often serve as bellwethers of change. It is significant, therefore, thattwo Fortune 1000 companies are now headed bywhite female CEOs. Furthermore, the presenceand visibility of women executives have influenced the appointment of women to corporate boards of directors. For the Fortune 1000 companies, the

Only 5 percent of senior positions areheld by women—far too few in proportion to their numbers in thelabor force.

GLASS CEILING” WOMEN
number of directorships (board seats) held by

women increased 13 percent from 1993 to 1994(731 to 814). The number of women serving onboards increased by 14 percent from 1993 to 1994(500 to 570). According to a 1994 Catalyst surveywomen occupied only 6.9 percent of the seats oncorporate boards of directors-—up from 6.2 percent in 1993. Half of the Fortune 500 IndustrialService companies have at least one female boardmember. Approximately half of the 70 newwomen on boards have never before served on aFortune 500/Service 500 board. Sixty- four companies that had no women on their boards in 1993now have at least one female director. Each of theten most profitable Fortune 500 companies has atleast one female director and five have two.A 1992 Heidrick & Struggles report, Minorities andWomen on Corporate Boards, based on a survey of806 public Fortune companies, showed that whitewomen held 5.3 percent of board seats, AfricanAmerican women, 0.3 percent, Hispanic Americanwomen, 0.1 percent, and Asian and PacificIslander American women, 0.01 percent. (Whitemen held 88.9 percent of the board seats, AfricanAmerican men, 1.8 percent, Hispanic Americanmen, 0.7 percent, and Asian and Pacific IslanderAmerican men, 0.2 percent. Non-U.S. citizens held 2.85 percent of all the seats, slightlybelow the percentage of seats held by all U.S. citizens who were racial or ethnic minorities.)

Contrary to indications from current data, themajority of the CEO participants in theCommission’s survey believe that women nolonger confront serious glass ceiling problems.The CEOs were encouraged by the fact that thesuccessful performance of women in top-levelpositions was overcoming the stereotypes thathave historically limited women’s upward mobility.The CEOs did admit that the attitudes and biasesof middle-level managers continue to create barriers to the advancement of women. Catalystresearch also shows that acceptance of traditionalstereotypes of women has influenced middle managers to move women to staff rather than to theline jobs that relate directly to a company’s profitability and lead to the positions above the glassceiling.On the other hand, a 1990 Financial WomenInternational survey of male CEOs and femalevice presidents indicated a distinct disparitybetween the men’s and women’s perceptions of the existence of a glass ceiling. Seventy-three percent of the male CEOs said they don’t thinkthere is a glass ceiling; seventy one percent of thefemale vice presidents think there is. PollyDiGiovacchino, president of the group that conducted the survey, pointed out, “There is definitely a gap between reality and perception.”The CEOs who were interviewed did not differentiate between minority and white women except to 
compensation parity

 women and other

chieved. Data however,

women and women of

e sector management

into senior positions. 

ority women clearly

uble burden and

at it is harder for

glass ceiling than for

male peers. (However,

 a proportion of all

veyed by Korn/Ferry

e doing better—

can American males

enior executives 

989—0.6 percent. 

orn/Ferry samples of

ded four African

can American women.

to the contention that

ed over minority men

ward meeting diversity

viewed felt that they

ties and then, and

dentify themselves in

eason the views and

men have been 

tal scans of specific

groups in the context of each group’s experience.They will not be repeated here. This environmental scan of women includes comparative information on the status, preparation, opportunity, andplacement of all groups of women. 

THE PERCEPTIONSHow CEOs Perceive Glass Ceiling and Women:The majority of the CEOs interviewed in the GlassCeiling Commission survey think of the glass ceiling as something that used to affect women—white and non-white—but that is no longer a realproblem for them. Without exception theyexpressed strong support for the concept ofwomen’s advancement to corporate senior management. Although most CEOs thought that compensationparity between white non-Hispanic women andminority women had been reached, they agreedthat parity between women and white nonHispanic men had not been achieved, either interms of equal access to senior decisionmakingjobs or in compensation. However, the majority of CEOs interviewed demonstrated that their companies had some women above the glass ceiling or ready to move through it. The majority of these companies had other women managerssteadily climbing the promotion ladder. 

145
All attributed the relative success of women versus

minority males to two factors:

• women have been in corporate 

management longer (CEOs estimate that it takes 20 to 25 years for any aspiring manager white or non-white, to move through the glass ceiling), and

• the category of women, which includes 

all white women and women of color, represents more than half the total population—simply put, there are far more women than there are minority men. 

Although some CEOs admitted that it is not always easy to persuade managers down the line to change their attitudes and practices that havelimited the mobility of women and minorities, the CEOs interviewed are generally sanguineabout the glass ceiling. They believe either that it no longer applies to women or that it is about to disappear for women. They recognize that thenumber of women at the top is still small, but theybelieve that change is inevitable.Remarks made by CEOs on the topic of womenand the glass ceiling include:

“Gender is not a problem in finding highlyqualified employees.”“The issue has to be forced but if the minorities

and women are hired on merit and can compete,there is grudging acceptance. The first time we hired a woman she went through a zillioninterviews and there was deep resistance. Nowwe hire men and women at a 60/40 ratio, andwe’d be comfortable with 50/50. The men haveseen that the women are high performers. Nowthere are women who outrank men and whosupervise men with no problem.”“I question the pernicious, sexist, and racistassumptions of the phrases ‘qualified women’and ‘qualified minorities.’ We don’t find it necessary to talk about qualified males.”

How White Women Perceive Glass Ceiling IssuesThe perceptions quoted in this section are drawnfrom the testimony of women who spoke at thefive public hearings sponsored by the GlassCeiling Commission, from a 1992 Catalyst study,Women in Engineering: An Untapped Resource, andfrom Jane White’s book, A Few Good Women:Breaking the Barriers to Top Management.

“As an upper-level manager and an executivefor [a major hotel chain] I kind of feel like

I’m on the other side sometimes. I will saythough that, contrary to some of my male counterparts who wonder what is the glass ceiling, they don’t understand the terms. They don’t see it, so they’re not sure that it’s

smart

eason

ated

merit.”
“When I told my boss I was interested

in becoming a manager, he said hedidn’t envision a woman manager inhis lifetime.”

 in that short time

take up valuable

y instead of 

myself was asked

r minute. . . I guess

hat graduating

ndergraduate and 

or degree would alle

ping abilities.”

ctive in getting

hether you fit some

ress or daughter 

ke.”

ons on the basis of

o these environments

nd one woman, and

 I am the one who

”

mfortable with me

 high level. He has

ngs that you’ve

gs that I did when I

any, I believe made a

awards when I’d win

money clips and tie

tacks. And I’d say, ‘What am I supposed to dowith these things? I don’t need a money clip. I don’t need a tie tack.’ And so, I made a verystrong point of asking for gender-nonspecificgifts when we won something like that.”“So, I think one of the things that needs to be done on a widespread basis is the blueeye/brown eye experiment that we’ve seen thathas worked with racial discrimination—whereblue-eyed people are given a collar and put inthe rooms and made to feel very uncomfortableand to experience all the things that they’venever experienced. White men, on the whole, all need to go through that experience. Theydon’t understand what we go through becausethey have never been compelled to put themselvesin the position of being the only anything.”“When people are thinking of who they’ll promote, whether consciously or subconsciously,a picture of a white male pops into their mindsand that’s their definition of what a managershould look like.”

The following information on senior women executives was drawn from the 1982 and 1992Korn/Ferry International Surveys. It appliesalmost exclusively to the perceptions and experiences of white non-Hispanic women because 95 percent of the senior female executives in theFortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service 147
industries who participated in the survey were 

non-Hispanic white women. 

• Almost 93 percent of the 439 senior 

women executives surveyed by Korn/Ferry International in 1992 felt that a glass ceiling for women still exists. 

• On the other hand, 96 percent of these 

439 executives believe that women are continuing to make progress in business. The majority of those surveyed in 1982 expect that women will constitute 20 percent of their company’s senior management by the year 2000.

• Forty-five percent of all the senior executive 

women surveyed said that they aspired to a higher level office and 14 percent of all surveyed aspired to be CEOs.

• Two-thirds of the women in the Korn/Ferry 

sample do not think that male backlash has increased now that more women are in competitive positions with men. On the other hand, a quarter of the women in the survey feel that “being a woman/sexism” was the biggest obstacle they have had to overcome and 59 percent of the survey participants have personally experienced sexual harassment on the job. 

What are the Stereotypes about Women? The stereotypes and preconceptions described in the following paragraphs are those applied towomen regardless of race or ethnicity. The

Environmental Scans of Asian and Pacific IslanderAmericans, African Americans, HispanicAmericans, and American Indians presented additional stereotypes that affect women of colorand Hispanic women. These women labor under adouble burden of race or ethnicity and gender. Commission research shows that stereotypes thathave been applied across the board to women ofall races and ethnicities include: not wanting to

work/ not being as committed as men to their careers/not being tough enough /being unwilling or unable towork long or unusual hours/ being unwilling or unableto relocate/ unwilling or unable to make decisions/ tooemotional/ not sufficiently aggressive/ too agressive / toopassive/ and lacking quantitative skills. Not all of the stereotypes are, on the surface, negative. Women are also perceived by male managers as good with people/ warm andnurturing/creative/ hard-working/ loyal/ and good

team players. It should be noted that women’s “leadership style”has been the subject of research. Sally Helgesen’sstudy of female managers concluded that womenoperate most effectively by being in the middle of things—listening, communicating, and empowering others to act. Helgesen coined thephrase “web of inclusion” to describe what shesees as an alternative to traditional command-andcontrol. Helgesen’s conclusions are reinforced by

nior

992

en still
149

ean of the Simmons

ment, who uses 

cribe a circle-like

es women tend to

a professor Judy B.

rship style of success

 model that empha

th others. Based on

nal Women’s Forum

Harvard Business

hat a “second wave” of

ding because of—not in

generally considered to

e in leaders.” At the

same time, it must also be noted, as Dawn-MarieDriscoll and Carol R. Goldberg point out in their1993 book, Members of the Club: The Coming of Agefor Executive Women, 

“Management theories that favor less authorityat the top and a more participatory style havebeen around for a long time. . . male-orientedcultures as diverse as Japanese companies orLevi-Strauss seem to have perfected the art ofparticipatory management.”
A REALITY CHECK:

Perceptions and Stereotypes -Versus the FactsThe Basic FactsWomen in the Labor Force

• In 1994, there were 58.4 million women in the labor force. They represented 45.6 percent 

of the total labor force or 57.9 percent of all women. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

• The Bureau of the Census reported the 1990 racial/ethnic breakdown of women in the workforce 

as follows:

Total—All Women—1990 100%* 56,553,624White 77.2% 43,645,395African American 12.0% 6,765,395Hispanic American 7.2% 4,055,665Asian and Pacific Islander 3.0% 1,692,093

American

American Indian 0.7% 395,076(*Data do not always add up to 100.0 percent due to rounding errors.) 
types -Versus the Facts

f Labor Statistics reported the number of female managers—defined by the 

s executives, administrators, and managers—was 6 million. The number of male 

on.

ucted by Korn/Ferry and Catalyst, show that women represent from 3 

of all senior managers—vice president and above—in the private sector. In 

of Labor Lynn Martin released a Department of Labor Glass Ceiling report 

ly 6.6 percent of executive level jobs in the 94 companies surveyed.

2 Korn/Ferry Survey of women in senior management positions in the 

al and 500 service companies refute many of the popular stereotypes about 

n cited for why “they are not senior management material.” For example,

mmitted to their careers as men, yet only a third of the women had ever 

ce. Almost two-thirds of these leaves were for less than six months and 82 

s were for maternity or other family reasons. If maternity is controlled for, 

n/Ferry surveys took leaves of absence than did women.

long hours, yet the respondents in the Korn/Ferry survey worked an aver

k in 1992. This is the same number of hours reported by their male counter

9 Korn/Ferry survey.

l not relocate, yet only 14.1 percent of the women in the 1992 survey refused 

rcent of their male counterparts reported refusing relocation in the 1989 

 is interesting to note that Korn/Ferry found that women are not asked to 

s men. The failure to provide this opportunity may prejudice their chances 

tive skills, yet 23 percent of women and 27 percent of men have spent most 

eers in finance. Sixteen percent of men and 26 percent of women are in the 

or diversified financial sectors.

nd more nurturing than men, yet “concern for people” was cited as important 

and only 18 percent of women in the Korn/Ferry suverys.

151
The Participation of Women 

in Corporate AmericaPreparedness:

—Are Women Prepared to Participate in Corporate America?

Although more men than women continue toearn the degrees and credentials that are nowgenerally considered to be prerequisites for seniormanagement positions in the private sector, thegap is closing. 

• In 1990 the National Center for Education 

Statistics reported that 8,408,000 women (6.5 percent of all women) and 10,597,000 men (8.6 percent of all men) in a total civilian workforce of 107,657,000 individuals 25 years or older held bachelor’s degrees. 

• The number of women holding 

post graduate degrees has steadily increased. In 1990, 5,202,000 women held post graduate degrees. At the same time, 6,086,000 men in the workforce held such degrees.

• The National Center for Educational 

Statistics reported that in 1991 white non-Hispanic women earned 141,058 master’s degrees; African American women earned 10,429; Hispanic women earned 4,715; Asian and Pacific Islander American women earned 4,861; and American Indian women earned 677.

• Although the advanced degrees earned 

by all women continue to be heavily concentrated in education, in 1994, the National Center on Educational Statistics reports that 14 percent of the master’s degrees earned by both white and minority women are in the field of business management. Forty-four percent of the master’s degrees earned by white nonHispanic men are in the field of business management.

• In the Korn/Ferry Survey, 40.1 percent of 

senior female executives had MBAs and 25.2 percent held law degrees. 

Placement and Opportunity :

—Where are Women Managers?—What Opportunities Are Available to Them?

Commission research and review of nongovernment surveys reveal the following information anddata on where women are in Corporate Americaand how they are faring:

• The representation of women in the 

private sector differs significantly by group. According to the 1991 Earnings and Employment Surveys of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, the following percentages of women managers were in the private sector:

—35 percent of all white non-Hispanic women managers were in the private sector 

 

es had
The lack of family-friendly workplace

practices is often cited as a barrier forfemale managers who must jugglehome and professional responsibilities.

153

l African American 

were in the private 

l Hispanic American 

were in the private 

l Asian and Pacific 

 women managers 

 sector, and 

l American Indian 

were in the private 

women of all 

are more likely 

e service industries 

ance, real estate, and 

rade industries than 

ercent of employed 

industries. 

h suggests that male 

dustries are reluctant 

n in line positions 

s and preconceptions 

managers hold.

 it is not surprising 

found that women in 

still concentrated in 

ditionally” female 

as human resources, 

ations, community 

ions, and the staff 

d finance. 

• Minority women experience the same 

barriers as white non-Hispanic women but the impact on them is greater. Because their numbers are smaller there are fewer male or female role models of the same race or ethnicity, and they are subject to racial and ethnic stereotypes as well as general stereotypes about women.

• Opportunities for advancement by 

minorities and women to senior positions, and especially for minority women, are limited by job placement that influences pay and advancement. The Commission’s research papers suggest that women are often steered into jobs that limit possibilities for their career growth. Examples include gender- and race-based stereotyping of jobs, pay inequities, and “mommy-track” policies. 

• The lack of family-friendly workplace 

practices is often cited as a barrier for female managers who must juggle home and professional responsibilities. Commission research shows that when companies do offer such programs, only a few career managers—male or female—take advantage of them, largely because they perceive that it may prejudice a climb up the corporate ladder. But glass ceiling research also reveals that those women who have availed themselves of the benefits of family-friendly programs have not sacrificed their opportunity for advancement.
e title

from

ame

t the

from

• Despite the obstacles women have faced in 

getting on the track to senior management, they have persisted, persevered, and delivered high performance. As a consequence, an increasing number who have been in Corporate America for a dozen or more years are playing senior leadership roles and 60 percent of the female executives surveyed in the 1992 Korn/Ferry report that they expect to be members of the top senior management team by the year 2000. (This is an increase over the proportion of women in the 1982 Korn/Ferry Survey who expected to break through to the top.)

• The experience of the Korn/Ferry survey 

participants reveals that the following additional encouraging changes have occurred over the decade:

—Between 1982 and 1992, the proportion of women holding the title of Executive Vice President rose from 4 percent to 9 percent.—In that same period, the proportion of women at the senior vice president level rose from 13 percent to 23 percent. 

• Commission research shows that women 

appear to have the best opportunity for advancement into management and decisionmaking positions in three types of industries: 

—Those which are fast-growing, for example, business services.—Those where change (i.e., deregulation or restructuring) has occurred, for example, in telecommunications.—Those with a female-intensive workforce, for example, insurance and banking.

Compensation

—How are Women Compensated?

Women’s advances in title and responsibility are also being reflected in rising levels of compensation. For example:

• Korn/Ferry surveys in 1982 and 1992 show 

that in those 10 years average annual base salary plus bonus for senior women executives rose from $92,000 to $187,000.

• The same surveys show that 30 percent of 

senior women executives earned over $200,000 in 1992 versus only 2.7 percent in 1982.

The progress made by women senior executivesdoes not mean that their earnings are comparableto male executives. The predominantly male sample of the 1989 Korn/Ferry survey showed an average annual base salary plus bonus of $289,000.(Part of the $102,000 difference in average compensation between the men surveyed in 1989and the women surveyed in 1992 may be due to the shorter average tenures of the women. 
155

men may just be enter

rs.)

g but progress is slow.

ore severely underrep

ment in the private 

le peers. Nonetheless,

—minority and non

redentials required

tions. 

g research, and private

major barriers to the

gement positions by

are these:

in “traditionally 

t are dead-end

iddle-level and 

upper-level managers to place women in the line positions that feed into the senior management positions above the glass ceiling

• Lack of mentoring and lack of access to 

assignments and job rotation that provide visibility

• Exclusion from informal communications 

networks

• Prevalence of bias, insensitivity, and 

incidents of sexual harassment

• Lower compensation levels which act 

to disqualify high potential women as executive search firm candidates when corporations are looking outside for senior managers

GLASS CEILING REALITIES: AN INDUSTRY COMPARATIVE

and Pacific

sus Information

ass Ceiling

995

o be a real issue for

work as executives,

rs of private-for-profit

e analysis that follows

hat relate to the glass

epresentation of non

and women as execu

nagers, and (2) in

ent.”

d that available data

ves, administrators, or

sibility. Therefore, this

als who carry the title

s, or manager.

sentation amongst

nd managers of pri

e data show:

dominated its female 

ustries

• The African American, Asian and Pacific 

Islander American and Hispanic American Populations tended to be proportionately underrepresented in all industries; the white population tended to be proportionately overrepresented in all industries.

• The white male population was proportionately overrepresented in most industries; 

all other men and women were generally proportionately underrepresented.

In terms of mean income of executives, administrators, and managers of private-for-profit companies:

• The male population with a bachelor’s or 

master’s degree had considerably higher mean incomes than their female counterparts.

• The African American, Asian and Pacific 

Islander American, and Hispanic American populations generally earned lower mean incomes than their white counterparts.

• The white male population generally 

earned the highest mean incomes; all other men and women generally had lower mean incomes.

159

 REALITIES: AN INDUSTRY COMPARATIVE

MINISTRATORS, AND MANAGERS OF PRIVATE-FOR

ES
INDUSTRY REPRESENTATION

Nationally, the total number of people in theworkforce in 1990 was 128,869,945 comprisingapproximately 52% of the total U.S. population.Of that, 54.3% was male and 45.7% was female. Inexamining the specified industries by race andgender, it is clear that the white non-Hispanicmale executives, administrators, and managers ofprivate-for-profit Companies dominate each givenfield. Representation by race and gender in eachof the industries were obtained by comparing therelative proportions of each cohort against theirrespective workforce proportions. The nonHispanic White population constituted 78.8% ofthe total workforce; the Black population, 10%;the American Indian/Eskimo/Aleut, 0.6%; theAsian and Pacific Islander, 2.8%; and theHispanic, 7.8%. Displayed below are the proportionate gender representations of the total workforce populace:

% of Total

Race Workforce Male Femalenon-Hispanic White 78.8% 43.2% 35.6%African American 10.1% 4.1% 5.3%American Indian/Eskimo/Aleut 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%Asian and Pacific Islander 2.8% 1.4% 1.3%Hispanic (of “White” and “Other” races) 7.8% 4.6% 3.2%non-Hispanic Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

100.0% 54.3% 45.7%

Ideally, each cohort should have the same proportion of the workforce population as their respective population representations. For instance, asthe African American population represented10% of the workforce populace, ideally about 10%of the manufacturing executive/administrative/managerial population should be AfricanAmerican. However, that is not the case; they represent only 2.5% of the manufacturing executive/administrative/managerial population.Therefore, African Americans are proportionatelyhighly underrepresented in this industry, thusindicating plausible glass ceiling barriers.Proportionate to the workforce populace, thewhite non-Hispanic executive/administrative/managerial population was overrepresented bymore than 10% in wholesale trade and utilities; asover representation by at least 5% was shown inthe manufacturing, business services, insurance,communications, and transportation. Fairly“ideal” representation of the white non-Hispanicexecutive/administrative/managerial populationwas displayed in the retail trade and public administration. White Non-Hispanic women were highlyunderrepresented proportionately in the manufacturing (-12.3%), communications (-10%), utilities (-18.4%), and transportation (-10%).In manufacturing, there was a proportionateunderrepresentation of African American andHispanic executive, administrators, and managers. 
161

erely underrepresent

d; representing only workforce, compared

rce.

roportionate overrep

 Pacific Islander pop

white non-Hispanic

Retail trade was the

e the white non

dministrators, and

ented. Overall,

ortional representan American and

rrepresented.

American and

strators, and man

underrepresented by

Overall women were

sented.

can American execu

rial population was

sented by 6.1%, while

er population showed

Hispanic population

 Women generally

.0%, although Asian

panic women showed

par with their respec

In public administration, the Asian and PacificIslander populations were proportionately underrepresented. Overall, women were underrepresented (-4.1%) even though Asian and PacificIslander women executives, administrators, andmanagers were at par, and Hispanic women wereoverrepresented.In finance, the African American population, aswell as the Hispanic male population were proportionately underrepresented. Asian and PacificIslander executives, administrators, and managerswere overrepresented in finance by 1.6%. Womenexecutives, administrators, and managers generally showed proportionate over representation.In insurance, the minority racial groups were allunderrepresented proportionate to their respective workforce compositions. African Americanwomen executives, administrators, and managerswere proportionately underrepresented by 2.7%,while overall, women were overrepresented by2.9%.In communications, the white non-Hispanic maleand Hispanic executives, administrators, and managers were overrepresented proportionately; thewhite non-Hispanic female and the AfricanAmerican, and Asian and Pacific Islander populations were underrepresented by 10%, 6.7%, and1.5% respectively/ Women generally were proportionately underrepresented.
In utilities, the minority racial groups were allunderrepresented proportionately; AfricanAmerican by 7.8%, Asian and Pacific Islander by2.0%, and Hispanic by 4.0%. White Non-Hispanicwomen were severely underrepresented with a17.2% representation in utilities as compared proportionately to 35.6% of the non-Hispanic femaleworkforce. Overall, women were underrepresented by 26.2%.In transportation, the Hispanic executive/ administrative/managerial population was proportionately overrepresented. Men of all races were overrepresented (+14.3%); women of all races wereunderrepresented (-15.4%).

RETURN ON INVESTMENT—INCOMEUsing the white non-Hispanic population as thebase, the return on investment for communitiesother than the white non-Hispanic population wasgenerally low. The mean income of the white nonHispanic executive/administrative/ managerialmale population with a Bachelor’s degree was $47, 181. The mean income of their female counterparts was $31,338; a mean income of $15,843less than the men. The white non-Hispanic populace was used as the base to examine the genderand racial/ethnic differences in earned meanincome amongst the executives, administrators,and managers. The following table shows themean income of those executives, administrators,

National Mean Income Disparities- Race/ Ethnicity by Gender of Executives, Administrators,and Managers of Private-for-Profit Companies with Bachelor’s or Master’s Degrees: 1990Census

Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree

Race/Ethnicity Male Female Male FemaleNH White $47,181 $31,338 $57,371 $38,391African American ($15,180) ($754) ($10,137) ($4,385)Chinese ($5,924) ($2,032) $1,481 $7,292Filipino ($7,992) ($3,045) ($7,204) ($7,160)Japanese $22,406 ($373) $13,071 $1,533Asian Indian ($1,872) ($6,096) $5,997 ($6,970)Korean ($4,400) ($5,559) ($5,801) ($10,576)Vietnamese ($2,678) ($6,267) $5,923 ($4,350)Other Southeast Asian ($20,221) ($6,679) ($20,694) **Hawaiian ($11,252) ($8,066) ($14,079) **Other A/PI ($6,853) ($1,688) ($12,734) ($11,695)**results very unreliable due to extremely small sample size
163

 bachelor’s or mas

pulations, with the

comes, male and

p with a bachelor’s

n the white non

was the Japanese male

verage $22,406 more

counterpart. Similarly,

n with a master’s

n income. (The mean

e population appears

those executives,

rs who worked in the

t from Japan-based

compensated on par

o the cost-of-living in

Japan.) African American men with a bachelor’searned on average $15,180 less than the whitenon-Hispanic male population, the second lowestmale mean income of those with a bachelor’sdegree. In addition to this large discrepancy, thegreatest discrepancy amongst those with a bachelor’s in comparison to the white non-Hispanicmales were Other Southeast Asian (who earnedon average $20,221 less). Hawaiian men had thethird lowest mean income (-$11,252) amongst themale population with a bachelor’s degree.Amongst the women with a bachelor’s degree, theJapanese American and African American womenwere relatively within reach of possibly being atpar with the white non-Hispanic executive/administrative/managerial women. However, allwomen had considerably lower mean incomes

Disparities- non-Hispanic White and Hispanic by Select

ecutives, Administrators, and Managers of Private-for-Profit

e Education: 1990 Census

Mean Income

NH White Hispanic

$42,171 ($5,383)$59,587 ($5,416)$72,730 ($9,292)

Mean Income

NH White Hispanic

$31,533 ($5,504)$42,314 ($7,466)$47,910 ($8,110)
compared to their male counterparts, in particular to the white non-Hispanic male. The Hawaiian

women with a bachelor’s degree had the lowestmean income of $23,272($8,066 less than whitenon-Hispanic women and $39,115 less than whitenon-Hispanic men of the same level of education.)On the master’s level of education, the disparitiesbetween the different cohorts illustrated morevariation than that on the bachelor’s level.Amongst the male population with a master’sdegree, Other Southeast Asian men (by over$20,000), as well as the Hawaiian, Other Asian andPacific Islander, and African American male populations (each by over $10,000) had lower meanincomes than the white non-Hispanic male population. A few Asian and Pacific Islander ethnicgroups had higher mean incomes than their whitenon-Hispanic Counterpart. The Chinese andJapanese American women had higher meanincomes than their white non-Hispanic counterparts, yet still earned significantly less than thewhite non-Hispanic men by at least $11,688.Furthermore, the women with a master’s degreeearned lower mean incomes than their malecounterparts who achieved just a bachelor’sdegree.In examining the disparities amongst the meanincome between the white non-Hispanic andHispanic executives, administrators, and managers of private-for-profit companies, two selected industries (manufacturing and professional ser- vices) with age factored in are below. Similar to what had been previously reflected, the white non- Hispanic population of each age group had high- er mean incomes. Those executives, administrators, and managers within each age group in the manufacturing industry tended to earn higher mean incomes than those in professional services. For both industries, age impacted the mean incomes for both the white non-Hispanic and Hispanic popu- lations; the older the population, the higher the mean income. In addition, the largest disparity among each cohort was between those 25 to 24 years of age and 35 to 44 years; varying between a difference of $17, 416 of the white non-Hispanic to $8,819 of the Hispanic. While the data was presented in different ways, the results were the same. The data showed the existence of considerable gender and racial differ- ences between executives, administrators, and managers of the various cohorts. 
APPENDICIES

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ON OF THE U.S. CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE BY SEX, RACE, AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

CORPORATE PRACTICES TABLE

METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING GLASS CEILING REALITIES

STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION

STANDARD OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS

SURVEY OF CEOs METHODOLOGY AND QUESTIONS ASKED

FOCUS GROUP METHODOLOGY

PLOYED PERSONS WITHIN INDUSTRY BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

YED PERSONS WITHIN IDUSTRY BY GENDER AND OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL

PUBLIC HEARINGS: ROSTER OF ORAL TESTIMONY

INDEX OF TABLES

167

n” includes persons who indicate their race as “Black” or “Negro” or report

can, Afro-American, Black Puerto Rican, Jamaican, Nigerian, West Indian, or

Census definition.

cal Area (ANVSA) 

age Statistical Area” includes tribes, bands, clans, groups, villages, communi

a that do not have legally designated boundaries, but the Census Bureau has

age statistical areas (ANVSA) for statistical purposes.

” includes persons who classify themselves as American Indian, Eskimo, or

ensus definition.

merican

 Islander American” includes persons who identify themselves as Chinese,

dian, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, or other

n, Guamanian or other Pacific Islander. U.S. Bureau of the Census defini

marily to major U.S. corporations, including, but not limited to, the Fortune

une 500 Service companies. As used here it also includes companies that

ees and that have been in business for 10 or more years.

presidents, executive vice presidents, presidents, chief executive officers,

eir equivalents.

TERMS
Environmental Scan

A strategic planning tool corporations used to monitor key forces—demographic, economic, technological, political/legal, and social/cultural—and significant actors—customers, competitors, supplies, andlabor—that affect the ability of corporations to earn profits in the marketplace. It identifies strengths,weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.Federal ReservationThe term “Federal Reservation” includes Federal American Indian reservations that are areas withboundaries established by treaty, statute, and/or executive or court order, and recognized by the FederalGovernment as territory in which American Indian tribes have jurisdiction.Federal Trust Land AreasThe term “Federal Trust Land Areas” (FTLA) includes property associated with a particular AmericanIndian reservation or tribe, held in trust by the Federal Government.HispanicThe term “Hispanic” includes those persons who identify their origin as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,Central, or South American, or some other Spanish-related origin. U.S. Bureau of the Census definition.Labor Force Participation RateThe percentage of persons 16 years of age and older who were either employed during the week of theDepartment of Labor survey or, if unemployed, had looked for work during the prior four weeks andwere available to work. It measures the degree of active involvement or interest in the work world.LatinoThe Bureau of the Census collects data using a Hispanic category. However, people have strong feelingsabout the terms Latino and Hispanic. Research has revealed that Latino is the term of preference inCalifornia—the state with the largest number of Latino/Hispanics—while Texans and Easterners preferHispanic. In this report the terms Latino and Hispanic are used interchangeably to refer to the samegroup of individuals, both male and female.
 which is obtained by dividing the total income of a particular cohort/uni

n in that cohort/universe. Mean income is the average income.

me

s all familes into two equal-sized groups, one group having incomes above

her having incomes below the median value.

ons

gal relationships between American Indian tribes and the Federal

refer to African Americans, American Indians, Asian & Pacific Islander

mericans (both white and non-white). Although all of these groups find the

d here to conform to the language of the legislation.

onfidence Interval

Interval” is used in this report to state that the findings are accurate within

s 95 percent or more of the time these findings are accurate.

s” includes American Indian reservations with boundaries established within

egally recognized.

eveloping and maintaining a viable fit between the organization’s objectives

ng market opportunities. The aim of strategic planning is to shape and

ctions and ways of functioning so that they combine to produce satisfactory

169
Tribal Jurisdiction Statistical AreaThe term “Tribal Jurisdiction Statistical Area” (TJSA) includes areas delineated by federally recognizedtribes in Oklahoma without a reservation for which the Census Bureau tabulates data.Unemployment RateThe percentage of those 16 years of age or older who were not employed during the survey week but hadlooked for a job during the prior four weeks and were available to work. It measures the unemploymentrate among those actively participating in the workforce. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition.White AmericanThe U.S. Bureau of the Census definition includes persons who indicated their race as “white” or reported themselves as Canadian, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish. 
COMPOSITION OF THE U.S. CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE BY SEX, RACE, AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

Annual Averages, Selected Years, 1970-2005*

2000 2005

1970 1980 1990 (Projection) (Projection)

82,774 100% 106,940 100% 124,787 100% 142,596 100% 152,154 100%

51,228 61.8% 61,453 57.5% 56,554 54.7% 76,041 53.3% 80,356 52.8%

31,543 38.2% 45,487 42.5% 56,554 45.3% 66,555 46.7% 71,798 47.2%73,556 88.9% 93,600 87.5% 107,177 85.9% 119,604 83.9% 126,485 83.1%

46,035 55.6% 54,473 50.9% 59,298 47.5% 64,523 45.2% 67,645 44.4%

27,521 33,3% 39,127 36.6% 47,879 38.4% 55,080 38.6% 58,840 38.7%

9,218 11.2% 10,863 10.0% 13,493 10.8% 16,046 11.3% 17,395 11.4%

5,194 6.2% 5,612 5.1% 6,708 5.4% 7,815 5.5% 8,355 5.5%

4,024 4.8% 5,253 4.9% 6,785 5.4% 8,231 5.8% 9,040 5.9%

— — — 6,947 4.9% 8,274 5.4%

— — — 3,703 2.6% 4,356 2.9%

— — — 3,244 2.3% 3,918 2.6%

— — — — —

— — — — —

— — — — —— 6,146 5.7% 9,576 7.7% 14,271 10.0% 16,581 10.9%

— 3,818 3.6% 5,755 4.6% 8,434 5.9% 9,626 6.3%

— 2,328 2.2% 3,821 3.1% 5,837 4.1% 6,963 4.6%

Percents do not always add to 100

r Statistics)—The civilian labor force comprises all civilians classified as employed or unemployed 16 years of age or older.

are Bureau of Labor Statistics Civilian Labor Force projections.

nly includes Blacks, Hispanics and the Asian and Other group.

f (1) Asian and Pacific Islanders, (2) American Indians, and (3) Alaskan Natives.

 groups will not sum to civilian workforce totals because data for Hispanics are included in both white, and black and other population groups.

t Population Survey—Annual Averages, Selected Years 1970-1990

loyment Projections April 1994 171

ore than one corporate practice.
TABLESINDEX BY COMPANYAAA—American Automobile AssociationAetna Life & Casualty Allstate Insurance CompanyAmerican AirlinesAmerican Express CompanyAmoco CorporationApple ComputerArthur Andersen & Co.AT&TAvon Products, Inc.Barnett BankBaxter Healthcare CorporationCase Western Reserve UniversityChampion International CorporationChubb & Son, Inc.CIGNACon EdisonConnecticut MutualContinental InsuranceCorning Glass Works, Inc.Dow ChemicalDow Jones & CompanyEastman Kodak CompanyE.I. du Pont de Nemours & CompanyExxon Research & Engineering Co.

Fannie MaeFel-Pro, Inc.First Interstate Bank of CaliforniaGannett Co., Inc.General Electric, NY Silicone Manufacturing DivisionGeneral FoodsGoldman Sachs & Co.Hershey FoodsHewlett-Packard Co.Hoffmann-La RocheHoneywell, Inc.Hughes AircraftIBMJC Penney Co., Inc.J.P. MorganJohn Hancock Financial ServicesJohnson & Johnson3MMCA, Inc.Marquette ElectronicsMassachusetts Mutual Life Insurance CompanyMcCormack & DodgeMcDonald’sMorrison & FoersterMotorola, Inc.NationsBankNorth Carolina National Bank

CORPORATE PRACTICES TABLES: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES THAT 

HELP BREAK THE GLASS CEILING*
173

YNEX

trict

endelsohn

s Company

tute 

ciation

her & Flom

Tandem Computer, Inc.Tenneco, Inc.Texas InstrumentsThe TravelersTom’s of MaineTucson Medical CenterUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroUS SprintUS WESTWork/Family DirectionsXerox Corporation
PROGRAM

Management Development

Program

Leadership Continuity Program (LCP); Executive Education Program

Leadership and Career 

Development

Management Excellence 

Selection; Components for Leadership Development

DESCRIPTIONThe four-level Management Development Program focuses on building the kindof skills AAA managing directors, general managers and mid-level managersneed in order to lead the company in a changing competitive climate. The program is based on three core themes: (1) building the competencies of the AAA“manager of the future”; (2) Action Learning, an idea borrowed from GeneralElectric that focuses on immediate transfer of skills learned in class to on-the-jobsituations; and (3) member satisfaction, or convincing executives to spend timewith customers so they can make decisions that better anticipate customer needs.Introduced to help further the advancement of minorities and women advancement into higher management, the LCP identifies and accelerates the development of managers who have the potential to be leaders in an intensely competitive environment. The Executive Education Program provides internal andexternal education experiences for AT&T executives and those middle managersidentified as having high potential. Executive Education Program candidates,most of whom are in the LCP, are selected on the basis of their on-the-job learning experiences, career histories, career plans, and the business strategies of theorganization. Executive Education Programs are offered internally and at 40 universities worldwide. Programs last from one week to two-and-a-half months.Women are chief executives of four Barnett units and make up 44 percent of thehighest paid employees. Women make up 21 percent of Barnett’s senior andexecutive vice presidents.1. The Management Excellence process involves “selecting individuals who willmake successful managers in our environment.” The process was developedthrough the McBurr model of competencies: a group of average and outstanding managers was selected and studied in order to identify the traits that led tosuccess in management and traits that the company wanted to emphasize inmanagement selection and development. 

RSHIP AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT
175

DESCRIPTION2. Components of leadership development efforts:

Career path process: identifies the objective performance, skill and knowledge criteria for moving from one pay level in a job to the next, thus empowering the individual to plan his/her own growth and advancement.Success factors for management: competencies demonstrated by the best managers in the company are described to enable individuals to plan their own growth and development as managers.High potential list: developed through interviews conducted by personnel from human resources with the head of each of the business units and support units. This process identifies individuals at all levels of the organization with potential for higher level positions.

The Advanced Development Program identifies the company’s high-potentialemployees and, through rigorous training and accelerated career plan helpsthem attain key leadership positions in the company. The program takes selectemployees through a three-month training session during which each employeedevelops a career plan for next three to seven years. Assigned advisors serve asmentors, and along with position supervisors, they communicate successes anddifficulties to ADP managers. The goal of the ADP is to develop talented, committed employees into skillful managers and proficient leaders.The Quality Improvement Team is a task force designed to upgrade efforts in therecruitment, retention, and upward mobility of women in management. With ademonstration of commitment from the top down and input from both line andstaff managers, implementation strategies are being planned. They include thedevelopment of action steps to hold managers accountable, succession planningfor high-performing women, career development strategies to improve the current upward mobility rate for women, new recruitment efforts, implementationof a managing diversity education program, communicating policies and practices regarding women, and the development of community initiatives to encourage women to work at Corning.

PROGRAM

Advanced Development 

Program (ADP) 

Total Quality Program & 

Women’s Advancement

RSHIP AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT
DESCRIPTIONNewly appointed as CEO in the early 1980s, David O. Maxwell challenged the traditional hiring patterns of the financial industry by deliberately recruiting a management team that included minorities and women. To continue increasing thenumber of minorities and women in mid- and senior-level positions, CEOMaxwell works aggressively with top management to identify and promote thecompany’s most promising minorities and women.Instituted in 1979 by Chairman Allen Neuharth, the program encompassesstrategies for recruiting, hiring, developing, and promoting minorities andwomen. The program features a system to measure performance of managers indeveloping minorities and women. It is aimed at high potential individuals forparticipation in management development programs. College recruitment andinternship programs aimed at minorities and women ensure a diverse pool of talent from which future company leaders will emerge. The program, which hasbeen tracked since 1981, has produced high percentages of minority and femaleemployees and managers.The conference began as a grassroots effort by company women to showcase theachievements of HP’s female engineers and scientists, promote their leadershipdevelopment, and help them to network in a highly decentralized organization.After a successful first Technical Women’s Conference in October 1988, the company sponsored a worldwide conference in May 1991, drawing 800 attendees.

PROGRAM

Recruitment

Partners in ProgressTechnical Women’s 

Conference

RSHIP AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT
177

DESCRIPTIONJC Penney Co., Inc. has created the Women’s Advisory Team and the MinorityAdvisory Team to develop programs which increase the representation of womenand minorities at the senior management level and to find ways to make the company’s affirmative action plan more effective. Each team is composed of 16-18management associates appointed directly by the company chairman. Focusgroups with employees help develop team agendas. The teams have created a formal mentor program, an internal newsletter that focuses on workforce diversity,leadership forums that allow employees to hear from outside experts, and adirect broadcast system that electronically puts together managers to discussdiversity issues. They have developed a nontraditional staffing program whichpermits managers to better balance work and family responsibilities.The company refined its 15-year-old Management Issues Board to emphasize theprofessional development of employees. The single board was expanded to four15-member boards (3 product line and 1 corporate), and was renamed theProfessional Development Boards. The new system provides professional staffwith opportunities for career growth through their participation in challengingbusiness projects. Participants develop critical skills, enhance their visibility withtop management, and broaden their responsibilities, while assuring Mass. Mutualof a growing reservoir of professional and managerial talent.For over a decade, this law firm has had in place an array of liberal work andfamily programs that help women in the demanding legal profession achievetheir fullest potential. A flextime policy for partners and associates with caregiving responsibilities, a three-month paid maternity leave (followed by a threemonth unpaid leave), a family sick leave and a firm-wide dependent careresource and referral program are viewed as basic levels of support. The firm hasestablished ongoing training programs to teach lawyers, managers, and staff howto work with one another in an environment of diversity and how to manage in a 

PROGRAM

Management 

Development Program Leadership Forums

Professional Development BoardsWork and Family Diversity

RSHIP AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT
DESCRIPTIONworkplace made more complex by the firm’s commitment to flexible work arrangements for women. Lawyers and firm managers are also trained in preventing sexualharassment and delivering effective feedback.The program was implemented to increase the number of women in technical positions, create support systems for technical women, alleviate gender bias, and helpwomen acquire the skills and opportunities they need to advance. A cornerstone ofthe initiative is education. In conjunction with a local university, employees with notechnical background can enroll in a two-year certificate program to prepare themselves for technical careers. To help women who have technical experience moveinto higher levels of management, the company has a “Corporate Leaders” management succession plan. The program is open to both men and women.Set up in 1988 to increase the number of minorities and women at senior management levels, the program allows PG&E to break away from traditional lines of progression that require an employee to remain in a specific job for a set number ofyears before being considered for a leadership position. Each business of the company can recommend employees for 10 slots available in the two-year program.Program outline and training are tailored to the career aspirations of each candidate. Of the 21 employees who participate in the program through 1993, 16 weresuccessful, including one woman who now manages a power plant.The Management Succession and Development Committee challenges managers toconsider minorities and women for new openings, and pay and benefits structuresare reviewed regularly to make certain that they are equitable and attractive tominorities and women. An effective job-posting system ensures that knowledge ofavailable opportunities and of the hiring process is clear and that the hiring processis fair to all employees. Ongoing training and development is critical. SC JohnsonWax has also paid full tuition for employees’ undergraduate and graduate studies.

PROGRAM

Women in Technology

Accelerated Development 

Program

Management Succession 

and Development Committee

RSHIP AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT
179

RSHIP AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT

DESCRIPTIONWomen make up more than 45 percent of the employees and 33 percent of theboard. One of three vice presidents is a woman, as are 50 percent of the managers.This pilot program was developed to address, at the state level, the scarcity ofwomen in administrative positions, especially higher-level positions in highereducation. It was a locally developed program that was funded by a local foundation, a local university, the participant enrollment fees, and the state AmericanCouncil on Education/National Identification Project, which aims to identify talented women who are ready to move into senior administrative positions. Theprogram provided the following: (1) high accessibility to women administratorsand faculty in the state; (2) appraisal of career advancement as well as development of leadership skills; (3) individual career counseling for participants; and(4) training for participants in fiscal matters.In 1988, US WEST implemented its Women of Color Project to remedyinequities in the career opportunities for non-Caucasian women. The programwas a response to the recommendation of three employee Resource Groups. Theobjective of the program, which has just recently completed its five-year lifespan,was to provide developmental and promotional opportunities for the women onthe basis of their leadership, communication, and decisionmaking skills and theneeds of the business. Of the 36 participants that completed the program, allexperienced developmental opportunities and 83% were offered one or morepromotional opportunities.

PROGRAM

Leadership and Career 

Development

a Career/Leadership

Advancement Program 

for Women Administrators

Women of Color Project
ON/NONTRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAM

Nontraditional employment

Slating: High potential 

selection process

Job rotation

DESCRIPTIONSee American Airlines: Succession PlanningThe slating process was instituted to expand the pool of internal candidates foropen positions and to ensure that minorities and women are better representedin line positions. When a position for manager, director, or vice presidentbecomes available, human resources personnel work with department heads toidentify candidates. To better prepare for staffing changes, a slate of candidates issometimes developed before the position becomes open. Candidates are selectedon the basis of their job-specific skills and credentials.The high potential selection process for high potential employees identifiesthose who have developed exceptional leadership and management skills, andwho support the company’s valuing diversity efforts. These individuals work withtheir managers and human resources staff to identify the experiences they needto advance. With slating, the pool of high potentials is screened to ensure adequate representation of minorities and women.High potential women in staff and administrative positions are given the opportunity to rotate into line functions. To prepare for a new position, each candidatecurrently in a staff position receives training and, in some cases, gains hands-onexperience by working for several months in a lower-level line job without takinga pay cut.
181

DESCRIPTIONThe Management Intern Program is a comprehensive strategy to recruit, develop, and promote qualified women. Begun in 1981, the program currentlyrecruits approximately 30 college graduates annually on the basis of technicalcompetence, leadership potential, communication skills, and part-time workexperience. Interns spend one year in four three-month assignments designed toexpose them to a variety of company functions. Visibility is an added programbenefit: interns gain exposure to officers and upper management throughrequired presentations and informal forums. At the outset of the program, eachintern is assigned a mid-level manager who serves as a mentor. 75% of the 89female engineers hired since 1981 are still at Con Ed. Women have the highestrate of retention.The “Blue Collar Prep” program aims to prepare women educationally, psychologically, and physically for nontraditional jobs.At Du Pont, most executives move through at least two or three functions beforethey reach top positions. For example, an employee with technical experiencemay move from manufacturing to marketing to general management to corporate staff before attaining executive line status. The job rotation process beginswith the identification of high-potential employees. Of Du Pont’s 20,000 exemptemployees with college degrees (15% of whom are women), approximately 2,000are considered capable of advancing into upper management positions. Askedwhy job rotation is particularly important for women, a Du Pont representativesaid, “Women don’t have role models in upper management positions. Job rotation helps them learn firsthand about the skills and knowledge they need fora new position.”

PROGRAM

Management Intern 

Program Blue Collar Prep Program

Job rotation

ON/NONTRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT
DESCRIPTIONECAP began in 1976 at the company’s Bell Laboratory location in Naperville,Illinois. Originally intended as a mentoring program for all newly hired or promoted minorities and women at the professional engineer level in Bell Laboratories(AT&T’s Research and Development division), the program was recently broadened to include associate technical positions. Mentors are managers at either thesupervisor, department head, or director level, and must work outside the mentee’sdepartment.Implemented in 1990, the program aims to improve the preparation of talentedindividuals for senior management positions. The program selects employees at theassistant vice president level and above who are excellent performers and demonstrate potential for advancement. While the 30 employees participating in the pilotprogram in 1990 included women, minorities, and white non-Hispanic men, themajority of those participating were female.CIGNA developed a guide and let each of its ten operating divisions decide howthey wanted to approach the mentoring process. The guide profiles successful mentor relationships, including key behaviors of coaches, mentors, and mentees; onthe-job opportunities for coaching and mentoring; methods to improve coachingand skills; and tips for mentees. The model was also developed to provide a benchmark for best practices and approaches to mentoring and coaching in CIGNA’sdivisions.To promote cultural diversity and enhance developmental and promotional opportunities for minorities and women, the company developed mentoring quads. Eachquad is made up of four members who are diverse in terms of position, level, race,gender, and functional area. Program developers felt another advantage of thegroup approach would be to offer greater learning opportunities to larger numbers of people. The approach also assumes that group dynamics will minimize personality conflicts.

PROGRAM

Early Career Advisory Program (ECAP)

Senior Management 

Sponsorship Program

Mentoring Guide

Mentoring Quads

ORING
183

DESCRIPTIONDu Pont’s mentoring program is tied to other initiatives to develop and advancehigh potential minorities and women. While the company allows mentors andmentees to structure their own relationship, every mentor receives two days oftraining in which ground rules are set and guidelines are given.This program for female and minority high school students was implemented toincrease the pool of minority and women recruits. By providing students withprofessional-level mentors, who serve as role models and career counselors, aswell as offering “real” engineering work experience, Exxon aims to build positive,long-term relationships with students and to foster their interest in becoming permanent employees.The Individual Mentoring Program is part of an overall initiative, begun in early1992, to create and implement programs for the advancement of minorities andwomen. The overall initiative, The Career Opportunities and DevelopmentProgram, includes all phases of career development and planning, diversity training, multi-cultural networks, a group mentoring program,and an individual mentoring program. The purpose of the Individual Mentoring Program is to providehigh potential selected minorities and women with an opportunity to focus onexamining personal expectations, work habits, communications goals and objectives, constructive feedback, and understanding expectations under the guidanceof experienced and skilled professionals. Recognition that the bank couldstrengthen its business by developing employees was the motivation for establishing the initiative. Throughout the next three to five years all of the participants will be tracked as to their career development.JC Penney Co., Inc. created its own two-day workshop on managing a diverseworkforce. All profit-sharing managers in the company have attended the program. The workshop objectives are to create an awareness of cultural differences, to develop an understanding of how these diverse cultures benefit the workplace

PROGRAMS

Imaging Systems

ing Internship and Mentoring 

Program

ornia Individual Mentoring 

Program

Mentoring

Skills Development Workshops

ORING
DESCRIPTIONenvironment, and improve communications among an increasingly diverse workforce. Additionally, 120 key senior managers attended a week-long multi-culturalworkshop that uses relationships and team-building to reinforce the value ofdiversity.Designed to help prevent some of the problems associated with structured mentoring relationships, NYNEX has implemented “mentoring circles.” Becausementors and mentees meet in groups of up to 12 people, the sexual tension andrumors that can accompany one-on-one male/female and interracial mentoringare eliminated. Moreover, the circles maximize the use of mentors’ time, as thenumber of individuals qualified to serve as mentors is usually far fewer than thenumber of employees seeking mentors.The objectives of the 1989 pilot program were to augment the developmentprocess by helping to increase the number of candidates ready to fill managerialpositions and to improve the retention of valued employees. The program wasalso designed to further the company’s goal of creating an environment that values diversity by helping to increase the representation of minorities and womenmanagement. The current program strives to match mentors and mentees in asmany levels as possible by looking at the development needs of associates, theexperience of mentors, geographic proximity and/or functional commonality.

PROGRAMS

YNEX Mentoring circles

Pairing System

ORING
185

UNTABILITY PROGRAMS

PROGRAMS

Corporate Mentoring 

Program

ion Affirmative Action 

Strategy; Balanced Work Force Initiative

Quality Improvement 

Teams

Diversity Goal Setting

DESCRIPTIONThe objective of the program is to ensure that there is an experienced managerto act as “a trusted counselor, coach, role model, advisor and voice of experience”to managers with less experience who are expected to advance within the organization. The first priority of the company was to ensure that minorities and womenwho had been identified as having advancement potential have mentors becauseof the higher turnover rates among these managers.The program holds managers individually accountable for recruiting, retaining andpromoting minorities and women. Managers are provided with guidelines for developing professional skills and, at year end, are required to complete detailed summaries of their efforts. Managers then submit the forms to corporate headquarters foran in-depth review of their achievements. Baxter then reinforces support for managers’ initiatives by tying 20 percent of their discretionary bonus to their “good faith”efforts and pursuit of corporate goals. Both the number of female vice presidents andthe number of female division presidents have increased substantially since 1988.To counteract a trend in attrition, the company assigned senior managers to separatequality improvement teams, one for women’s advancement and one for the advancement of African Americans. After an intensive six-month effort, involving surveys andfocus groups, the teams made recommendations for improving the workplace. Someof the outcomes include mandatory gender and racial awareness training for managers and professionals, the introduction of career planning systems, and improvedcommunication.Goals for preparing high-potential female employees for management positions (at salaries of $60,000 and above) were developed and presented to senior executivestaff. In 1991, it was decided that a minimum of 20 percent of managers’ bonuseswould be based on their effectiveness in meeting corporate goals to recruit, develop,and promote women.
SSION PLANNING

PROGRAMS

Executive Incentive 

Compensation Program

Supertrack

Career Development Program (CDP)Women in Operations Management Advisory Council

Senior Management 

Review

DESCRIPTIONThis program links a significant percentage of each executive’s bonus to the attainment of defined divisional goals to promote minorities and women. Three-quartersof this percentage relates to these pre-established goals, which are separate forminorities and women and are set by each company according to its individual workforce and location; the remaining one-quarter is for implementing programs directed at developing and advancing targeted groups.The company is taking a multifaceted approach to retaining, developing, andpromoting minorities and women. Supertrack requires officers to submitdetailed, cross-functional development plans for all high-potential minorities andwomen in middle management and above.American’s Career Development Program (CDP), a sophisticated, computerizedjob-posting system, allows employees to signal their interest in positions beforevacancies occur. Company-wide posting also helps reduce potential for discrimination or favoritism by providing all employees with instant job information.To boost women’s representation in nontraditional positions, a task force wasestablished: Women in Operations Management Advisory Council. The goals ofthe group are to identify the barriers for women in nontraditional areas, to educate female employees on the growing opportunities in technical fields and toserve as mentors to female employees.The advancement of minorities and women is one of the many goals of the succession planning process. During the company’s Senior Management Review,high-growth individuals and potential high-growth individuals are identified aspart of the annual meeting of top-level executives. Managers compile profiles ofthe high-growth individuals. The profiles include performance strengths, weaknesses, and areas that need development, the next planned or anticipated 
187

PROGRAMS

Cross Entity Review

Succession Management 

Resources Review (SMRR)

Succession Planning with 

Clout 

SSION PLANNING

DESCRIPTIONposition, and the anticipated position or level in five years. A five-year development plan charts the path from the employee’s present position to anticipatedposition.Lateral movement or promotions from one division to another are identified tohelp develop an individual through new experiences. It also serves a businesspurpose by placing key employees where their expertise is needed.A component of a larger initiative to foster career advancement, SMRR is theprocess by which all senior managers evaluate those managers who report tothem directly and determine their readiness for progression into even moresenior positions. Senior managers must also identify the critical skills, trainingand job experiences that each middle manager must have in order to be promoted to more senior positions. A detailed, individualized development plan is prepared for these individuals and is reviewed by executives on an annual basis.These plans are reinforced through performance evaluation and other goalsetting processes.To accelerate women’s advancement, the company implemented this program in1986. The program features an ambitious, corporate-wide “Parity Initiative,”which requires, by year end 1996, that the representation of minorities andwomen at every management level mirrors the representation of these groups inthe general population. The “Parity Initiative” has already produced results: InSeptember 1989 Motorola had two female vice presidents; today it has fourteen.To achieve these goals, the company uses a succession planning process, the“Organization and Management Development Review,” which is unique in that itreaches down to the entry and mid-levels of management and holds managersaccountable for developing and retaining minorities and women. 
PROGRAMS

Multi-level, company-wide 

succession planning

Communication System

Managing Diversity

Grassroots Diversity 

sion Initiative

DESCRIPTIONOnce a year each department head completes several succession planning forms:One is an organizational chart on which succession candidates, their readinessdates, and their development needs are identified. Another form asks department heads to indicate any human resources issues they’re confronting. Finally,department heads rate the performance of each employee on a scale of one tofive—one indicating a high potential fast tracker; five indicating unsatisfactoryperformance. Focus is on the number of minorities and women designated aspromotable and on the development opportunities outlined for them.This grassroots communication system monitors problems and opportunitiesrelated to diversity. Minority network groups exist as forums at which people ofcolor can identify and discuss career-related issues. Officer sponsors provideguidance and mentoring. These networks communicate their concerns to amulti-cultural committee which, in turn, makes recommendations to senior management to effect positive change. On a monthly basis, the Corporate Womenand Minorities Committee, founded by a former CEO, checks the company’sprogress in meetings to ensure access to management for minorities and women.Avon defines managing diversity as “creating a culture that provides opportunityfor all associates to reach their full potential in pursuit of corporate objectives.”Their conceptualization of diversity encompasses the more obvious differencessuch as age, gender, race, and culture, as well the more subtle dimensions such aswork style, life style, and physical capacity and characteristics. Managers at everylevel are responsible for Avon’s progress in diversity. In addition, Avon encourages the comprehension and support of diversity by all employees.The Silicon Manufacturing Division has increased the number of minorities andwomen entries to 30 percent. In 1989, an informal network created a grass-rootsdiversity initiative at the company in response to problems experienced bywomen and people of color. Specialized characteristics of the initiative include

FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES
189

FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES

PROGRAMS

Diversity Management

Steering Committee

Changing Workforce 

Programs

DESCRIPTIONteamwork and diversity training. A review board examined such issues as familyleave, flexible hours, personal and professional development, and other programs. Since the implementation of the program, there has been an increase inthe number of women in managerial positions including women of color.Mentoring, an important component of the program, was established to provideminorities and women with role models who would give the participants insightinto the corporate culture and management systems.General Foods began its diversity effort by forming a Diversity Management SteeringCommittee, chaired by the president and including 10 senior executives, to monitorall company activities relating to affirmative action and diversity management. A fulltime human resources position dedicated solely to diversity management was established, along with a Workforce 2000 Council to address the issues of the upwardmobility of minorities and women, networking, and career/family balance. A hugetraining effort was then launched for the entire salaried employee population. Thegoal of the training is to increase awareness of changing workforce demographics,the diversity efforts of competing companies, and the internal cultural barriers thatinhibit the productivity of minorities and women.Formalized more than a decade ago, the programs are based on a premise of respectfor all contributors to the business. Comprising six progressive management development modules, the program has helped ensure that employees of both gendersand all cultures can reach their full professional potential. Through the modules,class participants are encouraged to explore personal attitudes and assumptions thatcan become barriers to their professional growth, or the growth of employees theymanage. Training courses offered include: Managing the Changing Workforce(MCW); Women’s Career Development (WCD); Black Career Development (BCD);Hispanic Career Development (HCD); Managing Cultural Differences (MCD) andManaging Diversity (MD).
PROGRAMS

Workforce Diversity 

Initiatives

Corporate Diversity 

Strategy Task Force

Beyond Diversity EffortPluralism Performance 

Menu (PPM)

SSION PLANNING

DESCRIPTIONPDQ has developed ongoing relationships with diverse business groups to generatecontinuous referrals and to promote the advancement of minorities and women. Ithas developed outreach to organizations representing minorities and women suchas the Latin Business Association, Black Business Association, and the UrbanLeague. These organizations assist PDQ with recruitment outside the company.PDQ has developed non-gender and non-racial interview questions which are uniformly administered to all candidates being considered for management positions.In 1988, the president commissioned this task force, intentionally including linevice presidents, to redefine the importance of a multicultural work force and toidentify strategies for managing diversity. In terms of diversity training, the company offers awareness training, symposiums on women and minority issues, and“onboarding” programs that help orient new hires with special attention to gender and minority concerns. To foster development and retention, all managersreceive regular career assessments in which they and their supervisors identifythe skills they need to advance.The Institute views itself as a microcosm of the broad society: they have developed initiatives that cut across the entire university community in order to adequately prepare students for the work force. The program was established as partof the Institute’s recent strategic planning process. It offers both students andfaculty opportunities to learn and participate in different cultures and lifestylesthrough lectures, concerts, travel, workshops, and task forces.Pluralism Performance Menu, initiated in October 1990, is a measurementdevice for tracking the performance of the company’s officers on their quantitative and qualitative efforts to develop and advance minorities and women. ThePPM lists criteria for measuring officers’ efforts. Every six months, officers submita completed menu to corporate headquarters where the data are analyzed. Eachofficer is provided with feedback and suggestions for improvement. The short-
191

FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN OF COLOR

PROGRAMS

Women of Color Project

Workshop: White Maleism and the Corporate Culture

Asset Management 

Program

DESCRIPTIONterm goal of the PPM was to boost the company’s recruitment, development,and advancement of minorities and women. The PPM is designed to raise thecompany’s commitment to diversity to a new plane so that, in the long run, promoting diversity will become second nature to all employees.See US WEST: Leadership and Career DevelopmentThe goal of this workshop is to improve the communication between men andwomen and to help men avoid seeing women in the workplace as a threat, andinstead as “an opportunity for greater economic prosperity and increased personal enrichment.”This program was started in 1983 to foster mobility of women of color within the company’s Development and Manufacturing Organization. The programcombines formal training and on-the-job experience. It is intended to provideexposure to and understanding of the manufacturing operation through intensive on-the-job experiences under the direction of the plant manager. The plant manager also serves as mentor to the candidate to ensure that the program’s objectives are fulfilled through each developmental phase.
FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES CORPORATE WOMEN’S GROUPS/NETWORKS

PROGRAMS

Avon Multicultural 

Committee

rsity Salary Equity Committee

Concerned Women of 

Roche (CWR)

DESCRIPTIONAvon has three strong groups: the Avon Asian Network, the Avon HispanicNetwork, and the Black Professional Association (BPA). These groups originatedin the 1970’s as the Concerned Women of Avon, which then became the Womenand Minorities Committee. In the mid-1980s committee members branched outand began networks to address their specific needs. Management developed anorganized system through which networks and committees feed into each otherto ensure a consistent flow of information and communication. In order to becredible, the group has made sure that its objectives are consistent with the company’s goals. The committee is structured to help Avon implement its business strategy of becoming a multicultural workplace. The group has developed an operational structure with officers and regular meetings that follow theaccepted business protocol at Avon. In addition, the committee tries to be openabout its intentions and to communicate clearly and consistently.Established in 1992, this committee reviewed the salary distribution of all university faculty and its findings have been shared with the entire University community. This kind of open review will be done annually. An external consultant annually reviews the staff salary plan to ensure equity. Every performance appraisalcarries two levels of review within its division and a review by a compensation section of the Human Resources Office for equity, appropriateness, and consistency.Founded in 1972, CWR is one of the older corporate women’s groups in thecountry. The 400-member group seeks to encourage women to develop theirabilities to the fullest potential; it actively supports the company’s EqualEmployment Opportunity/AffirmativeAction program and championsHoffmann-La Roche’s policies on behalf of women’s advancement andwork/family balance. The group is recognized as a viable corporate entity withfull support of management. Recognizing the growing need for child care, CWRchampioned the concept of an on-site center. After conducting a feasibility study 
193

FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES CORPORATE WOMEN’S GROUPS/NETWORKS

PROGRAMS

Women’s Council

DESCRIPTIONand assessing employee child care needs, the Hoffman La-Roche Child CareCenter sponsored a child care center in 1979. It was established in New Jerseyand was one of the first in the country. Also, at the request of management, CWR had input into the company’s maternity leave and sexual harassment policies. CWR also spearheads the company’s mentoring program (which wasrecently expanded to include bilingual mentors), offers career counseling andskills workshops four times a year, and provides a wide range of programs foremployees and their families. Hoffmann-La Roche funds these programs andother CWR activities.Formed in 1978, the group has approximately 35 members who represent a wide range of job functions, levels, and organizational units. They exemplify thediverse workforce in terms of age, race, and family status. Initially, the group was chartered to contribute to a working environment that would attract andretain quality female employees and encourage personal growth of all employees. Its goals were to identify, study, and make recommendations on issues of concern to Honeywell women and support women who sought career mobility.After gaining management support, the Council moved beyond its originalemphasis on programming to providing recognized policy input. Without abandoning its original broad agenda, the group now focuses on identifying and studying issues of concern to Honeywell women and barriers to theirupward mobility, and makes recommendations about how both managementand employees can work to remove these barriers. The Council comprisesemployees from both the professional and administrative ranks.
PROGRAMS

Men and Women as 

Colleagues

Personal Safety Core Groups

FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES GENDER/RACIAL AWARENESS TRAINING

DESCRIPTIONThis gender awareness training program was introduced in May 1990 at theaccounting firm’s Dallas office. It aims to enhance interpersonal communicationbetween male and female employees, legitimize discussion of workplace genderissues, increase understanding of the business benefits of creating a supportiveenvironment for women, and help Andersen attract and retain female employees. Based on the success of the Dallas office pilot, the program has beenendorsed by Andersen’s national human resources office and is now being conducted at multiple locations throughout the country.The company has chosen to address in a business context the growing socialproblem of personal violence, including rape, wife/spouse battering, and childand elder abuse. Senior management recognizes that employees’ concerns about safety, both on and off the job, can prevent them from fully reaching theirpotential. Du Pont’s program contributes to a supportive work environment andimproved productivity by helping employees address previously ignored areas ofmental stress and by opening the lines of communication between men andwomen.These specialized workshops were implemented in 1988 to sensitize white, upperlevel managers to gender and racial issues. Comprising 12 to 18 employees (fiveof whom are white male managers, and the remaining minorities and women),core groups meet with an outside facilitator for eight hours a month, on company time if they choose. Senior vice presidents are encouraged to form coregroups within their own departments, and members either self-select or are invited to participate. While the groups have a life of their own, they typically lastabout a year. Occasionally members of the group will continue to meet on an adhoc basis once the group has disbanded.
195

FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES GENDER/RACIAL AWARENESS TRAINING

DESCRIPTIONHughes has implemented a series of “Managing a Diverse Workforce” training programs for management/supervisors, as well as career development seminarsfor minorities and women. Hughes also has a variety of management and professional development programs, including the Chairman’s Executive LeadershipProgram, Line Managers Development Course, Contract Managers Course, andthe Management Action Workshop for new supervisors and middle managers. All of these programs are monitored on a regular basis to determine the enrollment patterns of minorities and women.JC Penney Co., Inc. created its own two-day workshop on managing a diverse workforce. All profit-sharing managers in the company have attended the program. The workshop objectives are to create an awareness of cultural differences,to develop an understanding of how these diverse cultures benefit the workplaceenvironment, and improve communications between an increasingly diverse workforce. Additionally, 120 key senior managers attended a week-long multicultural workshop that uses relationship and team-building to reinforce the valueof diversity.The 3M Women’s Advisory Committee’s mission is “to influence and effect changein 3M to assure that all employees can participate and contribute equally.” Thestatement emphasizes change and focuses attention on promoting women’s careerand leadership development through identification of issues, communication to3M about women’s concerns, and recommendation of specific action plans. Thecommittee provides direct advice to senior management committees regardingpolicies that impact 3M women. The committee has contributed to the implementation of a number of significant programs including: supervisory and management development programs, internal communications on diversity in the workforce, an improved performance appraisal system, employee initiated part-timeemployment, and internal personnel search required for all job openings.

PROGRAMS

Gender/racial Awareness 

Training

Diversity Awareness 

Workshops

Skills Development WorkshopsThe Women’s Advisory Committee
FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES GENDER/RACIAL AWARENESS TRAINING

PROGRAMS

Gender/racial Awareness 

Training

trict Bridges

Minorities Resource 

Group/ Women’s Resource Group

Women’s Equity

(WE)

DESCRIPTIONA Diversity Awareness Program, first targeting senior executives and then allmanagement staff, enhances and sustains a work environment that is responsiveto the changing demographics of MCA’s workforce, eliminates any attitudinalbarriers that hinder the hiring and promotion of people of diverse backgrounds,and reaffirms the company’s commitment to considering candidates fromdiverse backgrounds for all jobs. More than 300 management personnel haveattended. A Diversity Forum has been established to address diversity issues thatemerge on a day-to-day basis.This voluntary management training program helps develop the skills needed to manage a diverse workforce through a 32-hour series of workshops involvingrole playing and interactive conversations. The eight training modules focus onintercultural perceptions, gender stereotypes, subtle racial sterotypes, ethnicidentity, organizational culture, intercultural conflict, and communications barriers. Ninety-four percent of those participating in the program found itexcellent or very good.The two groups play significant roles in enriching the company’s equal opportunity environment. The groups work with both senior management and humanresources personnel to provide input into programs and new initiatives such ascandidate slating, job posting, development of management training programs,the mentor program, recruiting and hiring practices, and enhancing upwardmobility for all employees in the company.WE was organized by a small group of management women to reduce their senseof isolation and to promote women’s upward mobility. By 1984, women were well represented in junior and mid-management jobs; subsequently, WE beganto recognize the importance of women’s voice in the workplace and to lobby theagency’s leaders about women’s concerns. Issues of primary interest included
197

PROGRAMS

Women’s NetworkWomen’s Management 

Association

DESCRIPTIONflextime, parental leave, child care, and the availability of promotion opportunitiesfor all women. Opening up membership into the women’s organization at all levelswas a logical step because the group’s steering committee believed they would gaingreater clout when voicing concerns to management by representing more womenin the agency. To recruit new members, WE planned programs to involve women atall levels, such as a workshop on juggling work and family obligations, a display onwomen’s historical contributions to the Port Authority, and health seminars. Toensure the relevance and usefulness of the programs to all members, Women’sEquity also sought nonmanagement women’s involvement on the steering committee and on each of its five subcommittees. The group then planned a special workshop cosponsored by Asian, African American, and Hispanic groups to help recruitwomen for nontraditional jobs such as the construction trades.The Network was developed in early 1991 to address women’s isolation in the corporation’s heavily male-dominated culture. The Women’s Network issues anewsletter to more than 200 female and male employees. The Network is drafting its formal charter, organizing focus groups with female employees and top management, and launching a formal study to determine whether there are barriers tocareer development at Raychem. A positive and constructive approach and its practice of communicating with management regularly and openly are attributesthat led to the group’s success.Founded in 1982, the Women’s Management Association defines itself as a “businessassociation.” Its objectives include helping women to become more effective in theirjobs, apprising senior management of women’s concerns and recommending practical solutions, and improving the knowledge of members of Ryder’s businesses andcustomers. A unique aspect of the group and a key to its success is the involvementof senior management. The group is guided by a Governing Board, comprised of 10senior-level female managers, and an Executive Advisory Committee, 

FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES GENDER/RACIAL AWARENESS TRAINING
PROGRAMS

Women’s Advisory Council

Corporate Services 

Women’s Initiative

FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES GENDER/RACIAL AWARENESS TRAINING

DESCRIPTIONcomprised of four of the chairman’s direct reports and human resources executives.Throughout the year, the group sponsors special events featuring nationally recognized business leaders, and frequently asks Ryder’s corporate and division officers toformally speak to members about company growth and business plans. Having thegroup’s objectives aligned with corporate objectives and the involvement of seniormanagement have been critical to its success.The Council was established in January 1988 by then Chairman James L. Ketelsen tohelp increase the number of women in leadership positions. Since then, the grouphas worked with management and corporate human resources officers to achieve itsgoals. Approximately 20 executive and management women from all company divisions are part of the Council, which also has a non-member senior executive liaison.The Council receives its operating budget from the company and uses company personnel, facilities and communications services. Members of the Women’s AdvisoryCouncil helped corporate human resources officers facilitate company-wide adoption of “Workforce 2000 Initiatives,” a training program for addressing workforcediversity issues. The group also assisted corporate human resources officers in developing the “Work/Family Support Program,” which offers a range of work and familybenefits, including a six-month, unpaid family care leave. The number of women insenior management has grown significantly since the Council was established.The Initiative is a management-supported group of approximately 50 female engineers, managers, and technical employees in the company’s Corporate Services division. Founded as a grassroots effort by two women in 1990, the stated charter of thegroup is to champion the full participation of Corporate Services women at all levelsand aspects of the business by promoting their professional and personal goals. TheWomen’s Initiative helps top management understand and resolve issues that willenable the company to better recruit and retain women. Using the CorporateServices Women’s Initiative as a model, five additional women’s networks haveformed in other company divisions. 
199

DESCRIPTIONThe policy was instituted in February 1991 as part of an overall effort to bringmore structure to a relatively liberal environment. When confronted with sexualharassment situations, the company is not reluctant to take action; offenders are terminated when appropriate. The policy has three components: a statementdefining and prohibiting sexual harassment; a section outlining managers’responsibility, and a section describing the process of filing and resolving grievances.A company-wide sexual harassment policy was implemented in the early 1980 as a step toward ensuring a nondiscriminatory workplace. The employeemanual, “Dealing With Sexual Harassment, a Guide for Employees,” conveys the

nature and implications of sexual harassment by illustrating real-life examples of improper behavior, and consequences for harassers. The “New Focus onSexual Harassment” workshop sensitizes supervisors and employees to thenuances of sexual harassment through videotapes, case studies, and role playing.In 1987, the company developed this four-hour workshop to help create aresponsible and respectful environment free of sexual harassment and discrimination. The workshop uses a videotape of real-life examples of sexual harassment, including the more subtle forms, the offensiveness of which men are oftenunaware. After an employee discussion of their perceptions of sexual harassment, the facilitators define the legal parameters and implications of sexualharassment. Another video shows the company’s chief executive officer expressing his disapproval of sexual harassment. The final segment outlines theresources available to employees and the actions they can take.

PROGRAMS

Sexual Harassment Policy

Policy Training manual

A Matter of Respect

FORCE DIVERSITY INITIATIVES ELIMINATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
DESCRIPTIONA task force was appointed in November 1986 to examine work and family issues. The task force reviewed the programs of 33 work-and-family-supportivecompanies, surveyed 2,000 Kodak employees and consulted with work and family specialists. The result was a comprehensive work and family programwhich includes up to 17 weeks of unpaid, job-protected family leave, child care resource and referral service, and corporate funding for start-up cost forday-care homes in Kodak communities.A surprisingly high number of men have taken advantage of a generous familyleave policy without stigma and without derailing their careers. Also unusual isthe length of leave the men have taken to care for their infants: an average of12.2 weeks, which is just a week less than the average leave for mothers. Fullhealth coverage continues during leave, and employees are assured of returningto the same or comparable job.Fel-Pro increased its financial aid for adoption from $2,500 to $5,000 andincreased its tuition refund benefits from $2,500 to $3,000 for undergraduatestudies and from $5,000 to $6,500 for graduate studies. Tuition reimbursementhas been extended to part-time employees, who are mostly female.The company designed its innovative Family Care Issues to help recruit andretain top talent. The company has instituted a program that includes such benefits as a one-year unpaid leave of absence and an on-site child care center.But the company has gone beyond traditional work and family programs: aSummer Care Fair offers employees and the public information about summercamps and programs in New England and a “Kids-to-go” program works withlocal day care centers to provide activities for the school-aged children ofemployees during school holidays and vacations.

PROGRAMS

Work and Family Program 

Parental Leave

Family Friendly Programs

vices Family Care Issues

 FRIENDLY PROGRAMS
201

PROGRAMS

Balancing Work and 

Family Program

On-Site Daycare, Flexible 

Work Schedules

Shared Parenting

Child care/ parental leave

DESCRIPTIONThe program includes the following components: Child Care Resource andReferral; On-site Child Development Centers; Dependent Care Assistance Plans;Family Care Leave; Family Care Absence; Flexible Work Schedules; AdoptionBenefits; SchoolMatch; Elder Care Resource and Referral; Relocation Planning;and Employed Spouse Relocation Services. These initiatives were designed inlarge part to address the changing composition of their work force — theincreasing numbers of women, two-career families, single parents, and the children of elderly parents. The company conducted a survey that showed thatbetween 1990 and 1992, supervisors became significantly more supportive ofemployees when work/family problems arose and supervisors were also seen as more supportive of the use of flexible time and leave policies. There was, however, no impact on absenteeism or tardiness.Marquette has two on-site centers serving 175 children. Workers can adjust theirschedules daily, if necessary, to meet family needs.The bank is one of the first, if not the only company to offer fathers paid timeoff to care for their newborn children. The policy is based on the company’sbelief that parenting is a shared responsibility. New fathers receive up to sixweeks of paid paternity leave: for each year of service they accrue one week ofleave.One of the company’s foremost work and family benefits is its on-site child careprogram, established in 1985. The child-care program provides before- and after-school care, transportation to and from school, a kindergarten programand parent training for employees. The center has been accredited by theNational Association for the Education of Young Children. During the summer,the company offers full-time day care for school-age children of employees.

 FRIENDLY PROGRAMS
DESCRIPTIONThe parental leave policy allows up to three months of unpaid leave for bothmale and female employees. This is in addition to the paid medical leave for themother. The option to work part-time following parental leave is also available.The Adoption Reimbursement Program reimburses employees for 100 percentof their covered expenses — up to a maximum of $2,000. The adoption ofstepchildren is covered and adopted children can be any age up to 18. There are no limits on the number of adoptions per employee that can qualify forreimbursement. Covered expenses include legal, court, adoption agency and placement fees, medical expenses, and transportation expenses, and transportation expenses associated with picking up the child.A child care center in the home office building is available to all JC Penney Co.,Inc. employees. The 10,000-square-foot facility can accommodate 157 childrenfrom 6 weeks to 5 years of age at an average cost of $100 per week.Tandem has offered a nine-week unpaid parental leave for over 10 years. A fulltime disability leave manager helps expectant parents obtain and process thenecessary medical and insurance forms, and an on-staff nurse is available tocheck on the health of pregnant employees. Tandem also recognizes infertilityby covering up to three in-vitro fertilization treatments as well as expenses forsurrogate mothers.To generate awareness and build broad-based support, Sprint appointed 150employees from a range of company divisions to 11 career and family actionteams. The teams developed the blueprint of the FamilyCare program.Announced in July 1989, FamilyCare provides flexible work schedules, a dependent-care resource and referral service, adoption assistance, personal and familycounseling, working-partner relocation assistance, and flexible health-care benefits.

PROGRAMS

Adoption Reimbursement 

Program

On-Site Child Care

Model Maternity Leave

FamilyCare Program

 FRIENDLY PROGRAMS
203

 FRIENDLY PROGRAMS

DESCRIPTIONThe program allows female or male managers to return to work on a part-timebasis for up to three years following the birth or adoption of a child, while maintaining the benefits of a full-time employee. Andersen clearly communicates thatmanagers who work part-time at some point in their careers will remain eligiblefor partnership; flexible work arrangements will lengthen an employee’s progression toward partnership, not derail it.Corning’s policy states that “alternative job schedules are privileges—not rights.”An employee must have a good performance rating and the position must lenditself to a nontraditional schedule. Options include part-time, flextime, job sharing, and work at home.Flexible work arrangements, including those at the managerial level, have beenavailable on an ad hoc basis since the early 1980s. In November 1988 a formalpolicy was introduced in which part-time, job sharing, and flextime are availableto all employees.In 1987 the bank began offering employees on parental leave the opportunity to rejoin the workforce at their own pace during a six-month leave period.Employees arrange their schedules with their managers, receive full benefits and a prorated salary, and return to the same or comparable position. The bankalso offers Select Time, a part-time program instituted in 1988. Although SelectTime has been used mostly by officers and managers, it is available to any employee who has worked at NCNB at least a year and performs at a level rated“satisfactory” or above.Pacific Bell has been researching the business costs and payoffs of telecommuting since the inception of its pilot telecommuting program in May 1985. Thecompany defines telecommuting as working from a site other than the officeusing telecommunications technology.

PROGRAMS

Flexible Work Program

Alternative Job Schedules

Professional Flexible Work 

Arrangements (FWAs)

nk Alternative Work 

Schedules

Telecommuting
 FRIENDLY PROGRAMS FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS

PROGRAMS

Model Alternative Work Schedule Policy 

Part-time Work Policy

Part-time policy

DESCRIPTIONThe policy, drafted by the association’s Committee on Equality, outlines fouroptions that it says firms should make available to lawyers: (1) flextime; (2) parttime; (3) job sharing; and (4) flexiplace. The model policy is compatible withthe American Bar Association, the Oregon State Bar Association and the policyput forth by the Minnesota Women Lawyers. The four models agree that:

• Alternative work schedules should be available to both men and women;• Compensation should be calculated on a pro rata basis, with full or 

prorata benefits;

• There should be periodic review of alternative work schedule 

arrangements;

• There should be uninhibited promotion and advancement for part-time 

attorneys, but those attorneys have a responsibility to keep regular hours and to be available even when not in the office.

The law firm, located in Chicago, introduced a part-time work policy in 1987. Parttime, normally 60 to 80 percent of a full-time work load, is not restricted to dependent-care needs. Most often it is new mothers who take advantage of the policy,which entitles them to take up to an eight-month, full-time parental leave. After thisleave ends, the firm permits the associate to work part-time for up to six months. Ifthe arrangement does not jeopardize the needs of the practice, an employee canrequest to work part-time indefinitely.In 1981, the law firm adopted a policy allowing attorneys with two years of experience at the firm to work part-time. In 1984, the option was expanded to includenew recruits. The policy has no restrictions in terms of duration. While part-timeattorneys are not on the partnership track, they can pursue partnership once theyreturn to full-time status.
205

 FRIENDLY PROGRAMS FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS

PROGRAMS

Professional Job Sharing

Alternative Scheduling

DESCRIPTIONAfter offering job-sharing for 6 years to nonexempt salaried employees, the company extended the option to its entire work force in 1988. Management encourages employees and their supervisors to customize job sharing arrangements.The most common arrangement features a weekly schedule divided between thepartners. Job sharers receive half of their medical, dental, and life insurancebenefits, but can purchase a full package at the company’s group rate. Vacationand sick days are prorated, and annual merit raises and promotion opportunitiesare preserved.The 15-member Nursing Recruitment and Retention Committee works withsenior administration and the governing board to identify projects and programs that help prevent or reduce the effects of the nursing shortage. Staffingand scheduling are known to be areas of dissatisfaction for nurses and may causea nurse to leave an institution. Tucson Medical Center has the traditional eighthour shift, and also ten-hour, twelve-hour, split, and other nontraditional shifts.In many cases, through a process of self-scheduling, the nurses put these shiftstogether to provide 24-hour coverage. This departure from traditional scheduling by the management team allows staff nurses to develop their own work calendar within some pre-established parameters.
 FRIENDLY PROGRAMS PARENTAL LEAVE

PROGRAMS

Family Benefits 

Policy

Policy

Family Benefits for Men

DESCRIPTIONA Family Leave Policy was implemented in June 1988. The policy grants employees, both male and female, up to six months of unpaid leave following the birthor adoption of a child or to deal with a serious illness of a parent, spouse, orchild.The parental leave policy provides six weeks of disability leave for maternity,including full benefits, followed by an optional 20 weeks of child care leave fornew fathers as well as mothers, including adoptive parents, and an optional part-time return. At the end of parental leave or at any other point an employeeneeds more time for family care responsibilities, he or she may elect to work flexible hours, arrange a jobsharing situation or work at home. The programallows employees temporary part-time work assignments when they need todevote extra time to caring for children or other dependent relatives.In October 1988, IBM extended its unpaid personal leave of absence from 1 to 3years to help employees balance career and family responsibilities. Employeestaking leaves of one year or less are guaranteed their same or a comparable jobupon return; workers who take longer leaves are assured of a job but not necessarily at the same salary or level.In March 1989, this law firm adopted a policy granting three-month paidparental leaves for male and female associates. The policy dictates that “eligibilityfor partnership consideration shall not be affected in any way by the fact that anassociate has been on child care leave, although the timing of such consideration may be affected if the leave or leaves are for extended periods.” To qualifyfor the paternity leave, new fathers must be the primary caregiver in the familyand must have been employed by the firm for at least a year.
207

DESCRIPTIONThe program is championed by Allstate Insurance Company, American Express Company, Amoco Corporation, IBM Corporation, Johnson & Johnson,Motorola, Inc., The Travelers, Xerox Corporation, and Work/Family Directions.The collaboration is an effort by 109 companies and 28 public and private organizations to ease the work/family conflicts of their employees. This uniqueeffort aims to increase the supply and enhance the quality of dependent care services for their employees and the communities in which they live and work.The Collaboration has invested more than $25 million in 300 dependent careprograms in 44 communities.In collaboration with the New York City Department for the Aging, the programwas developed to assist employees with elder-care support. The companies fundthe program, and in turn, they choose Department of Aging services that best fittheir needs and corporate cultures. Among them are on-site seminars foremployees on such topics as legal and financial planning and nursing homeplacement, individual consultation to assess the elder-care needs of employeesand to refer employees to appropriate resources, an elder-care counseling “hotline,” and technical assistance for human resources professionals in designingand communicating elder-care benefits packages. Representatives from sponsoring companies meet on a regular basis to discuss the status, strategies, and goalsof the partnership.Based on an employee survey indicating child care as a major concern, andstrong support from its Chief Executive Officer, the company opened an on-sitechild care center in 1988. The 4,900-square-foot center, housed in an officebuilding adjacent to corporate headquarters, was imaginatively designed by anarchitect with experience in child care center planning. Each age group has aseparate room, and a complex security system ensures safety and proper visitoridentification. While the center is open to the community, children and 

PROGRAMS

 The American Business

y

 Collaboration for 

Quality Dependent Care

la, Inc., 

ration,

s

y

 Partnership for Eldercare

ris

On-site child care center 

 FRIENDLY PROGRAMS DEPENDENT CARE
 FRIENDLY PROGRAMS DEPENDENT CARE

PROGRAMS

Elder Care Referral 

Service (ECRS)

On-site intergenerational 

center

DESCRIPTIONgrandchildren of Champion employees are given preference. Currently, the center provides care for 60 children aged three months to five years, and a waitinglist exists. In keeping with Champion’s commitment to accessible, high-qualitycare, the center is accredited by the National Association for the Education ofYoung Children.IBM introduced its Elder Care Referral Service in February 1988 to ease the caregiving responsibilities of its U.S. employees, retirees, and their spouses. Througha nationwide network of 200 community-based organizations, ECRS provides personalized telephone consultation, which educates employees on elder care issuesand refers them to services or care providers in the area in which their dependent relative resides. IBM offers the referral service on a prepaid contractualbasis, while the employee or older relative selects and pays for the actual careprovided.Opened in March 1990, the center was the first of its kind to be sponsored by anAmerican company. To assist with the center, Stride Rite has enlisted the help ofWheelock College, a Boston-based school that specializes in child care and familystudies, and Somerville-Cambridge Elder Services, a local nonprofit agency thatprovides assistance to the elderly. At full capacity, the center accommodates 55children (ranging in age from 15 months to 6 years), and 24 adults age 60 andover. To foster the relationship between children and elders, the center sponsorssuch activities as reading and writing stories, playing games, celebrating holidays,cooking and arts and crafts. It is open to employees as well as to members of thecommunity, some of whom receive state-subsidized membership. There is a sliding-scale fee structure based upon family income.
EASURING GLASS

R THE AFRICAN

NDIAN, ASIAN AND

HISPANIC

S

us data was conducted

ment characteristic

he specific ethnic

s. By performing a sec

alysis of existing gov

variables for describ

nditions encountered

dentified.

y of senior-level posi

ndard Occupation

on the 1990 Census,

tics which were ana

dge of the occupation

nsus Public Use

% dataset), the follow

 and analyzed:

gment was related to

and income. The

onal advancement

er the persons works

for the government, or profit company, or not-forprofit organization. For the purposes of thisreport, the focus of the data extractions was theprivate for profit segment.B. Industry played a role in the occupation opportunities. There was more mobility in certain industries than others. Also, the salary range differed byindustry. By knowing the employment patternbased on industry, it explained the occupationand income differentials. Industry categories analyzed were: manufacturing, transportation, communications, public utilities; wholesale trade,retail trade, finance, insurance, and real estate,business services and repair services, professionaland related services, public administration, andother industries.C. Nativity affected employment and occupationopportunities. Immigrants’ employment experience differed from the U.S.-Born experience. Forthe Asian and Pacific Islander American community, given that two-thirds of the Asian and PacificIslander Americans are immigrants and that morethan half of them immigrated to the U.S. duringthe 1980s, this particular segment in the workforce would not have had enough time to “climb 209

 FOR MEASURING GLASS CEILING REALITIES
the corporate ladder.” The fields that were analyzed in regard to nativity for API and theHispanic communities were U.S.-Born and Foreign Born.D. Income was an important variable for assessingwhether executives/administrators and managersare at par with their peers. The wage/salaryincome ranges that were analyzed for the fourgroups were: zero to $24,999, $25,000 to $49,999,$50,000 to $74,000, $75,000 to $99,999, $100,000to $139,000, and $140,000 or more.E. Gender was important in examining differences in occupational achievements of men andwomen. Certain occupations and industries aredominated by men or women; thus the distinctionin the analysis was useful.F. Educational attainment was used in determiningthe return on investment. The education attainment categories analyzed were: (a) Less than a bachelor’s degree (b) bachelor’s degree(c) master’s or professional degree, and (d) doctorate degree. G. Age was a variable used in this analysis forHispanic Americans. Variances in the mean wageincome in the datasets was an indicator of the negative impact of the glass ceiling in the area of compensation. It is hypothesized that whencontrolling for education and other factors,

Hispanic Americans just out of college (betweenthe ages of 25-29) are being compensated at levels equal, or relatively close to their white non-Hispanic male counterparts. In addition, asHispanics climb the occupational “pipeline” theirmean-wage income lags behind that of their whitemale counterparts—an indication of the pressureof the glass ceiling. Thus, Hispanic male employees between the ages of 40-54 have significantlylower incomes than their white non-Hispaniccounterparts.Two analyses were performed: one nationally and the other by states with the largest group ofthe specific ethnicity. The Hispanic American subgroups that were analyzed were MexicanAmerican, Puerto Rican American, CubanAmerican and Other Hispanics. Asian and PacificIslander American subgroups examined were:Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese,Asian Indian and Other Southeast Asians.Hawaiian was the only Pacific Islander group disaggregated in this analysis. The occupation category for analysis was limitedto the executive, administrator, and manager level as this is the level that is most impacted bythe glass ceiling. The 1990 Census codes “006”through “022” were taken as an aggregate groupto comprise this category. (Refer to the StandardOccupational Classification Tables).
211

lled for the executives, 

rs of private-for-profit 

ollowing cross-tabulations 

by Gender

ender

lass of Work by Occupation by Genderlass of Work by Education by Occupation by Genderlass of Work by Education by Occupation by Gender
The Industry Classifications used in this report arebased on the 1990 Census of Population ofHousing. The classifications were developed fromthe 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)table. There were seven broad categories used in theanalysis: 1) Business Services; 2) Finance,Insurance and Real Estate; 3) Manufacturing; 4) Retail trade; 5) Wholesale trade; 6) Transportation and Public Utilities; and7) Public Administration.The industry analysis was performed for theUnited States (National level) and regions withthe highest population percentage of the specificrace/ethnicity group (except African Americans)as defined by the 1990 Bureau of the Census (5%)

PUMs dataset. The agriculture and mining industries were examined in the analysis. However, thedata cells for the senior level executives, administrators, and managers were too small to be statistically significant/reliable; thus, these industrieswere not reported.The Asian subgroups examined were: Chinese,Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, AsianIndian and other Southeast Asians. The Hispanicsubgroups examined were: Cuban, Puerto Rican,Mexican and other Hispanics.The occupation category for this analysis was limited to the executive, administrative, and managerial level, as this is the level that is most impactedby the glass ceiling effect.

STANDARD INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATIONS (SIC)
stry codes analyzed.

egory

Forestry, and Fisheries 

ng

on, Communications 

tilities

ade

king, savings 

ncluding credit 

t agencies, security, 

brokerage, 

ent companies.

ncluding real estate

fices

vices

 offices and clinics, 

rsing, and personal 

s, health services

nistration

213
The list presents the occupational classification

developed for the 1990 Census of Population and Housing. There are 501 categories for theemployed with one additional category for theexperienced unemployed and 3 additional categories for the Armed Forces. These categoriesare grouped into 6 summary groups and 13 majorgroups. The classification is developed from the 1980 Standard Occupational Classification.“n.e.c.” is the abbreviation for not elsewhere classified.OCCUPATIONThere are thirteen occupational categories; 1) Executive, Administrative and Managerial; 2) Professional Specialty; 3) Technicians andRelated Support; 4) Sales; 5) AdministrativeSupport; 6) Private Household; 7) ProtectiveServices; 8) Service (except protective and household); 9) Farming and Forestry; 10) PrecisionProduction, Craft, and Repair; 11) MachineOperators, Assemblers, and Inspectors; 12) Transportation and Material MovingOccupation; and 13) Military.

This glass ceiling analysis focuses on Census occupation codes 006 through 022. Specifically,these are: 006-Administrators, Protective Services;007-Financial Managers; 008-Personnel and LaborRelations Managers; 009-Purchasing Managers;013-Managers, Marketing, Advertising, and Public Relations; 014-Administrators, Education,and Related Fields; 015-Managers, Medicine, and Health; 016-Postmasters and MailSuperintendents; 017-Managers, Food Serving,and Lodging Establishments; 018-Managers,Properties, and Real Estate; 019-Funeral Directors;021-Managers, Service Organizations, n.e.c.; 022-Managers and Administrators, n.e.c.The table below outlines many occupation codesare presented as ranges; for example, legislators(001-003). The Occupation Code List includes single census occupation codes and is comparableStandard Occupational Classification (SOC) codeequivalents.

STANDARD OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS (SOC)
215

OFESSIONAL SPECIALTY OCCUPATIONS

dministrative, and Managerial Occupations 

rs, Protective Services

nagers

nd Labor Relations ManagersManagers

arketing, Advertising, and Public Relations

rs, Education, and Related Fields

edicine, and Health

and Mail Superintendents

ood Serving, and Lodging Establishments

roperties, and Real Estate

ctors

ervice Organizations, n.e.c.

d Administrators, n.e.c.

ied
METHODOLOGY

The 25 CEOs interviewed did not represent a scientific random sample. Participants were chosenacross industry and geographic lines, with a mixof small and large, public and private businesses.No CEO who was asked to participate refused.Some of the companies they lead do business on aregional basis, most are national, and a few operate in the international marketplace. Eight minority-owned businesses headed by men were included in the sample. The following selection criteriawere used: 

Minimum Number of Employees:500 to 500,000Minimum Annual Revenue: $5 million to $84 billionOwnership:Publicly traded and privately ownedHeadquarters Location/Service Areas: East Coast, South, Midwest, Southwest, West Coast

Industrial Sectors:Manufacturing, transportation, communications,advertising, print media, television and telecommunications, public utilities, wholesale and retailtrade and distribution, investment banking, law,information technology, aerospace, and defense.The interviews were conducted by representativesof the Glass Ceiling Commission’s ResearchConsortium. All interviews were based on the setof questions that follow. The interviews were conducted as structured, hour-long conversations,and not as strict question-and-answer interrogations. Whenever possible, the interviewers askedfor examples and anecdotes to illustrate thepoints the CEOs were making. To encourage thehighest levels of candor, the CEOs were grantedanonymity. The conversations were not recordedbut the interviewers did take detailed notes. Onoccasion, the interviewers read back statements tothe interviewees to ensure that the CEO was beingquoted accurately.The 25 interviews were compiled in a paper entitled In Their Own Words: CEO Views of Diversity atthe Top. This paper, available from the GlassCeiling Commission, provides an extensive review

SURVEY OF CEOs
s, and judgments

e problems and 

ving gender, racial, 

N NONRANDOM

WITH CEOS

Management and

ceived a great deal of

xperts over the past

dustry has grown

t there continues to

se who assert that

ities and women—

nks of management is

hy business, and (2)

ongly that the best

bottom line is served

gement—like-minded

 goals. Most of the

 who argue these 

n the firing line. 

d in your experience

e downsides and up

ssure on you one way

pressure on your

Have you experienced pressure from other quarters? If so, where has it come from and how haveyou been able to respond?

(IF THEY SEE MORE DOWNSIDES THAN UPSIDES: THE FOLLOWING APPLY)

What has been your experience in hiring and promoting minorities and women?Has your reluctance to include more minoritiesand women in the pipeline caused any problems?If so, with whom and how have you dealt withthose problems?

(IF THEY SEE MORE UPSIDES THAN DOWNSIDES: THE FOLLOWING APPLY)What motivated you to support the inclusion ofminorities and women in top policy-making anddecisionmaking levels?What management challenges did you face whenyou moved to increase the representation ofminorities and women in the top management of your organization?How did you motivate your in-place managers tochange the way they think about staffing?What formal programs were put in place regarding recruitment, development, succession, and so 217
forth? Have there been informal activities that

promoted diversity? What were the major obstacles you met in promoting the inclusion of minorities and women? Whatwere the outstanding successes? Have the formalor the informal actitivities proven most successfulin increasing diversity at the top?What have you learned? What indication do youhave that diversifying top management has beengood for business?
219

were conducted in

es in four (4) U.S.

os Angeles and

dents participated in

— two groups each of

n Indians, Asian and

API), and Hispanic

ple participated.and Pacific Islander

ic American respon

old, and college 

elor, master’s, and

ime managers with

s were employed by 

mmunications, legal,

space, utility, 

ravel, transport, 

nt services, personal

groups were held with

oups included both

 managerial or execu

ector (group 1) and

and were college 

x of bachelor, master’s,

and Ph.D. degrees. The majority of the respondents were based in Washington but some traveledfrom as far as California to participate.The intended outcome of the focus groups were to:1. Define and understand the concept of the glass 

ceiling

2. Explore the role, impact, and outcome of the 

glass ceiling on their jobs and careers

3. Discover the possible cures for glass ceiling 

barriers

Statement of LimitationsFocus groups seek to develop insight and directionrather than quantitatively precise measures. Becauseof the limited number of respondents and therestrictions of recruiting, this research must be considered in a qualitative frame of reference. Theinformation presented from these groups cannot beprojected to a universe of similar respondents.The value of focus groups is in their ability to provide unfiltered, unbiased comments from a segmentof the target population and for decisionmakers togain insight into the beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of their consumer base.

METHODOLOGY
EMPLOYED PERSONS WITHIN INDUSTRY BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

Finance

ess Insurance Public Retail Wholesale

es Communications and Real Estate Manufacturing Administration Trade Transportation Utilities Trade

2,541 1,327,802 6,861,092 16,890,055 4,368,430 16,364,128 4,081,444 1,259,288 4,394,632

79% 80% 83% 79% 76% 80% 77% 82% 83%

,203 200,754 670,697 1,961,469 847,814 1,611,127 699,951 1,57,594 328,670

11% 12% 8% 9% 15% 8% 13% 10% 6%

9,580 91,562 459,141 1,793,630 340,940 1,627,779 380.003 87,444 414,909

6.6% 5.5% 5.5% 8.3% 5.9% 7.9% 7.1% 5.6% 7.8%

2,364 36,354 253,873 632,058 136,003 692,411 141,280 25,628 145,5402

3.0% 2.2% 3.1% 3.0% 2.4% 3.4% 2.6% 1.7% 2.7%

5,768 8,157 28,700 117,389 58,472 118,938 31,628 11,229 23,251

0.6% 0.49% 0.35% 0.55% 1.02% 0.58% 0.59% 0.73% 0.44%

,456 1,664,629 8,273,504 21,394,602 5,751,660 20,414,384 5,334,307 1,541,184 5,307,003

 and Economic Characteristics
EMPLOYED PERSONS WITHIN INDUSTRY BY GENDER AND OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL

Finance Transportation

Business Insurance Public Retail Public Utilities Wholesale

Services and Real Estate Manufacturing Administration Trade Communications Trade

14,830,000 3,323,000 14,315,000 3,218,000 9,444,000 5,819,000 3,329,000

37.9% 41.4% 67.6% 57.4% 48.1% 71.5% 71.6%

24,254,000 4,697,000 6,868,000 2,390,000 10,174,000 2,317,000 1,322,000

62.1% 58.6% 32.4% 42.6% 51.9% 28.5% 28.4%

4,757,000 2,089,000 2,544,000 1,201,000 1,550,000 920,000 528,000

12.17% 26.04% 12.01% 21.42% 7.90% 11.30% 11.35%

2,415,000 1,046,000 1,874,000 702,000 834,000 627,000 341,000

50.77% 50.07% 73.66% 58.45% 53.81% 68.10% 7.33%

2,342,000 1,043,00 671,000 499,000 716,000 294,000 187,000

49.23% 49.93% 26.38% 41.55% 46.19% 31.90% 35.42%

39,084,000 8,021,000 21,184,000 5,608,000 19,618,000 8,136,000 4,651,000

vilian Labor force. Data is based on respondents to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Surveys.

y the total number of executives, administrators and managers divided into the total employed in the industry.

e total number of executives, administrators and managers (by gender) divided into the total number of executives, administrators and managers employed in

Household Data Annual Averages*

221
NG ORAL TESTIMONY

EMBER 8, 1992

OrganizationSchool of JournalismUniversity of Kansas at Lawrence

Mid-County Development of Kansas City, Inc.

Women in Engineering Task Force

National Society of Professional Engineers

Corporate CommunicationsINTERTEC Publishing Company

Texas Instruments

McB Construction Specialists, Inc.

& Construction Workforce Consultants, Inc.

Human Relations Department

Kansas City, Missouri

INROADS

Kansas City, Missouri

LGC and Associates

American Business 

Women’s Association

Board of Public Utilities

Testifier OrganizationCynthia Frewen-Wuellner National Association of WomenBoard Member Business OwnersStacy A. GalaryAttorneyDr. Jacob U. Gordon Institute for Black Leadership,Executive Director Development and Research

University of Kansas at Lawrence

Ron Griffin Washburn UniversityProfessor of LawAscension Hermandez League of United Latin American National Vice President, Midwest CitizensBobbi L. Herring Central ExchangeExecutive DirectorGromer Jeffers, Jr. Kansas City Association of BlackPresident for Print JournalistsKansas City Chapter, KansasDr. Sue P. McDaniel Missouri Women’s Council on Executive Director Economic DevelopmentDr. John Maestas Institutional AdvancementVice President College of West VirginiaRuth L. Margolin Women’s CenterExecutive Director University of MissouriAnnalisa Miranda The School District ofMaterial Control Manager of Kansas City, Missouri

GS: ROSTER OF ORAL TESTIMONY 
223

Organization

Lincoln University

Career Advisement, Planning, and

Placement

AA Productions

Marketing/Productions

McDonnell-Douglas CorporationUnited Minority Media Association

Hyatt Regency Hotel,

Kansas City, Missouri

Job Referral/Intern Program

United Minority Media Association

Urban League Greater Kansas City

Kansas City, MisssouriKansas City Division of

Allied Signal Aerospace Company

Human Resources ServicesIDS Financial Service, Inc.

Black & Veath

Communications and MarketingKansas City Power & Light

GLASS CEILING HEARING ORAL TESTIMONY DALLAS, TXDECEMBER 10, 1993Testifier OrganizationRichard J. Bela Hispanic Association on Corporate President ResponsibilityMarjory Lou BettesAttorneyRobert Blonk AT & T Power SystemsManager Human ResourcesBillie Bryant CESCOOwner & PresidentPaula Clements National Association of Women in Executive Director ConstructionSandy Cooke American Women in Radio & President TelevisionDallas ChapterGale Duff-Bloom JC Penney Company, Inc.Executive Vice PresidentGordon England Lockheed, Fort WorthPresidentAbel M. Gonzales, Representative LULAC (League of United Latin and Member American Citizens) & Hispanic MBAs 

of San Antonio, Texas

Susan Gore Mentor GroupCharles Grantham National Basketball Players AssociationExecutive Director Coalition for Equality in SportsRaul Reyna National Hispanic Employees President Association
Organization

GTE Telephone OperationsEEO/Affirmative Action

Women’s Working Committee on the

Glass Ceiling 

Recognition International

National Organization of Women

NG ORAL TESTIMONY

RUARY 11, 1994

Organization

Pepperdine University

Diversity Search Partners, Inc.

Executive Recruitment

Chinese Affirmative Action 

The Greenlining CoalitionAmerican Institute of CertifiedPublic AccountantsOccidental Petroleum

Employment Compliance/EEO

Los Angeles Women’s Foundation 

Economic Justice Initiative

Arizona State University

School of Justice

Testifier OrganizationSteward Kwoh Asian Pacific American Legal CenterRepresentativeDr. Jonathan S. Leonard University of California at BerkeleyProfessor Haas School of BusinessFelix Loya L. A. Hispanic Professional Counsel RoundtableShirley C. McCarty The Aerospace CorporationGeneral Manager Human Resources DivisionJohn F. Moore Federal Reserve Bank of Senior Vice President San FranciscoAnn M. Morrison New Leaders InstitutePresidentCaroline Nahas Korn/Ferry InternationalManaging PartnerJulia Paik Asian Pacific AmericanSupervising Attorney Legal Defense CenterPaula Petrotta City Commission on the Status of Executive Director WomenEsther Renteria National Hispanic Media CoalitionRepresentativeBarbara N. Rodstein California American Women’s EconomicBoard Member Development CorporationDr. Judy Rosener University of California at IrvineProfessor and AuthorCharles Smith Pacific BellVice Pres. & General Manager Los Angeles RegionSusan Steinhauser L.A. Women’s Appointment Co-Founder & Past Pres. Collaboration
225

Organization

Hispanic Professional Roundtable

Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Human Resources

Transamerica Occidental Life InsuranceCompany, Living Benefits Division

Human ResourcesMCA/Universal, Inc.

Hughes Aircraft Co.

Hispanic Employee Association

Aerospace CorporationHuman Resources and Affirmative Action

Breakthrough Unlimited

CA American Women’s Economical 

Development Corporation

NG ORAL TESTIMONY

L 22, 1994

Organization

National Football League

Players Association

Work Force Diversity

Hughes Aircraft Co.

Women’s Policy and 

Research Commission

Testifier OrganizationKevin T. Duffy Kensington InternationalSearch ConsultantHenry H. Edwards, Jr. Human ResourcesExecutive Vice President Finast SupermarketsBarbara Fittipaldi General Leadership GroupPartnerMareyjoyce Green Women’s Comprehensive ProgramsDirector Cleveland State UniversityDr. Faith Helmick The University of AkronVice President Administrative Support ServicesEdward G. Kramer Kramer and Tobocman Co., L.P.A.Senior Partner & President Karla M. Lortz Governor’s Council on People Executive Secretary with DisabilitiesMichael Mobley The Minority Economic Opportunity CenterDirectorFrances Nankoong Organization of Chinese AmericansPresident of Greater ClevelandDennis Raymond The Austin CompanyDirector of PersonnelDr. Elizabeth R. Redstone Women’s Equity Action League President (WEAL) of OhioDr. Sandra W. Russ Case Western Reserve UniversityAssociate ProvostMartha Sloan The Institute of Electrical and Electronics, 1993 President Inc.Jean Curtis Ohio Bureau of Employment ServiceDeputy Administration
TESTIMONY - NEW YORK, NY

Organization

New York Women’s Bar Association

National Association of Hispanic Journalists

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 

Under Law

Columbia University

School of Business 

Association of Executive 

Search Consultants, Inc.

Interfaith Center on CorporateResponsibility

Obstacles to Advancement Subcommittee

of the New York Women’s Agenda

CBS Evening News

Eye To Eye With Connie Chung

International Business MachinesWorkforce Diversity

Columbia University

School of Business

National Association of Black 

Journalists

Hamlin & Associates, Inc.Philip Morris Companies Inc.

Testifier OrganizationDr. Charles Kamasaki National Council of La RazaVice PresidentEdward W. Jones, Jr. Harvard Business School President Black Alumni AssociationJeffrey A. Norris Equal Employment Advisory CouncilPresidentSharon H. Orlopp Kinney Shoe StoresVice PresidentKaren Page, Chair Harvard Business SchoolAlumnae Advisory Board Network of Women AlumnaeMerble Reagon Women’s Center for EducationExecutive DirectorJenny Rivera The Puerto Rican Legal DefenseFormer Associate Counsel and Education FundJames C. Stearns United Cerebral Palsy Association, IncPresidentAnn Taylor U. S. Trust Company of BostonLaurence A. Tisch, CEO CBS, IncorporationSheila Wellington Catalyst, New YorkPresidentDr. Bette Woody University of Massachussetts at BostonProfessorWilliam Monroe Trotter InstituteElissa Opstbaum Habbart Women Rainmakers Interest GroupAbraham Nad Corporate Directorship NewsletterCharles Ralston NAACP Legal Defense FundSenior Attorney
 and Managerial Occupations By Race,

d Sex.

evel of Racial Groups Compared to Percent

ve, Administrative, and Managerial

 and Managerial Occupations For Major

e and Sex.

 and Managerial Occupations By Race,

come, and Gender (Private Sector Only).

 and Managerial Occupations By Race,

ome, and Sex.

orce Trends: 1970-1990.

c Islander American Executives,

rs of Private-For-Profit Companies By

nment, and Sex.

 American Executives, Administrators,

fit Companies: Top Four Industries.

9. National Asian and Pacific Islander American Population Executives,Administrators, and Managers of Private-For-Profit Companie,: Numberof Cases By Ethnicity, Educational Attainment and Sex.10. National Foreign Born Asian and Pacific Islander AmericanPopulation Executives, Administrators, and Managers of Private-ForProfit Companies, Number of Cases By Ethnicity, EducationalAttainment and Sex.11. National Asian and Pacific Islander American Population Executives,Administrators, and Managers of Private-For-Profit Companies, MeanSalary Income in 1989 By Ethnicity, Educational Attainment and Sex.12. National U.S. Born Asian and Pacific Islander American PopulationExecutives, Administrators, and Managers of Private-For-ProfitCompanies, Mean Salary Income in 1989 By Ethnicity, EducationalAttainment and Sex.13. National Foreign Born Asian and Pacific Islander AmericanPopulation Executives, Administrators, and Managers of Private-forProfit Companies, Mean Salary Income in 1989 By Ethnicity,Educational Attainment, and Sex.14. National U.S. Born Asian and Pacific Islander American PopulationExecutives Administrators, and Managers of Private-for-ProfitCompanies, Number of Cases By Ethnicity, Educational Attainment, andSex. 227

S
d Population, By Subgroup in U.S.

entation of Private Sector Executive,

rial Occupations in the U.S. By Industry,

nder.

an Wage Income of Mexican American and

rivate-For-Profit Industry, Gender and

an Wage Income of Puerto Rican and WhiteFor-Profit Industry, and Gender.

n Wage Income of Cuban, Other Hispanic,

e, Private-For-Profit Industry, and Gender.

an Wage Income of Mexican American and

nistrative, and Managerial Populations in

dustries By Gender and State.

age of Puerto Rican and White Executive,rial Populations in Selected Private-for

and State.

age of Cuban, Other Hispanic, and White

nd Managerial Populations, in Selected

By Gender and State.

19a. Comparison of Mexican American and White Executive,Administrative, and Managerial Populations, in Selected Private-ForProfit Industries By Gender and State. (% of State Total).19b. Comparison of Puerto Rican and White Executive, Administrative,and Managerial Populations, in Selected Private-For-Profit Industries ByGender and State. (% of State Total).19c. Comparison of Cuban, Other Hispanic, and White Executive,Administrative, and Managerial Populations, in Selected Private-ForProfit Industries By Gender and State. (% of State Total).20. Hispanic and White Non-Hispanic Mean Wage Income By Age andEducation, in Selected Private-for-Profit Industries in the U.S.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
f the Advancement Study, provide current

ts of the glass ceiling. Each paper includes

mendations and an annotated bibliography.

vancement Experienced by African

dson Bell, Sloan School of Management,

echnology and Stella M. Nkomo, Belk

tration, University of North Carolina at

status of African American managers and an

they face as described in social science

hors’ own empirical data, collected from a

American and White women managers in pri

ovide a special focus on the unique barriers

women managers. The authors find that

women still lag behind White women and

nt positions. Over the past 10 years, the pro

n men and women holding management

etween 5 and 7 percent. At the individual

o their advancement are subtle racism and

barriers will require multilevel action on the

employers. (129 pages)

rsons with Disabilities. David Braddock and

versity Affiliated Program in Developmental

nois at Chicago.

This study analyzes the available literature regarding career advancement of persons with disabilities. It provides a rare focus on advancement and professional and managerial employment of this population.Representation of persons with disabilities in high level positions in theprivate sector is very limited. They are significantly underrepresented inlower management, or “pipeline” positions as well. The primary barriersfor the lack of career advancement stem from inappropriate myths andstereotypes, environmental barriers, and limited access to assistive technology. Research on career advancement for persons with disabilities isextremely rare. (94 pages)3. The Glass Ceiling in Different Sectors of the Economy: DifferencesBetween Government, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Organizations. Lynn C.Burbridge, Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.Using U.S. Census population tapes, this paper presents an historicalperspective (1950-1990) of occupational status and earnings of professional, technical, and managerial employees by race/ethnicity and sex.The research is unique in that it examines glass ceiling issues in thecontext of a 3-sector model of the U.S. economy rather than in the traditional public/private context. In the past 40 years, both government andthe not-for-profit sectors drew large numbers of minority and femaleworkers. The percentage of female and male minority professional,technical, and managerial workers in the government and the not-forprofit sector was higher throughout this 40 year period than in the forprofit sector, with the exception of Asian males. (93 pages)

LIOGRAPHY
231

Breaking the Glass Ceiling to Upward

Women. Catalyst, New York, NY.

sfully addressing glass ceiling issues are

case studies. Initiatives conducted by over 70

adership and career development, succes

mentoring, accountability, work force diver

grams are summarized. Research shows that

ior levels of corporate management centers

ection and recruitment practices, task

valuation and salary decisions. Most corpora

anisms in place to monitor appraisal and

that determine salary, bonuses, incentives

es. While legislative and regulatory efforts

e in gaining access to employment for

have not been as successful in advancing

nior and executive leadership positions ins needed to broaden the business case for

variety of costs to organizations of not

for minorities and women. (118 pages)

lass Ceiling Initiatives as National Economic

and Carol Smolinski. The University of

nnection between organizational economic

management of diversity. A review of pertinent literature and the authors own research provides conceptual argu- ments and research data regarding implications for the bottom line. Extensive notes. The researchers find that managing diversity can improve the cost structures of organizations and increase the quality of human resources. Diversity in workgroups can be leveraged to increase marketing effectiveness, creativity, innovation, and problem solving. Diversity requires managerial attention because differences among employees make supervision and work coordination more complex and challenging. For these reasons, the researchers conclude that organiza- tions which excel at leveraging diversity will experience better financial performace in the long run than organizations which are not effective in managing diversity. (85 pages) 6. The Impact of the Glass Ceiling on the Professions. Amy Golen. This working paper discusses the impact of glass ceiling barriers on vari- ous professions, including legal, the sciences, and financial. 7. The Impact of Corporate Restructuring and Downsizing on the Managerial Careers of Minorities and Women: Lessons Learned from Nine Companies. Nancy Hamlin, Sumru Erkut, and Jacqueline P. Fields. Hamlin & Associates Inc., Marblehead, Massachusetts. The paper presents the findings of a survey examining the restructuring and downsizing processes of nine large American companies, and their effects on the advancement opportunities for minority and women man- agers. In more than half of the companies surveyed, white women and minorities actually increased their representation in both absolute num-
hite males between 1990-1994. The

is not necessarily the case that whenever a

tionately more minority and female man

mpanies simply do not have very many

s they can let go that would make a sizable

 their managerial force. (48 pages)

vancement Experienced by Women in Low

 L. Harlan and Catherine Waite Berheide.

nment, State University at Albany.

r a glass ceiling exists for women in low-wage

e the results of a wide range of empirical

lyze barriers in the structure of work organi

 those external to work organizations. 

 gender, race, and class to ration access to

uture job opportunities for many women,

 and people from working class back

of the full-time female labor force work in

egories.. The growth of the contingent work

ime and temporary jobs in which women

over-represented. The low-paying jobs with

e incumbents are not connected to any

 Enforcement of rigid work schedules and

oyee benefits constrain women’s promotion

vancement Experienced by Native

lie Wolf, Chris Lovato, and Steve Byers.

l, cultural, social, situational, and individual

factors that have influenced patterns of Native American economic andoccupational success. Presents employment patterns across tribes andwithin them by gender, excluding Native Alaskans and Aliuts. Theauthors also differentiate between rural and urban Native Americans.Figures from the U.S. Census show that while American Indians madegains in achievement of higher level organizational positions in the1960s and 1970s, progress was halted and even reversed in the 1980s and1990s. In the 1980 census, 9.6 percent of American Indian males heldprofessional or technical positions; by 1990, this figure had fallen to 6.7percent. Barriers to American Indian economic and occupational success include lack of educational attainment and lack of capital fortribal enterprises. (52 pages)10. Use of Enforcement Techniques in Eliminating the Glass Ceiling.Jonathan S. Leonard. Walter A. Haas School of Business, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.A review and analysis of available research and data examines how federal policies and practices have affected the advancement of minoritiesand women in the labor market, and suggests how they could bestrengthened and improved. Historical record, the researchers say, suggests that to be effective, affirmative action policy requires governmental monitoring and sanctions. (93 pages)11. Barriers to the Employment and Work Place Advancement of LatinosMauricio Gastón Institute for Latino Community Development andPublic Policy, University of Massachusetts at Boston.Current research regarding the employment status of Latino/Latinaworkers and the barriers to their mobility and advancement are examined. The paper focuses on labor market factors as well as workplaceorganization in examining issues ranging from recruitment to language 
233

Despite gains in absolute numbers, the

inos in managerial and specialty professions,

ed. Hispanics are earning higher degrees in

ncement yet there are small numbers of

fessionals. Hispanics have the lowest full

ent rate of any ethnic group and are dispro

mong displaced workers. (92 pages) 

mpact of Family-Friendly Policies on the

wartz. Families and Work Institute, New

from The National Study of the Changing

t research and business literature, and infor

h organizations and corporations. It

ndly policies, the outcomes of the policies,

 leaves and flexible work arrangements on

esearch on the impact of family-friendly

. There is some evidence that the actual

exible work arrangements may be less detri

red, the researchers report. Supervisor atti

nfluence employee use of work-family poli

Ceiling and Structural Change on

 B. Shaw, Dell P. Champlin, Heidi I.

palter-Roth. Institute for Women’s Policy

.S. economy and how these effect the

norities to enter and advance beyond entry

nt is the focus of this literature review and

analysis. The authors explore corporate restructuring and industrialrestructuring and identify possible outcomes which may occur. In spiteof the problems that restructuring entails, the researchers report thatminorities and women made gains at the managerial level during the1980s. Women’s share of the positions increased substantially, but theincrease was much smaller for minority men. African Americans andHispanics of both sexes continue to be seriously underrepresented inmanagement. (41 pages)14. Impact of Recruitment, Promotion, Selection, and CompensationPolicies and Practices on the Glass Ceiling. Roosevelt Thomas and JeffPorterfield. American Institute for Managing Diversity, Inc. MorehouseCollege.Original data from cultural audits of private, governmental, and nonprofit organizations performed by the American Institute for ManagingDiversity augment a review and analysis of literature regarding personnel policies and practices and their impact on the advancement ofminorities and women into mid-and upper-management positions. Theresearchers conclude that certain business/corporate policies and procedures inherently operate to produce and/or maintain the effects of aglass ceiling . These effects stem from formal organizational systems(such as policies and practices of recruitment and selection, performance appraisal, promotion/succession planning, compensation, andturnover) to informal systems (such as mentoring and cultural norms inan organization.) (94 pages)15. Race, Ethnic, and Gender Earnings Inequality: The Sources andConsequences of Employment Segregation. Donald Thomaskovic-Devy.Department of Sociology, North Carolina State University.How gender and race/ethnic segregation in the workplace are linked to
ent barriers is explored. From a review of

his own research, the author examines

rch patterns, hiring and promotion prac

Race/ethnic and gender employment segre

U.S. economy, according to the researcher.

pational segregation and earnings inequali

e the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, but

e uneven, reversible, and incomplete. There

in hiring by employers and their agents.

n choosing white or male candidates over

es and steering all candidates to jobs that

te not only to their education and experi

icity or gender. (72 pages)

dvancement, and the Glass Ceiling, Ellen D.

mission, U.S. Department of Labor.

ture and government statistics analyzes the

d women for managerial positions and their

utives. Focus is on educational preparation

nities and requirements. Educational

o breaking glass ceiling barriers, according

re and more qualified minorities and

cessary educational credentials, they contin

red for managerial promotions and

s. Few companies have formal succession or

s. Most rely on informal practices and pro

, ethnic, and gender stereotypes and biases.

dvancement Experienced by Asian

nstitute for the Study of Social Change,

University of California at Berkeley.This unique research review provides a comprehensive analysis of thestatus of Asian Pacific American managers and professionals. The paperexamines employment in industry, government, and academia, with alarge section on educational issues. Includes an historical overview ofAsians in the U.S. labor market since the mid 1800s. While many AsianAmericans are highly educated and occupationally successful, glass ceiling barriers exist for them, according to the researcher. And the successof Asian Americans as entrepreneurs may mask the reality that selfemployment is taken up as a result of blocked mobility in mainstreamareas of employment, especially at the executive levels. The researcherfinds that Asian American educational attainment is not matched bycomparable access to professional jobs which permit upward mobility inthe long run. Glass ceiling barriers exist for Asian Americans precisely inthose work contexts where we might reasonably expect their professional concentration to lead to greater managerial representation, i.e. science, engineering, and other technical professions. (160 pages) 18. Barriers to Work Place Advancement Experienced by White WomenWorkers. Bette Woody and Carol Weiss. The Trotter Institute, University

of Massachusetts, Boston.A literature review and data analysis of the status of white women managers and the barriers to their advancement. Includes original surveyresults on corporate programs and policies and senior women managers’ perceptions from authors’ related research. (106 pages). Separateannotated bibliography. Despite progress, the researcher reports thatthe proportion of women at the top of business hierarchies remainsnearly unchanged after three decades. Compensation patterns reflectthe concentration of women in entry level positions. Gains in entry levelmanagement by white women has failed to result in promotions to positions of authority and power at the top of corporate America. Despite 
235

ment, ambition and commitment to careers,

us and starting salaries, research has shown

enced very different progressions over time

and ending in higher status positions with

sation. (52 pages)

oups With Asian, Black, and Hispanic

n Issues Related to The Glass Ceiling in

S. Henderson, III. RIVA Market Research,

e different groups experience glass ceiling

me similarities exist. All saw the term

saw self-motivation and community support

me of skepticism about the effectiveness of

ged that laws and policies already on the

nforced. All expressed that entrepreneurial

 solution to the glass 

O Views of Diversity at the Top.

obhan Nicolau. Hispanic Policy

m broad range of companies revealed that

he top was good for business was broadly

ue to see the glass ceiling only in terms of

ring better than minority males, that merit

ng factor in selecting people for top level

nation and bias are unacceptable. 

REFERENCES
American Council on Education, Minorities in

Higher Education: 1993 - 12th Annual Status Report.Asian & Pacific Islander Center for CensusInformation and Services. 1994. ReferenceDocumentation: Datasets of U.S. Bureau of theCensus Public Use Microdata Sample Files.Prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. Onfile.Bell, Ella L.J. Edmondson and Nkomo, Stella M.1994. Barriers to Work Place Advancement Experiencedby African Americans. Paper prepared for the GlassCeiling Commission. On file.——— 1992. The Glass Ceiling vs. The Concrete Wall:Career Perceptions of White and African-AmericanWomen Managers. Unpublished working paper.Billingsley, Andrew. 1992. Climbing Jacob’s Ladder:The Enduring Legacy of African American Families.New York: Touchstone.Borjes, George and Tienda, Marta (eds.) 1985.Hispanics in the U.S. Economy. New York: AcademicPress.

Braddock, David and Bachelder, Lynn. 1994. TheGlass Ceiling and Persons with Disabilities. Paper prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.Brischetto, Robert. “Women Professionals Takethe Growth Lead.” Hispanic Business (May 1994).

Burbridge, Lynne. 1994. The Glass Ceiling inDifferent Sectors of the Economy: Differences BetweenGovernment, Non-Profit and For-Profit Organizations.Paper prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission.On file.Bureau of the Census. 1990. 1990 Census—Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Washington,D.C.Bureau of the Census. 1990. Census of Population:General Population Characteristics, 1990.Washington, DC.Bureau of the Census. 1992. Census of Population:Social and Economic Characteristics, 1990.Washington, DC.Bureau of the Census. 1990. Current PopulationSurvey, 1990, Household and Family Characteristics.Washington, DC.

REFERENCES
Current Population

C.

Social and Economic

ans and Alaskan

991. Employment and

uary 1991).

993. Pipelines of

e Glass Ceiling. August

hief Executives of the

 Held U.S.

October 19, 1990).

porate Management:ew York.

Glass Ceiling.

porate Boards: The

k. 

———. 1993. Successful Initiatives for Breaking theGlass Ceiling to Upward Mobility for Minorities andWomen. Paper prepared for the Glass CeilingCommission. On file.Cox, Taylor and Smolinski, Carol. 1994. ManagingDiversity and Glass Ceiling Initiatives as NationalEconomic Imperatives. Paper prepared for the Glass

Ceiling Commission. On file.Driscoll, Dawn-Marie and Goldberg, Carol R.1993. Members of the Club: The Coming of Age forExecutive Women. New York: The Free Press. Families and Work Institute. 1993. An Evaluation

of Johnson & Johnson’s Work-Family Initiative. NewYork: Families and Work Institute.Galinsky, E.; Bond, J.T.; and Friedman, D.E. 1993.The Changing Workforce: Highlights from the NationalStudy. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Goldberg, Carol R. “Ways Men and Women Lead.”Harvard Business Review (January/February 1991).Golen, Amy. 1994. The Impact of the Glass Ceiling onthe Professions. Draft working paper prepared for 239
the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.

Hamlin, Nancy; Erkut, Sumru, and Fields,Jacqueline P. 1994. The Impact of CorporateRestructuring and Downsizing on the ManagerialCareers of Minorities and Women: Lessons Learned.Paper prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission.On file.Harlan, Sharon L. and Bertheide, CatherineWaite. 1994. Barriers to Workplace AdvancementExperienced by Women in Low-Paying Occupations.Paper prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission.On file.Heidrick & Struggles. 1992. Minorities and Womenon Corporate Boards. Chicago.———. 1986. The Corporate Woman Officer.Chicago.———. 1992. Women and Minorities on CorporateBoards: The Changing Board. New York.Helgesen, Sally. 1990. The Female Advantage::Women’s Ways of Leadership. New York:Doubleday/Currency.Henderson, Lucius S. III et al. 1994. Report on SixFocus Groups with Asian, Black and HispanicExecutives in Three Cities on Issues Related to The GlassCeiling in Corporate America. Paper prepared for the

Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.Hispanic Association of Corporate Responsibility.1993. 1993 HACR Corporate Study: Hispanics inCorporate America. Washington, DC.Hispanic Policy Development Project. 1994. A LaCumbre: A Latino Perspective on the Corporate GlassCeiling. Paper prepared for the Glass CeilingCommission. On file.———1994. Off the Record. Unpublished working

paper. Ibarra, Herminia. “Personal Networks of Womenand Minorities in Management: A ConceptualFramework.” Academy of Management Review, vol.

18, no. 1 (1993).James, Keith et al. 1994. Barriers to WorkplaceAdvancement Experienced by Native Americans. Paperprepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. Onfile.Jardim, Anne and Hennig, Margaret. “The LastBarrier: Breaking into the Boys’ Club at the Top.”Working Woman (November 1990).

Kellogg Graduate School of Management.Northwestern University. 1994. Recommendations tothe Glass Ceiling Commission. 
nd UCLA Anderson

ment. 1993. Decade of

ew York: Korn/Ferry

ng Management:

ation, and Control.

tice-Hall, Inc.

ysis of U.S. Bureau of the

ample Files. Prepared

ssion. On file.

se of Enforcement in

iers. Paper prepared

ssion. On file.

Nicolau, Siobhan.

EO Views of Diversity at

he Glass Ceiling

Diversity in the

tunities from an

ary Analysis and a

hington, D.C.:

. 

r Latino Community

licy, University of

s to the Employment and

tinos. Paper prepared

for the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.Namkoong, Frances and Namkoong, David. 1992.Shattering the Glass Ceiling. Entering the “Pipeline ofProgress.” Washington, D.C.: Organization ofChinese Americans, Inc.Nicolau, Siobhan 1994. “Off the Record”—anunpublished work-in-progress commissioned bythe Twentieth Century Fund.Nicolau, Siobhan; Oppenheimer, J.D.; andPacheco, J. 1994. Handsome Dividends: A Handbookto Demystify the US Hispanic Market. Washington,D.C.: Hispanic Policy Development Project. Nicolau, Siobhan and Valdivieso, Rafael. 1984.Make Something Happen. Washington, D.C.:National Commission on Secondary Schooling forHispanics.———. 1990. A More Perfect Union. Washington, D.C.

Hispanic Policy Development Project and theAspen Institute. Rosener, Judy B. “Ways Women Lead.” HarvardBusiness Review (November/December 1990).Schwartz, Debra B. 1994. An Examination of the

Impact of Family-Friendly Policies on the Glass Ceiling.Paper prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission.On file. 241
Shaw, Lois B. et al. 1993. The Impact of the Glass

Ceiling and Structural Change on Minorities andWomen. Paper Commissioned for the Glass CeilingCommission. On file.The Tomás Rivera Center. 1995. Wage DifferentialsBetween Latinos and Anglos: A Statistical Portrait andIts Implications to Glass Ceiling Issues. Referencedocumentation: Datasets of U.S. Bureau of theCensus Public Use Microdata Sample Files.Prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file. Thomas, Roosevelt et al. 1994. Impact ofRecruitment, Selection, and Compensation Policies andPractices on the Glass Ceiling. Paper prepared for theGlass Ceiling Commission. On file.Tomaskovic-Devy, Thomas. 1994. Race, Ethnic andGender Earnings Inequality: The Source andConsequences of Employment Segregation. Paper prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file.U.S. Department of Education, Center forEducation Statistics. High School and Beyond.National Longitudinal Survey of 1980Sophomores and Seniors and 1982 and 1984Follow-up Surveys. Washington, D.C.U.S. Department of Education, Center forEducation Statistics. National EducationalLongitudinal Study. 1988 base year and 1990 followup. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Labor. 1991. A Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Labor. 1993. Survey of Consumer Expenditures. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. Handbook on Women Workers: Trends & Issues. 1993. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. Working Women Count! A Report to the Nation. 1994. Washington, D.C. Valdivieso, R. and Galindo, M. 1987. The Research Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Hispanic Policy Development Project. ——— 1989. The Research Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Hispanic Policy Development Project. Veltman, Calvin. 1988. The Future of the Spanish Language in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Hispanic Policy Development Project. Wernick, Ellen. 1994. Preparedness, Career Advancement, and the Glass Ceiling. Paper prepared for the Glass Ceiling Commission. On file. 
Aren’t I a Woman?

 South. New York: 

od Women: Breaking the

nglewood Cliffs:

The Impact of the Glass

Men and Women.

Datasets of U.S.

 Use Microdata

he Glass Ceiling

ass Ceiling and Asian

or the Glass Ceiling

ol. 1994. Barriers to

ienced by White Women

the Glass Ceiling

 Elite.” Hispanic

243

ublication is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or partially,

ederal Government. Source credit is requested but not required. Permission

e any copyrighted material contained herein.

material will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request.

Voice Phone: 202 218-6652

TDD* Phone: 1-800-326-2577

* Telecommunication Device for the Deaf

lable from the following sources:

 Government Printing Office and its regional bookstores. 

ble from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

phone: (703) 487-4690.

h Cornell University, electronic copies are available from the Internet via the

 GOPHER. Access code for WWW is http://www.ilr.cornell.edu. Access code

55

from the Glass Ceiling Commission, please send to:

ission

Labor

e., NW - Room C-2313

008

st to: (202) 219-7368.

ich govern the Freedom of Information Act (29 CFR 70.40), the first one

 documents are free; however, we are required to charge 15¢ per page for

undred pages.

FPO GPO

Bar Code
GOOD FOR BUSINESS: NATION’S HUMAN CAPITAL

MAKING FULL USE OF THE