Technical Report 993

The Glass Ceiling: Potential Causes

0• and Possible Solutions

Beverly A. Dugan, Jessica L. Terner, Felicity A. Tagilarini,

N- J. Anthony Bayless, and Helene R. Felber

Human Resources Research Organization ,-i 9)4-11136

Carlos K. Rigby and Steve Kronheim 94.1 113

U.S. Army Research Institute

December 1993 DTIC

S ELECTE

APR 131M 4 U

94 4 12 o66

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Approved for pubic rebase; dishutr k uningmld.
U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction

of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

f•o~slon For " -

Human Resources Research Organization NTIS CRd&-

DTIC TA19

Technical review by Unannounced Justification -.. _ -

Nijole Benekraitus, University of Maryland, Baltimor- Campus By

T.O. Jacobs By Distributini -I •----

Availability Codes

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by AU. Please address

o o concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATMN: PERI-POX, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia

22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not

return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army

position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Fcrm Approved

I0MB No. 0704-0188

Publc ,-saqbuude lt USE CblIUUOA~ to =IOMIO toMorI V nowhCS oftU u est gnw. 10101IM" 05W tie for ritinir"~ matw.-CnS we-rungfl e.iinvtg Gaza ii..tis

a J a"A - ii'tu, WlM~ OPI dtto jda l e d. Mid C edU05 .1 -ti~l W h (OW COMM10 of uMdemEtWOO. SOed CieiMPM 0`01991 Ofu b~t1WintMatet Ore 02556 ItO 40100 ic Of t

€ oleCtiol' of sntokmedu . h W9609100 to1 edw-mg U14 0 tfir'. Wto46kipW SWeWM l Wsfco. info•em etio On guae .. a eoed eens. 1212 ISjettemo

0.O ,ughway. Suete 1204. Arl on QA..c* 2J0.303. ae, 10gt @t heg0ema nt WW BWd&t Peework 1fbiatign p"6ecs al04e l. 1mam oe. oc 201S0

1, AGENCY USE ONLY (L.ev* DidnX) 2. REPORT DATE .. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

1993, December Final Nov 92 - Jul 93

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDOING NUMBERS

The Glass Ceiling: Potential Causes and Possible MDA903-87-C-0846

Solutions 63007A

792

6.AUTHOR(S) Dugan, Beverly A.; Terner, Jessica L.; 1112

Tagliarini, Felicity A.; Bayless, J. Anthony; Felber,

Helene R. (HumRRO); Rigby, Carlos K.; and Kronheim, Steve

(ARI)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Human Resources Research Organization REPORT NUMBER

66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400

Alexandria, VA 22314

9. SPONSORING MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Social Sciences

ATTN: PERI-RO ARI Technical Report

5001 Eisenhower Avenue 993

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Contracting Officer's Representative, Carlos K. Rigby.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maxumum 200 wonS)

Identifying barriers to advancement in its civilian workforce for women,

minorities, and the disabled is a continuing concern for the Department of the Army.

This literature review focuses on three potential causes of underrepresentation of

minorities and women in the management ranks; lack of data on the disabled precluded

treatment of this subgroup. The three causes of underrepresentation are systemic

barriers, stereotypes and biases, and group differences. Systemic barriers are widespread policies and practices that perpetuate discriminatory treatment. Stereotypes

and biases are thought to underlie the belief that minorities and women are not

suited for managerial jobs. Individlual factors and group differences refer to the

extent to which individual deficiencies, common to members of a subgroup, are

responsible for underrepresentation of women and minorities in the management ranks.

Based on findings in the literature, the report suggests avenues for future research

on barriers to advancement within the Army and highlights methods that might reduce

such barriers.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER Of PAGES

Army Glass ceiling 67

Civilian management Affirmative action 1. PRICE OO

Supervisor I

17. SECURITY CLASSWICATION 11. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 1t. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. UlmTATION OF ABSTRACT

Of REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

NSN 7540-01.20.-5S00 Standard Form 296 (Rev 249)

i gt"ed " Amul SW tN'S
Technical Report 993

The Glass Ceiling: Potential Causes and Possible

Solutions

Beverly A. Dugan, Jessica L. Temer, Felicity A. Tagllarini,

J. Anthony Bayless, and Helene R. Felber

Human Resources Research Organization

Carlos K. Rigby and Steve Kronheim

U.S. Army Research Institute

Strategic Leadership Technical Area

T.O. Jacobs, Chief

Manpower and Personnel Research Division

Zita M. Simutis, Director

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

December 1993

Army Project Number Mhnpomr and Peronnel

20263007AMh2

Approved for public relsme; disatbulon Is u nmled.

il
FOREWORD

A recent review of the Senior Executive Service (SES) program in the Department of

the Army concluded that more attention is needed in preparing candidates at grades 13, 14,

and 15 for SES appointment. The review also concluded that the representation of women and

minorities is disproportionately small at higher management levels. To explore possible

reasons for this result, the Army has initiated a study of the "glass ceiling." The glass ceiling

is an invisible barrier based on attitudinal and organizational bias that prevents minorities,

women, and persons with disabilities from advancing into mid- and senior-level management

positions.

The Deputy Assistant Secretary, Military Personnel Management and Equal

Opportunity Policy, requested that the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences (ARI) conduct a literature review to identify potential causes of the glass

ceiling and promising empirical approaches for investigating it. The literature review will

serve as a framework for further investigations.

The U.S. Army Research Institute's participation in this effort is part of an ongoing

research program designed to enhance the quality of Army personnel. The Civilian Leadership

Research Program was established to improve the leadership of Army civilians. This work is

an essential part of the mission of ARI's Manpower and Personnel Research Division to

improve the leadership effectiveness of the Army's workforce.

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Nikki Bellamy and Donna Angle of the U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) for their assistance in the early stages of

this effort. We also want to thank T. Owen Jacobs for an insightful and thought-provoking

review of an earlier draft of this report.

vi
THE GLASS CEILING: POTENTIAL CAUSES AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The Department of the Army wishes to initiate a glass ceiling study to identify barriers

to advancement for women, minorities, and the disabled in its civilian workforce. As a first

step in this study, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

was tasked to survey the glass ceiling literature for the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Military

Personnel Management and Equal Opportunity Policy. This report is the product of that

literature review.

Procedure:

The literature review focused on three potential causes of the glass ceiling: systemic

barriers; stereotypes and biases; and individual factors and group differences. Systemic

barriers are widespread policies and practices, both formal and informal, that perpetuate

discriminatory treatment of women and minorities. Stereotypes and biases are thought to

underlie the belief that minorities and women are not suited for managerial jobs. Individual

factors and group differences refer to the extent to which individual deficiencies, common to

members of a subgroup, are largely responsible for the underrepresentation of women and

minorities in the management ranks.

Findings:

Systemic Barriers. Men tend to hold more powerful positions with higher levels of

responsibility and authority than women. Confinement to lower level, staff, or dead-end jobs

may promote management style and behavior that are viewed as ineffective, further reducing

possibilities for advancement. Compounding the historical trend is the apparent reluctance of

white male managers to give women and minorities highly visible, challenging assignments,

thus denying them the types of experiences that promote the development of managerial and

executive talent.

vii
There is some evidence that women and minorities are excluded from informal

networks that provide the information, feedback, and contacts necessary for career

advancement. Research also suggests that minorities and women have more difficulty finding a

mentor than do white males. Moreover, mixed-gender mentorships pose potential problems in

establishing a relationship that is supportive of a female manager's development.

Attitudinal research indicates that distinct differences in perceptions exist among

gender and racial/ethnic groups regarding the extent to which systemic barriers exist. Women

and minorities identify attitudinal and cultural barriers to promotion, whereas white men are

more likely to feel that structure changes have eliminated those barriers. White males seem to

see fewer obstacles to opportunity sharing than do women and minorities. They are more

likely to think that a system in which employee treatment was based on merit has been

replaced with one in which women and minorities are favored because of affirmative action.

Stereotypes and Biases. A natural tendency to categorize and stereotype people who are

different exists. Beliefs about behavioral requirements for success in traditionally maledominated roles such as that of manager reflect the gender role stereotype of the male.

Stereotypically female behavior patterns are deemed inconsistent with the model of the

successful manager. The perceived lack of fit between the female's category and her

managerial occupation may place a woman in a cruel bind. The prescriptive stereotype

dictating that a woman should be, for example, passive and sensitive conflicts with the model

of the successful manager, who should be competitive and independent.

When criteria are ambiguous and information about the individual is limited,

stereotypes can provide structure and meaning, thereby influencing performance evaluations.

Familiarity with the individual being evaluated, specific job-related performance criteria

developed to minimize subjectivity and bias, and training in evaluation procedures are among

the contextual factors that may override stereotypes.

Individual Factors and Group Differences. Several subgroup differences that potentially

contribute to the underrepresentation of women in higher management and executive levels

were researched. Disparities in the proportion of whites and minorities may be exacerbated

when hiring and promotion decisions are based on tests that measure cognitive abilities. The

use of supervisory and managerial selection tests that have little or no adverse impact should

minimize the influence of differences in performance on employment screens.

Experience, education, tenure, willingness to relocate, and commitment to the job are

all highly related to advancement. However, when these factors are held constant across males

and females, females still tend to lag behind males in organizational level and pay.

Women tend to be less willing to relocate than men, and reluctance to relocate is

perceived as demonstrating a lack of commitment. Attitudinal measures suggest, however,

viii
that women do not differ from men on job satisfaction, job commitment, and ambition.

Nevertheless, women may be deemed less committed than men, regardless of family

responsibilities, and this misperception may reduce opportunity for advancement.

Women seem to view pay differently than men. Although women and men value high

pay equally, the lower self-pay expectations of women at career entry and career peak are

related to greater child-care responsibilities. Different pay expectations may contribute to the

finding that with all else equal, women are still paid less than men. To the extent that women

communicate lower pay expectations to prospective employers, they may actually receive

lower pay than men for equivalent work.

Utilization of Findings:

The final section of the report presents two types of recommendations: one suggests

promising avenues for research for the Army's investigation of the glass ceiling; the other lists

actions that organizations might take to reduce barriers to advancement for minorities and

women. This report has been provided to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Military Personnel

Management and Equal Opportunity Policy, to assist in the planning of the follow-on study

effort. It should be useful in three ways. First, it will help to identify the most productive

approaches to follow in the empirical study. Second, it will provide a research-based context

to assist with the interpretation of the Army's results. Finally, the report highlights promising

methods for overcoming or limiting barriers to advancement for women and minorities.

ix
THE GLASS CEILING: POTENTIAL CAUSES AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ............................................... I

The Problem ................................................. I

Objectives and Limitations of the Study ............................... 4

Organization of the Report ........................................ 5

SYSTEMIC BARRIERS ............................................ 7

Introduction .................................................. 7

Power, Authority, and Responsibility ................................. 7

Behavioral and Attitudinal Implications of Power Differences ................. 9

Networking ................................................. 12

M entoring .................................................. 14

Sum m ary .................................................. 17

STEREOTYPES AND BIASES ...................................... 19

Gender-Specific Performance Expectations ............................. 19

Performance Evaluations and Stereotyping ............................. 21

Perpetuation of Stereotypical Beliefs ................................. 23

Devaluation of Stereotypical Minority Work ............................ 25

Sum m ary .................................................. 26

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS AND GROUP DIFFERENCES ..................... 29

Employment Test Performance .................................... 29

Human Capital ............................................... 32

M obility ................................................... 33

Family Care Responsibilities ...................................... 35

Sum mary .................................................. 38

xi
CONTENTS (Continued)

page

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 41

Systemic Barriers ............................................. 42

Stereotypes and Biases .......................................... 45

Individual Factors and Group Differences ............................. 46

Planning Considerations ......................................... 48

REFERENCES ................................................. 51

APPENDIX A. HIGHLIGHTS OF CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND

CASE LAW .................................... A-1

xii
THE GLASS CEILING: POTENTIAL CAUSES AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

There is now considerable evidence that barriers exist preventing women and

minorities from advancing in corporations. The "glass ceiling," a term popularized in the

1980s by Ann Morrison and others at the Center for Creative Leadership, originally referred

to barriers to advancement for women. Since the term was established, its meaning has

evolved to include barriers to advancement for all underrepresented groups. It is considered

to be a "barrier so subtle that it is transparent, yet so strong that it prevents women and

minorities from moving up in the management hierarchy" (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990, p.

200).

The identification of barriers to advancement for women, minorities, and the disabled

in its civilian workforce is a continuing concern for the Department of the Army. To initiate a

comprehensive study on this topic, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Military Personnel

Management and Equal Opportunity Policy, tasked the U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences to survey the glass ceiling literature. This report is the product

of that literature review.

The Problem

For almost 30 years, legislation has required that Federal agencies provide equal

employment opportunity. The Civil Rights Act (as amended by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Act of 1972) requires agencies to develop and implement affirmative employment

programs to counter the historical underrepresentation of certain subgroups in the workforce.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is charged with providing guidance to

agencies on developing affirmative employment programs and with approving plans for such

programs (General Accounting Office, 1991).

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 requires that Federal personnel management

practices supply a competent, honest, and productive workforce that reflects the nation's

diverse population. This act also requires agencies to conduct affirmative recruitment

programs in occupations in which women and minorities are underrepresented. The Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) was given responsibility for assisting agencies in their

affirmative recruitment efforts and for overseeing the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment

Program (General Accounting Office, 1991).

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 constitutes the first large scale effort by the

government to examine the barriers faced by women and minorities. Title II of this Act,

named the Glass Ceiling Act, has two main purposes: to establish a Glass Ceiling

Commission that will terminate in 1995, and to establish an annual award for excellence in

promoting a more diverse skilled workforce at higher levels. The purposes of the Glass

Ceiling Commission are to focus greater attention on the importance of eliminating artificial

barriers to the advancement of women and minorities to management and decision-making

positions and to promote workforce diversity. The Commission, chaired by the Labor

Secretary, is required to examine employers' practices and policies regarding opportunities for

I
advancement for women and minorities and to recommend actions to correct deficiencies.

Although the Glass Ceiling Act does not itself generate change in legislation, it is part of the

1991 Civil Rights Act which does generate legislative change in regard to recent case law.'

Various studies have noted improvements in the employment of women and minorities

over the years. For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO, 1991) reported that,

except for black and American Indian men, employment levels for minorities and women

were higher in 1990 than 1982. The employment level for black men dropped .5 percent and

that for American Indian men remained unchanged.

While women and minorities have begun to climb the corporate ladder, their

proportional presence in high level and high paying positions does not approach that of white

males. For example, the Department of Labor (1991) found that while 37 percent of

employees in the nine surveyed Federal contractors are female, only 17 percent of

management positions are held by women and only 6.6 percent of all executives are women.

The numbers show an even greater discrepancy for minorities. Fifteen and one-half percent

of all employees are minority group members, yet minorities hold only 6 percent of all

management positions and only 2.6 percent of all executive positions. The DOL results

showed that there is a point beyond which women and minorities simply have not advanced

(minorities plateau at an even lower level than women). Another study conducted with 400

Fortune 1000 companies found that less than 9 percent of all managers were minorities (cited

in Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990).

The second Department of Labor (1992) report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative

indicated that while progress is being made, many barriers to top positions still exist. The

study found that while women and minorities are hired at entry levels, hiring practices do not

extend to the recruitment of a diverse pool of applicants at higher levels. In addition, the

report revealed a lack of commitment to diversity among top managers despite mention of

increased interest in diversity. That is, the willingness to take action to ensure that diversity

exists at all levels of the corporate world was not generally apparent. Thus, success stories of

qualified minorities and women advancing into higher level management positions were the

exception rather than the rule.

The GAO actually found that getting to the top might be easier for women and

minorities in the Federal government than it is in the private sector. As of September 30,

1990, women and minorities made up 17.2 percent of the Federal Senior Executive Service

workforce, but occupied only 9.2 percent of the executive level positions in the 94 Fortune

1000 companies surveyed by the Department of Labor in the 1991 glass ceiling report (GAO,

1991). However, in this same study, the GAO examined the distribution of women and

minorities across 261 key jobs in 25 agencies. Key jobs are jobs that can lead to middle and

upper management positions. The study found that not only were white women and

minorities more likely to be employed in jobs that were not "key," but also that they were

often underrepresented in key jobs in relation to their representation in the civilian labor force

'The interested reader will find in the appendix a more detailed description of major civil

rights legislation and case law since passage of the first Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2
for the same occupations. In addition, women and minorities who held key jobs were much

more likely to be found in the lower grades than in grades 12 through 15.

A Irge-scale survey conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

in 19922 found that barriers to top-level Federal government jobs exist for women, even

when they are equivalent to men in education, experience, job performance, and job

commitment. Nearly 50 percent of white-collar Federal executive branch jobs are held by

women, yet only 25 percent of supervisors and only 11 percent of executives are female.

Minority women and women with children were found to be promoted at an even lower rate

than their white and childless female counterparts.

The MSPB developed a mathematical forecasting model to estimate the rate at which

the composition of the Federal workforce can be expected to change over the next 25 years.

Their model included the effects of average hiring, separation, retirement, transfer, and

promotion rates among occupational categories over two 3-year periods: fiscal years 1978-

1980 and 1988-1990. It assumed that 1988-90 rates would hold for the next 25 years. They

found that women were entering Professional and Administrative occupations (the occupations

that feed upper management levels) at a much greater rate in the late 1980's than in the

previous time period, and that the average rate of employees leaving Government grew over

the decade. As a result, the opportunity for women to move into and up through the pipeline

is significantly greater now than it was in 1978-80. The model showed that the percentage of

women in Professional and Administrative positions will grow from about 34 percent in 1990

to 42 percent by the year 2017. The percentage of women in the senior executive service will

grow from 11 percent to about 30 percent.

One reason for the slow movement of women into higher levels is that as the

management pyramid narrows, promotion rates for both men and women drop. The MSPB

found that on average, about I in 8 GS 12 employees is promoted each year, and I in 100 GS

15 employees. Gender differences in promotion rates also exacerbate this situation for

women. The MSPB found that men are promoted at a rate nearly 33 percent greater than

women at the GS 9 level, and 44 percent greater than women at the GS 11 level. These two

levels are the gateway into management. When experience and education are controlled,

promotion rates for men still exceed those for women. Thus, while promotion rates into the

higher levels are low for all, women are at a greater disadvantage than men.

Lower advancement rates for women and minorities have a substantial economic

impact on these subgroups. For example, research shows that women still earn significantly

less than men. In 1987, the ratio of female to male earnings was found to be .71 (Blau &

Beller, 1988). A recent study conducted with 20 Fortune 500 companies found that women

executives had substantially lower salary progression rates than their male counterparts, even

when geographic mobility, education level, family power, and standard industry pay were

controlled (Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992).

2 The 1992 study focused on barriers to advancement for women. Merit Systems Protection

Board is currently conducting a similar investigation into barriers to advancement for minority

employees in the Federal civil service.

3
In sum, despite three decades of legislation intended to correct underrepresentation,

and despite evidence that progress, albeit slow, is being made to improve workforce diversity.

evidence abounds that real barriers to the advancement of women and minorities continue to

exist. In the remainder of this report, we examine reasons that the glass ceiling persists, and

recommend ways both to detect its existence and to combat it.

Objectives and Limitations of the Study

The objectives of this study are threefold. First, the literature survey is intended to

identify the most productive approaches to follow in an empirical study of the glass ceiling in

the Department of the Army. Second, the report is also intended to provide a research-based

context within which to interpret findings of Army's study. Finally, this report highlights

promising methods for overcoming or limiting barriers to advancement for women and

minorities. Given these objectives, we focused our literature search on empirical studies and

sound theoretical articles that investigate explanatory variables and thereby suggest fruitful

avenues of research.

As has typically been the case in investigations of the glass ceiling, our treatment of

the topic focuses on barriers to advancement within the ranks of management. While

obstacles to employment and advancement in non-management jobs clearly affect the

composition of the pool of supervisory candidates, the scope of this study did not permit

consideration of non-management employment and advancement barriers.

Glass ceiling literature was accumulating long before the phenomenon was given a

name. Studies of variables that contribute to or explain slow advancement rates for women

and minorities have been conducted in the fields of economics, labor law, psychology, history,

sociology, and political science, to name but a few. Much of the literature on the topic of the

glass ceiling centers on the problems of women, perhaps because the phenomenon was first

described and labelled in a study of executive women (Morrison, White, & Velsor, 1987).

Much of the literature that includes minorities focuses on blacks. This literature review does

not represent a comprehensive survey of all that exists on the topic. Rather, because of

resource and time limitations, the authors attempted to cover the main findings of relevance to

the objectives of the study.

Our report includes an occasional article that examines the situation of Hispanics, and

even fewer articles that look at Asian Americans and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives.

While we recognize that some of the problems faced by each subgroup are unique, the scope

of this study did not permit us to examine unique situations in any detail. Our report

therefore mixes literature on gender-specific issues with literature on racial/ethnic issues.

We originally intended to examine barriers to advancement faced by the disabled.

Unfortunately, the paucity of literature on this group rendered this objective impossible to

meet. It is likely that some of the forces faced by women and minorities are also faced by

the disabled, such as the phenomenon of tokenism described in Section III; however, we did

not attempt to make such generalizations. As a result, the report focuses on women and

minorities.

4
Finally, since this project began, the status of gays and lesbians in the military has

received a great deal of attention. The attention given to sexual orientation most likely will

influence the treatment of gays and lesbians in the civilian work force. However, these issues

are outside the scope of this study and are not examined here.

Organization of the Report

The next three sections of the report are organized around potential causes of glass

ceiling: Systemic barriers; stereotypes and biases; and individual factors and group

differences. The categorization of causes was taken from a recent literature review by

Morrison and Von Glinow (1990). Section II reviews the literature on structural or systemic

barriers to advancement. This section presents evidence that widespread policies and practices

perpetuate discriminatory treatment of women and minorities.

Section III reviews research that attributes differential treatment of subgroups to stereotypes

and biases. In this section, perceptions of individuals, rather than characteristics of the

organizational system and the way it operates, are the focus.

Section IV reviews literature that examines whether differences among subgroups underlie

slower advancement rates for women and minorities as compared to men. This research

typically investigates the extent to which deficiencies are largely responsible for the

underrepresentation of women and minorities in the management ranks. The three areas are

treated separately for convenience, not because they are unrelated. The variables, findings,

and theories treated in each of these sections interact repeatedly.

Finally, Section V, "Conclusions and Recommendations," summarizes the findings

reported. This section also presents two sets of recommendations: one suggests promising

avenues for research for organizational investigations of the glass ceiling; the other lists

actions that organizations might take to reduce barriers to advancement.

5
II. SYSTEMIC BARRIERS

Introduction

The limited advancement rat•s of women and minorities can be attributed, in part, to

structural or systemic barriers (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990, p. 201). Systemic barriers

include widespread policies and practices of the organization or larger social system that often

exclude certain classes of individuals from opportunities to share in organizational power,

positions of authority, and decision making. Kanter (1979) states that it is the position, not

the person, that usually determines whether a manager has productive power. Kanter (1977)

defines power as "the ability to do, in the classic physical usage of power as energy, and thus

it means having access to whatever is needed for the doing. The powerful are the ones who

have access to tools for action" (p. 166). Power is said to be a function of having open

channels to supplies, support, and information. Thus, productive power has to do with

connections with other parts of the system. Connections, Kanter states, are derived from two

sources: (1) job activities (discretion, recognition, and relevance); and (2) political alliances

(contact with sponsors, peer networks, and subordinates).

We initially address Kanter's first source of power with a discussion of traditional

differences that exist in the position power of jobs typically occupied by men and women.

The next section presents research that suggests behavioral and attitudinal implications of

power differences in organizations. The remainder of this section addresses Kanter's second

source of power: political connections. A discussion of access to information, feedback, and

key contacts through membership in networks is followed by an overview of the literature on

mentoring: its importance to career advancement and issues with respect to women and

minorities.

Power, Authority, and Responsibility

Dipboye's (1987) review of the literature uncovered numerous power differences

between males and females in organizations. For example, Dipboye cited research that found

that the number of promotions obtained and the corresponding hierarchical level achieved by

managers in an organization is positively related for men, while these achievements are

unrelated for women. After controlling the variance due to length of tenure, age, and years of

education, female employees were in fact found to obtain more promotions than males.

However, the positions into which females moved were lower in the organizational hierarchy

than those occupied by their male counterparts. Dipboye (1987) also cited a study of working

people that found that control over hiring, firing, and salary was much more likely to

accompany a higher status job for men than it was for women. Such literature suggests that

even women who have risen to top levels of management still may not have the authority and

responsibility usually associated with such positions.

Jacobs (1992) investigated whether the increase in the representation of women among

managers between 1970 and 1988 was real or merely a case of women being given

managerial titles without the commensurate pay or supervisory responsibility. Jacobs analyzed

authority and earnings differentials between male and female managers with data from three

7
sources: (a) 1970 Census data on 8,158 managers, of whom 1,463 were female; (b) 1988

Current Population Survey data which included 7,039 managers, of whom 3.084 were womenand (c) data from the 1972-1989 General Social Survey. The results demonstrated that while

the gap in earnings among male and female managers did in fact decrease during 1970-1988,

the gap in authority continued. For example, female managers were more likely to report

having a boss, even though no difference existed between women and men in the distance

from the top of the organization. In addition, although the earnings of black women were

found to be closely matched to those found for white women, black managers were found to

earn less overall than white managers.

Sigelman, Milward, and Shepard (1982) looked at the effects that gender and job

responsibility 3 have on the salaries of men and women in executive, administrative, and

managerial positions at a large university. Consistent with prior research, they found

significant salary differences between males and females (with a gap of approximately $5,343

per annum). The fact that men held positions of higher responsibility than females accounted

for over 60 percent of the male-female salary differential. Interestingly, a significant

relationship was found between gender and authority type; significantly fewer females were

found in line positions thin males. The greater part of the explanation of the salary

differential therefore had to do with the positional disadvantage of women, with men holding

the great majority of positions with high levels of responsibility.

Kanter's (1977) structural perspective views the distribution of opportunity and power

and the social composition of groups within organizations as critical variables for

understanding women's limited managerial success. Certain jobs/positions are considered to

be on career paths that are more likely to lead to career advancement than others. "Staff'

positions, for example, may involve important functions, but they are rarely viewed as more

than peripheral to the goals of the firm since they do not make the business grow or produce

revenues. These jobs are "actually" and "symbolically" less visible; actually, because such

jobs do not involve contact with clients and the market, and symbolically because they are not

defined as crucial (Epstein, 1975, pp. 9-10). Kanter (1979) states that staff professional

positions are typically powerless, and, because they are often viewed as adjuncts to primary

tasks, their effectiveness and thereby their contribution to the organization is often difficult to

measure. Kanter further notes that experience in staff positions alone tends to limit the

number of jobs into which an individual can move. Thus, not surprisingly, staff positions do

not tend to lead to top management positions. "Line" jobs, on the other hand, are thought to

be in the mainstream of the business and result in top management posts. Individuals without

line experience, therefore, will have difficulty moving up in the organization (Kanter, 1979).

Numerous studies have reported that minorities and women are more likely to populate

dead-end or staff jobs while white males are more likely to populate high visibility or line

jobs. For example, the Department of Labor (1991) study of employment practices in the

3 Responsibility was operationalized as a weighted combination of 13 factors of which the

most heavily weighted included employee's job experience, extent of supervisory authority,

complexity of the position, range of policy discretion associated with the job, and the assets

controlled by the position.

8
private sector found that women are more often found in staff positions (e.g., human

resources or research) than are men. Almost all of the companies examined had few, if any,

minorities and women at the highest levels of management--when they were present, they

were almost always in staff functions. Few minorities and women were found in such line

professions as defense systems, electronics, commercial lending, and sales.

Generally, only those Federal employees who are in occupations classified as

Professional or Administrative become managers or executives (Merit Systems Protection

Board, 1992). While women doubled their representation in Professional and Administrative

jobs between 1974 and 1990, nearly two-thirds of these positions are still held by men.

Women occupy a minority of the feeder positions (i.e., positions from which managers or

executives are most likely to be chosen), and when found in these occupations, they are more

likely to be in lower graded jobs than men.

A large-scale survey conducted in the private sector found a similar result. Fernandez

(1981) surveyed a random sample of 4,191 managers in 10 corporations. His sample included

Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics, African Americans, and whites. Thirty-four percent of

the respondents said they believe that women are positioned in dead-end jobs. Women in

each race group were more likely to believe this than were men; the responses ranged from 53

percent agreement for Hispanic women, to 44 percent for black women, to 25 percent for

white and Asian men. Fernandez explained the perception of women as not having the same

power as men, in part, by results indicating that 27 percent of managers believe that men are

generally unable to work comfortably with women and that men bypass women and go to

their superiors; black women (50 percent) were most likely and white men (17 percent) were

least likely to believe this to be the case.

Fernandez (1981) also found that 21 percent of managers surveyed believe that

minorities are placed in dead-end jobs. It should be noted that there was a large disparity in

perception between source groups; 51 percent of black managers and 6 percent of white men

agreed with the statement. While it is unclear what factors account for the disparity, (e.g.,

different groups may have had different expectations), such findings seem to suggest that

female and minority managers may not be assigned the sar' - responsibilities as their white

male colleagues.

Behavioral and Attitudinal Implications of Power Differences

Stunted Development, Blocked Progress. Morrison et al. (1987) suggest that having

the opportunity to tackle challenging assignments and successfully complete them are vital to

an executive's career development. Morrison and Von Glinow (1990) note that these

assignments seem to be less available to women and minority managers, thereby blocking

their advancement. The U.S. Department of Labor (1991) also found that developmental

practices and credential-building experiences (e.g., career enhancing assignments such as

appointments to corporate committees, task forces, and special projects) often were not

available to women and minorities to the extent that they were available to white males.

Dipboye (1987) cited laboratory research on male managers and college students that

showed that male managers are less likely to assign a female subordinate to a challenging task

9
than they are to assign a male subordinate. Morrison (1992) reported a similar finding from

extensive interviews conducted with 16 public and private sector organizations. White male

executives were found often to be reluctant to give highly visible and challenging assignments

to either female or minority managers.

A survey of 117 male and 117 female managers with MBAs who had been in the

working world for a few years revealed that women were more likely to report that the job

assignments they had been given (e.g., highly detailed work) had kept many of them from

developing social networks. Their male colleagues, on the other hand, reported that they were

out making contacts, forming coalitions, and increasing their visibility within the organization

(Rosen et al., 1981).

Powerless Behavior. The amount of power individuals are given in their jobs also has

ramifications for their resulting behavior. Two theories exist as to the effects of working in

jobs with power limitations. Structuralist theory states that the lack of information and

support that accompanies low-power jobs will cause all such job holders, regardless of gender,

to behave in a powerless manner. Socialization theory suggests that women and men may

differ in the influence strategies they use as a result of their learned experiences and that such

differences will appear regardless of structural inequities. Mainiero (1986) tested the two

theories in an investigation of the effect that gender and job dependency have on various

empowerment strategies used in a dependency situation, defined as a situation in which study

participants had to rely on someone else for task or career reasons.

Mainiero used the critical-incident technique to obtain examples from men and women

employed in an organization which described frustrating workplace situations in which they

were powerless and dependent on others. The incidents also described the action they took in

response to the situation.

In contrast to some research findings Mainiero (1986) found that men and women

were equally associated with powerful (and powerless) jobs. In support of the structuralist

theory, Mainiero found that individuals, especially women, in high-dependency jobs were

more likely to acquiesce than individuals in low-dependency jobs. However, relative job

dependency had a greater effect than gender on the use of the acquiescence strategy.

Individuals in high-dependency jobs felt their jobs were structured in such a constraining

manner that they had no alternative but to respond with acquiescence. Thus, their actions

were a result of their own powerlessness. The suggestion was made that women may be

contributing to their own powerlessness by the disproportionate use of this strategy. Mainiero

concluded that poorly designed jobs that force individuals to be excessively dependent on

others create frustration and a sense of helplessness.

Mainiero also found that individuals in high-power jobs were more likely to search for

alternatives than individuals in high dependency or low-power jobs. Mainiero's findings

support Kanter's (1977) hypothesis that powerless jobs may cause individuals to behave in

powerless ways. While both the structuralist and the socialization theories were found to aid

in an understanding of the gender differences in empowerment-strategy usage, the structuralist

hypothesis appears to have greater support.

10
Different Subgroups. Different Realities. Men, women, and minorities do not share a

common culture of organizational life. Rather, each group identifies, defines, and organizes

its experience in its own way. Women, who hold lower level positions at lower salaries than

men, typically view the organization from the bottom. Minority employees tend to view the

organization in isolation since there are few minorities with whom to establish significant

working relationships. Each group seems most comfortable communicating with their own

group. Women and minorities identify interpersonal barriers or systemic bias as obstacles to

their success whereas white men see formal structures and policies as eliminating any

obstacles (Alderfer, Alderfer, Tucker, & Tucker, 1980; Fine, Johnson, & Ryan, 1990).

Fine, Johnson, and Ryan (1990) conducted a survey that was developed based on

issues Federal government employees raised, such as place in the hierarchy, communication

networks, criteria for promotion, and sexual harassment. The survey was completed by 242

employees in a Federal agency. Fifty percent of the respondents were female and 12 percent

were minorities. The respondents were distributed evenly among Professional, Administrative,

Technical, and Clerical positions.

The responses revealed a pattern in which minorities and women identify attitudinal

and cultural barriers to promotion whereas white men state that structural changes have

eliminated those barriers. White males appear least aware of the concerns of women and

minorities. They tend to believe that racism and sexism are no longer a problem at the

workplace. For example, in response to a question about whether women face unique

obstacles to promotion, 57 percent of women compared to 27 percent of men answered yes.

Three key obstacles to women's promotions identified included: Women must work against a

male culture; an "old boys" network isolates women; and women are negatively stereotyped

based on gender. Males tend to believe that women receive government and agency

assistance and are sometimes given preferential treatment. Minorities (79 percent) were much

more likely to perceive obstacles for their own promotions than were whites (42 percent).

Alderfer et al. (1980) and Fernandez (1981) reported a similar pattern of responses.

In both surveys, women and minorities perceived their opportunities to be much more limited

than did white males. White males, on the other hand, were much more likely to perceive

that a system in which employee treatment was based on merit had been replaced with one in

which women and minorities were favored because of affirmative action. Alderfer et al.

factor analyzed the questionnaire responses of whites and blacks separately, and described the

different factor structures in the following way:

"Wlite managers tended to group questionnaire items according to properties

of individuals (e.g., blacks were pushy, brought low standards, etc.) while

black managers tended to correlate characteristics of the organization (i.e. XYZ

is racist, biased against blacks, etc.)... On the subject of advancement, blacks

tended to group together items relating to how the XYZ promotional system

was structurally biased against blacks, while whites correlated items that

indicated how underserving blacks were receiving accelerated promotions

instead of qualified whites" (p. 148).

11
Alderfer suggests that blacks and whites hold different cognitive theories to explain

the organizational world within which they live. Fine et al. (1990) suggest that organizations

use this perspective, in which gender and race are viewed as cultures, to serve as a

constructive framework for understanding cultural diversity and successfully managing a

diverse workforce.

Networking

In addition to experiencing limited access to positions and experiences that will favor

their careers, women and minorities may also find that they have limited exposure to the

informal frameworks that exist in organizations. Those individuals who make up such

networks are typically those who have had the positions of power and responsibility as

previously discussed.

Networking, as defined by the Merit Systems Protection Board 1992 report, "is a

broad concept which can include anything from calling upon a colleague for work-related

information to developing long-term relationships with present or former work associates.

Contacts with a network can be on the job or in the context of social activities" (p. 24).

Participation in informal networks is viewed as an important element for the success of a

career. Epstein (1975) notes:

"The more we study people who are ostensibly "self-made," the more we see

that what really made them is not only their idiosyncratic set of talents but also

the framework in which they lived, the opportunities available to them, and the

role of persons important in their lives in the formation of a self-image that

facilitated career attainments" (p. 16).

Relating to other managers is an important part of most managers' jobs (Dipboye,

1987). Interactions with other managers or superiors can provide feedback that facilitates

career development (Rosen, Templeton, & Kichline, 1981), and information and contacts that

reveal career-enhancing opportunities (Fernandez, 1981). Since general management is the

point at which managers are either admitted into the "club," or excluded if they lack the

proper background, image, sex, and so forth (Morrison et al., 1987), exclusion from informal

networks is a potential barrier to the advancement of minorities and women.

Informal Interactions. There is some evidence that female as well as minority

managers may feel excluded from informal relationships with their white male colleagues.

For example, Rosen et al. (1981) found that more than 60 percent of female managers felt

that they had been excluded from the "informal organization." In addition, women reported

significantly fewer interactions with their supervisors than men. Interestingly,

41 percent of women responding to a series of open-ended questions stated that, compared to

their male colleagues, they lacked skills in organizational politics.

Sixty-one percent of all the managers in the Fernandez (1981) survey agreed that men

often exclude female managers from informal networks. In addition, 35 percent of white

female managers and 39 percent of white male managers agreed that female managers have

difficulty initiating informal work-related activities such as lunch dates and drinks after work

12
because men misinterpret their behavior as sexual advances. Epstein (1975) notes that "when

women cannot mingle easily with men as colleagues in the informal settings where business

gets done, they cannot become fully prepared to exercise influence" (p. 14).

The Fernandez (1981) survey results also show a strong perception that minorities are

excluded from informal networks. Between 21 and 31 percent of male and female NativeAmerican, Asian, Hispanic, and white managers believe that minority managers are excluded

from informal workgroups by white managers, whereas 71 percent of black men and 59

percent of black women believe this is true. Also, Fernandez found that among whites and

blacks of both sexes, upper-level managers were more likely than those at lower levels to

believe minority managers were excluded from informal work networks by whites. Jones

(1986) reports that despite how talented or well trained they are, "black managers feel they

are treated as outsiders, and because of the distance that race produces, they do not receive the

benefit of these networks and relationships" (p. 89). In a survey of the banking industry

(Irons & Moore, 1985), 75 percent of the respondents ranked not knowing what was going on

in the organization or not being in the network as the most serious problem faced by blacks.

Racism and the inability to get a mentor were ranked as the second and third most significant

problems, respectively. The Merit Systems Protection Board (1992) report, on the other hand,

did not support the notion that women (or men) are isolated in gender-based groups which

serve as the primary source for work-related information and advice.

Recruiting Differences. Another way that networks can aid individuals in their career

advancement is by assisting them in making a job change. To the extent that exclusion from

informal networks reduces the information on job opportunities, one would expect to find that

the recruiting process acts as a barrier to advancement.

The literature speaks of formal recruiting sources (e.g., public and private employment

agencies, radio, television, newspapers, professional journals) and informal recruiting sources

(e.g., employee referrals, referrals by friends or relatives). The literature tends to show that

the informal recruiting sources produce superior new hires to those recruited through formal

sources (Kirnan, Farley, & Geisinger, 1989).

Kirnan et al. investigated the frequency with which various recruiting sources were

used by applicants for the job of life insurance agent in a large insurance company. Both

female and black applicants reported using newspaper advertising as a recruiting source to a

much greater extent than their male and non-minority or Hispanic counterparts. Group

differences were even more apparent when the informal sources such as agent referral, sales

manager referral, district manager referral, clerical referral, and mutual acquaintance, were

compared with formal sources such as newspaper advertisement, employment agency, and

school placement. Females and blacks used a proportionately greater number of formal

recruiting sources than did their male and non-minority counterparts. These results suggest

that women and minorities are not tied into informal networks and may, therefore, be less

likely to hear about some jobs through this recruiting source. The Kirnan et al. (1989) study

also found that informal recruiting sources produced significantly higher selection ratios than

did formal sources for all groups. The informal recruiting sources yielded higher quality

applicants and more successful hires for all groups.

13
The Department of Labor (1991) report confirmed the notion that most larger

companies fill management vacancies from within using various methods. Corporate

executives often learn of potential candidates through their informal networks, casually

interview them, and ultimately make offers. Lacking such contacts handicaps minority and

female career advancement. Companies also recruit through employee referrals. Although

companies vary on how elaborate such referral systems are, some companies pay their

employees for referring candidates who are later selected. Although the Department of Labor

pilot reviews were unable to determine if such referral systems are discriminatory, neither

minorities nor women were hired into middle- and upper-levels through this method, nor did

they provide referrals.

Reliance on internal recruitment appears to promote homogeneity of work teams

(Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin, & Peyronnin, 1991). The authors found significant

correlations between the percentage of new executive team members recruited within the firm

and age, college curriculum, experience outside the industry, and military experience.

Insufficient numbers of minorities and females at the executive levels on which this study

focussed precluded examination of race and gender effects.

Executive search and referral firms are a commonly used external recruiting source.

The majority of the companies found to use this method in the Department of Labor (1991)

study, however, did not make the executive recruitment firms aware of their equal

employment and affirmative action obligations under the law. In addition, when such firms

suggested candidates that did not include minorities or women, many of the companies

neglected to demonstrate good faith efforts to broaden the pool of candidates from which they

had to choose.

The potential diversity of applicant pools is further reduced given the limited

involvement of EEO directors. While EEO directors may be involved in the staffing of lower

level positions, they often are not included in the recruitment process above a certain level

(e.g., mid- and upper-level positions) (Department of Labor, 1991). As EEO directors prove

to be a valuable resource wit+h the contacts and means by which to advertise more broadly,

their exclusion from the selection process can have a direct effect on minority representation

in organizations, particularly in those positions of power previously discussed.

Mentoring

Mentoring has been defined as "a relationship in which a person of greater rank or

expertise teaches, counsels, guides, and develops a novice in an organization or profession"

(Alleman, Newman, Huggins & Carr, 1986, p. 1). In many occupations, mentoring

relationships facilitate the career development and advancement of employees (e.g., masterapprentice, physician-intern, and teacher-student). The literature suggests that a relationship

with a mentor adds measurably to the success of people at work. Managers who have been

mentored report more promotions, higher incomes, bonuses, total compensation, and pay

satisfaction than managers without mentors (Alleman et al., 1986; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Hunt

& Michael, 1983; Roche, 1979). Successful managers tend to have someone in the

organization who acts as their mentor or sponsor (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Roche, 1979).

Exclusion from mentorships, therefore, is a potential barrier to career advancement.

14
In Fernandez's (1981) survey, managers ranked having a sponsor as one of the top

three factors involved in obtaining desired positions. According to Fernandez. little variation

among the race/sex groups was found in the belief that having a sponsor/mentor is an

advantage; between 67 percent and 76 percent believe it to be an advantage. In Fitt and

Newton's (1981) survey of female managers in 27 different Northeast and Midwest

companies, 24 of the 30 women in their sample reported having mentors. These women, on

average, were both better paid and younger than the six women who had never had a mentor.

Furthermore, Roche (1979) noted that respondents who had a mentor, in addition to being

more successful, were happier with their career progress.

There is an important difference between formal and informal mentorships. Informal

mentorships are not managed, structured, or formally recognized by the organization. but

spontaneously occur; formal mentorship programs on the other hand are both managed and

sanctioned by the organization (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992). Chao et al. conducted a field

study that compared 212 protegds involved in informally developed mentor relationships, 53

proteges in formally developed mentor relationships, and 284 persons who were not involved

in mentor relationships at all. The groups were compared on three outcome measures: salary,

job satisfaction, and organizational socialization. The results showed that proteges involved in

informal mentoring relationships reported higher salaries and more career-related support from

their mentors than did proteges involved in formal mentoring relationships. Only the

informally mentored protigds reported significantly more favorable outcomes (salary, job

satisfaction, and organizational socialization) than those who were not involved in mentor

relationships.

The reasons for these results are unclear. It may be that within informal mentorships,

mentors select the highest performers to mentor. On the other hand, in formal mentorships,

the mentor has less control over the ability level of the protdgd. As a result, higher average

ability levels in groups that have been informally mentored may account for the greater

success among this group. Alternatively, a relationship that forms with a higher level

manager spontaneously, as in an informal mentorship, may be more beneficial than one based

on an organizational pairing process.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (1992) reported that more women than men

perceive that having a senior person/mentor is helpful to career advancement. There is some

evidence, however, that women and minorities have more difficulty finding a mentor than

white males. For example, in Fernandez' (1981) study, 40 percent of the managers believed

that many minorities, and 44 percent believed that many women, have a much harder time

than white men in finding a mentor. Similarly, Rosen et al. (1981) found that more male

managers (62 percent) than female managers (50 percent) felt that there was someone in the

organization who had taken a special interest in their careers. Dreher & Ash (1990) surveyed

440 business school graduates about their mentoring experiences. They found no gender

differences in the frequency of mentoring relationships, nor in mentoring-outcome

relationships. In short, research results are inconclusive as to whether women and minorities

actually find fewer mentors than do white men (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990; Thomas &

Alderfer, 1989).

15
Since there tends to be a shortage of high-level female role models or mentors,

especially in traditionally male-dominated careers, it is often the case that a woman's mentor

will be a man (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Roche, 1979; Sheehy, 1976). This fact poses a

potential problem for women since gender can influence the nature and outcomes of mentorprotege relationships (Hunt & Michael, 1983). Because little information exists on femalementor female-protege or female-mentor male-protege relationships (Hunt & Michael, 1983).

the research addressed here mainly applies to male-mentor female-protege relations. In mixed

gender mentoring relationships, the protege and mentor may be presented with sex-related

problems (Fitt & Newton, 1981). For example, there is the risk that a close association could

evolve into a romance or sexual entanglement or that it simply could be perceived as such.

Still, while full-blown affairs resulting from a sponsor relationship may be uncommon, the

experience of sexual tension is not (Fitt & Newton, 1981). Sheehy (1976) suggests that if the

mentor-prot~gd relationship is to be successfully kept on a career basis, an increased level of

maturity is called upon on the part of the mentor to cope with the possibility of sexual

relations.

Another problem associated with male-mentor female-prot~gd relationships is that

collusion in stereotypical behaviors can occur. Sheehy (1976) and Kanter (1977) point out

that stereotypical roles influence the relationship and may interfere with the establishment of a

relationship that is supportive of psychosocial development. For example, women may be

encouraged to maintain feelings of incompetence and dependency when they are trying to

become independent contributors.

The reports of benefits of mentoring relationships are usually based on studies using

white male subjects. However, mentor relationships may have greater impact on the careers

of blacks (Alleman et al., 1986). Alleman et al. compared the mentoring benefits and

experiences of black and white men without mentors to black and white men with black or

white mentors. Mentoring relationships were similar regardless of race, but mentored blacks

reported significantly higher levels of perceived career benefit and satisfaction than did

mentored whites. Although there was no significant difference overall between black and

white non-mentored employees, white employees scored significantly higher than black

employees on five of the twelve subscales on the instrument used to measure mentor

behaviors. The authors concluded that non-mentored black employees may receive less

helpful cues for supervisory behavior than non-mentored white employees.

Thomas and Alderfer (1989) noted that blacks differed significantly from white males

and white females by having more extradepartmental and organizational relationships as well

as more relationships with other blacks and white females. The authors state that the most

significant factor accounting for this difference was the location of black employees: black

mentors and sponsors were most frequently outside of the department. Furthermore, samerace relationships provided significantly more psychosocial support than cross-race

relationships although cross-race and same-race relationships did not differ significantly in the

amount of instrumental career support they provided.

16
Summary

Men tend to hold more powerful positions with higher levels of responsibility and

authority than women. Minorities and women have traditionally been more likely than men to

occupy staff jobs or dead-end positions, and this is still the case. Thus, women and minorities

tend to be on a career path that is less likely to lead to career advancement. Compounding

the historical trend is the apparent reluctance of white male managers to give women and

minorities highly visible, challenging assignments, thus denying them the types of experiences

that promote the development of managerial and executive talent.

Powerless jobs promote powerless behavior. While women may be more likely to

acquiesce than men, high-dependency jobs foster use of that strategy regardless of gender.

Confinement to lower level, staff, or dead-end jobs may promote management styles and

behavior that are viewed as ineffective, further reducing possibilities for advancement.

There is some evidence that women and minorities are excluded from informal

networks that provide the information, feedback, and contacts necessary for career

advancement. Related to the exclusion from informal organizational networks is exclusion

from informal recruiting networks. Reliance on informal recruiting sources reduces the

likelihood that minorities and women will hear about jobs, particularly higher level jobs.

Successful managers tend to have a mentor. Additionally, the benefits of an

informal mentorship are greater than those of a formal mentorship. Minorities and women

who are locked out of networks might have difficulty finding mentors. Research results are

inconclusive on this point. There is some evidence that women and minorities have more

difficulty finding a mentor than do white males, although recent research suggests that this is

not the case for women. Mixed-gender relationships pose potential problems in establishing a

relationship that is supportive of a female manager's development.

Women and minorities identify attitudinal and cultural barriers to promotion, whereas

white men are more likely to feel that structural changes have eliminated those barriers.

White males seem to see fewer obstacles to power sharing than do women and minorities;

some white males perceive affirmative action guidelines to give minorities and women an

unfair advantage in the work place. To the extent that those in a position of power fail to

initiate the changes required to remove barriers to advancement, the glass ceiling will remain.

At the same time, perceptions of favoritism and inequity may slow down or undermine efforts

to increase diversity in the highest levels of management.

17
II1. STEREOTYPES AND BIASES

Stereotypes and associated bias underlie the belief that minorities and women are not

suited for managerial positions. Such beliefs, thought to be one of the major causes of

employment inequities (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990), are the subject of this section. Most

of the research discussed here addresses women's issues, given the unfortunate lack of focus

on the minority populations in the literature. Still, according to the data presented by

Leinsten (1988) and others, black individuals fair even more poorly than females in traditional

organizations. This is particularly the case when one considers the plight of "doubly

disadvantaged" minority females. Malveaux and Wallace (1987) comment on the additional

deficit in research on women of other minorities, noting that when non-black minorities are

studied they are typically placed into an all-encompassing minority group. This lack of

research is reflected in the discussion of the literature that follows.

Stereotypes are the products of a normal psychological process of categorization,

whereby intracategory similarities and intercategory differences are accentuated (Tajfel, 1982).

Tajfel proposed that stereotype formation serves two functions: a cognitive function and a

value function. The cognitive function simplifies the complex network of social relationships

confronting individuals in their environment. That is, stereotyping is the process of

"chunking" information to facilitate social decision making. The value function leads to a

growing emphasis on ingroup similarity and outgroup differences, which "serves to protect,

maintain, or enhance the value systems applying to distinctions between social groups" (p.

21). Such maximization of differences and associated favoring of ingroup members preserves

that part of the individual's self-concept determined by his or her social identity. A corollary

of ingroup favoritism is discrimination against outgroup members. Thus, discrimination is a

correlate of the natural process of stereotype formation.

How stereotypes can influence the expectations one has for outgroup members, and

one's perceptions and evaluations of their behavior, are the subject of this section. We begin

with a review of gender-specific performance expectations. Following this, gender and race

effects in the evaluation of performance are discussed. Next, an overview of how

stereotypical beliefs can be perpetuated is presented. The section ends with a discussion of

the devaluation of stereotypically minority jobs.

Gender-Specific Performance Expectations

Sex is an obvious basis for social categorization and sex stereotypes are the result.

Terborg (1977) identified two components of sex stereotypes. The first involves attributes or

behaviors deemed to be characteristic of each sex. For example, men are seen to be assertive

and strong, while females are perceived to be caring and emotional (Colwill, 1987). The

second component defines appropriate behavior for men and women. The former, descriptive

component, is a belief about what men and women are like; the second, prescriptive

component, dictates what men or women should be like. Just as a man should not be passive

or sensitive, it is deemed inappropriate for a female to be competitive or independent.

A large body of literature indicates that descriptive stereotypes influence attitudes

about the proper place and effectiveness of men and women in the workplace, and that such

19
commonly held attitudes may block career development for women. For example, Dubno's

(1985) longitudinal study of attitudes towards women executives demonstrated that male MBA

students harbor negative attitudes towards women managers; female MBA students viewed

women executives more positively. Dubno concluded that such polarized attitudes on the

parts of MBA students who represent a large proportion of aspiring managers in the business

world will ensure the continued prevalence of discrimination against female managers,

blocking their career development. Successful promotion to the upper echelons of the

organization requires an independent, aggressive, and competitive individual. If women are

not thought to possess such attributes, they would not be considered for such a position.

Freedman and Phillips (1988) note that a great many studies have found that male

applicants are rated higher for traditionally male jobs while female applicants are rated higher

for traditionally female jobs. Should a female therefore apply for a traditionally male job, it

has been shown that she will ac-,ally be discouraged from further pursuit of this path

(Dipboye, 1987). The most thoroughly researched area within this topic is that of the

traditionally white male position of manager. Leventhal and Herbert (1990) note that females

who wish to move up the corporate ladder have been advised to adopt more masculine

characteristics in order to be accepted by both their superiors and their subordinates. It is

widely believed that women would do better in their work roles if they were to hold attitudes

and behave more like men (Freedman & Phillips, 1988). However, "behaving more like men"

is incompatible with the prescriptive stereotype that dictates how women should behave, and

leads to gender-incongruent behavior.

In an employment setting, individuals fill an organizational role defined by what is

expected and appropriate behavior required to perform the job. In addition, people develop

expectations about others' behavior based on what is considered to be appropriate for their

gender. When gender-based expectations are carried over into the workplace, the carry-over

is termed "sex-role spillover" (Gutek & Cohen, 1987). Gutek and Cohen point out that the

work roles which have been dominated by white males in the past have taken on the

characteristics deemed typical of this majority. Terborg (1977), in fact, holds that a "male

managerial model" exists that all but ensures that women cannot be successful in management

as it perpetuates the stereotype that women should not be successful in management. Thus,

sex-role spillover in management jobs is greater for female than male incumbents because the

disparity between expectations of the gender role and job role is less for males.

Sex stereotyping and sex-role spillover may be accentuated when women are

numerically rare. Research that addresses the sex-ratios of groups within organizations is

relevant here. Kanter's (1977) research defines women as "tokens" when they are in

management groups where 85 percent or more of the members are men. In such groups these

women tokens stand out as their sex is different from the majority of the group. As such,

they visibly represent women as a category. Such visibility subjects tokens to pressures other

group members do not have. In addition, members of the dominant group may exaggerate

differences according to their stereotyped beliefs regarding women. Women are judged to be

less qualified and have less potential when they are few in number. As a result, when token

women are recognized for their work, the recognition is more likely to be attributed to their

gender than to their own accomplishments. Such negative factors hinder tokens by creating a

hostile environment towards their productivity, perceived success, or advancement.

20
Both women and men state that women are held to a higher standard of performance

and must work harder than men to succeed (Merit Systems Protection Board, 1992; Valerio,

1990). Not only do a large number of females think that they are presumed to be

incompetent until they prove otherwise, but they also believe that the errors they make receive

far more attention than do those made by males.

Leinsten (1988) notes that there is also a pervasive belief that blacks cannot perform

as well as whites and that when they do meet a higher level of performance, it is surprising.

Blacks also feel that they must work harder than whites to prove themselves, and that they are

not allowed the same luxuries as whites in making mistakes. Rather, black individuals feel as

if they are responsible for holding up the reputation of their race (Alderfer et al., 1980). The

general conviction is that if one black individual does not meet performance standards, the

stereotype of poor black performers is reinforced against all black individuals. This situation

is magnified as the ratio of females/minorities to males shrinks.

Performance Evaluations and Stereotyping

Thomas and Alderfer (1989) state that the modem organization is one that is founded

on distributive justice principles or what they term to be "meritocracy," where individuals are

rewarded based upon their performance. In contrast, Dipboye (1985) hypothesized that raters

process information about individuals differently given the stereotypes they hold for similar

individuals as a whole--regardless of performance. One way that stereotypes might operate to

block the advancement of women and minorities is through the differential evaluation of

performance.

Kraiger and Ford (1985) investigated the effects of race on performance ratings

through the use of meta-analysis. Results indicated that whites rated white ratees higher than

black ratees. Black raters, on the other hand, gave significantly higher ratings to black ratees

than they gave to white ratees. The only substantial moderating effects found in the study

involved the setting of the ratings and the saliency of blacks in the workgroup. The

magnitude of the rating differences was greater in field studies than in laboratory studies,

while race effects were found to decline as the percentage of blacks in the workgroup

increased.

Pulakos, White, Oppler, and Borman (1989) looked at both race and sex effects on

performance ratings collected from a large sample of enlisted Army personnel. Because

multiple raters had evaluated each ratee, Pulakos and her colleagues could separate the effects

of actual ratee performance differences from the effects of rating bias in the evaluations.

Ratings were collected from peers and supervisors on three composite behavioral dimensions:

technical skill and job effort, personal discipline, and military bearing. Although significant

results were found, the proportion of variance accounted for in the ratings by the independent

variables of race and sex was determined to be extremely small. Pulakos et al. (1989) went

on to conduct a meta-analysis regarding the nature and magnitude of race and sex effects on

performance ratings. Once again, although some significant race and sex effects were found,

very little of the variance in the ratings was correlated with race and sex. Pulakos et al.

noted the possibility that the effects of race and sex on associated ratings may have been

smaller here than in other research given the focus on the military population. As there is a

21
greater percentage of minorities in the military than in the civilian workforce, military raters

may be more accustomed to rating minority performers.

Oppler, Campbell, Pulakos, and Borman (1992), again using the Army data, found that

supervisor ratings were more performance-related and less influenced by ratee race than were

peer ratings. Additionally, they found much higher agreement between black and white

supervisors than between black and white peers, regardless of the race of the ratee.

The amount and type of information available to raters might mitigate the influence of

stereotypes on ratings. Stereotyping is most likely when evaluative criteria are ambiguous,

and when information about the ratee is limited or ambiguous (Heilman & Martell, 1986;

Heilman, Martell, & Simon, 1988; Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, & Heilman, 1991). When

information is open to multiple interpretations, stereotypes can provide structure and meaning.

In the Pulakos et al. study, rating scales were rigorously developed and tied to important job

components, raters were extensively trained in their use, and raters evaluated individuals with

whom they worked on a daily basis. Thus, it is likely that performance information rather

than stereotypical beliefs affected ratings.

Tsui and Gutek (1984) listed a number of factors that worked to minimize bias in the

ratings they studied, including the standardized rating procedure, management training in

evaluation, affirmative action guidelines, and potential consequences to raters who assign

ratings that must be defended. In addition, ratings were collected in a field setting where

individuals involved are known to each other, and thus may be less susceptible to the

influence of stereotypes. Tsui and Gutek collected ratings from industrial middle managers

and their supervisors, subordinates, and peers on performance effectiveness and affective

relationships (admiration, respect, and liking). In addition, they collected measures of career

success. The authors reported that women managers received larger merit increases and had

faster promotion rates than their male counterparts. They also reported higher levels of job

satisfaction. No significant rater sex effect was observed among subordinate and peer raters.

Too few supervisors were females to permit analyses of sex effects among supervisory ratings.

Examination of formal company performance appraisal ratings showed that ratings were

similar for the two sexes.

Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsy (1992) reviewed the experimental literature on the

evaluation of women ard men who occupy leadership roles. Their meta-analysis included

only experiments whosn diesigns held constant the characteristics of leaders other than their

sex and varied the sex of the leaders. With such designs, any differences in evaluations of

women and men can be ascribed to subjects' biased perceptions.

Eagly et al. found only a slight tendency for female managers to be devalued across

the 56 studies they reviewed. Leadership style did, however, affect evaluations of male and

female leaders. Women leaders were devalued relative to their male counterparts when they

employed a stereotypically masculine leadership style, particularly when this style was

autocratic or nonparticipative. Moreover, the devaluation of women was stronger when

leaders occupied male-dominated roles and when evaluators were men.

22
Sex-role stereotypes were operative in the case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (Fiske,

Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, & Heilman, 1991). Ann Hopkins was the only woman of 88

candidates proposed for partner in 1982; of the 662 Partners at Price Waterhouse, only 7 were

women. Hopkins' objective indices of performance were exceptional; she had more billable

hours that year than any other candidate, she had brought in $25 million in business, and her

clients praised her. Despite these accomplishments, Hopkins did not make partner because of

"interpersonal skills" problems. Hopkins was described by evaluators as "macho", as

overcompensating for being a woman, and as needing a "course at charm school." She was

advised by colleagues to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely,

wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry" (Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 1985,

cited in Fiske et al., 1991). In the Civil Rights case that followed Hopkins' complaint, the

testimony of Psychologist Susan T. Fiske enumerated the antecedent conditions that promote

stereotyping (Fiske et al., 1991), all of which seemed to operate in the Hopkins case, as

follows:

the target individual is one-of-kind or few-of-a-kind in an otherwise

homogeneous environment

* the job is nontraditional for members of the target group

• there is a perceived lack of fit between the person's category and occupation

* evaluative criteria are ambiguous, requiring subjective judgments

The field research on performance ratings demonstrates extremely limited race and sex

effects in evaluations of performance. Similarly, the experimental literature on gender and the

evaluation of leaders reveals slight devaluation of the performance of women relative to that

of men, except for the cases in which the roles and behavior of women leaders violate gendercongruent expectations. Various conditions known to mitigate the influence of stereotypes in

performance evaluation were present in many of these studies. However, many facilitators of

bias were operative in the "real-life situation" faced by Ann Hopkins, and according to the

courts, the evidence demonstrated that her treatment was influenced by sex-role stereotypes.

Perpetuation of Stereotypical Beliefs

Dipboye (1987) notes that individuals are no longer willing to acknowledge that they

hold stereotypes. Most individuals truly believe now that if stereotypes are not wrong, they

are at least politically incorrect. It would therefore be unwise to acknowledge that one

continues to hold biases that he or she has developed over the years. As such, there is the

desire to provide a socially acceptable answer to the question of the use of bias rather than a

completely truthful one. Dipboye's argument suggests that the attributions underlying

stereotypical beliefs merit closer examination.

Rational Bias Theory. Rational bias involves the situation where discrimination is

permitted and even valued in the organization (Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990). Individuals

who discriminate are hypothesized to do so as they believe they may actually be rewarded for

their action. Larwood, Gutek, and Gattiker (1984) state that such behavior does in fact occur.

Specifically, Larwood et al. (1984) note that the individual in question makes a decision to

discriminate based upon the external pressures that exist in the workplace. If it is deemed

likely that coworkers will not accept a woman or minority worker, for example, these

23
preferences will be taken into account with the rationale that the continued satisfaction and

productivity of the group will be preserved.

Larwood, Szwajkowski, and Rose (1988) attempted to test this theory by looking at

the type of person management students would bring to a client who is known to have

discriminatory beliefs. Students preferred taking males and whites over females and blacks to

the client visit. The individuals making such choices apparently felt that they would be able

to maintain and even further their careers by deferring to the bias. As a whole, the study also

demonstrated that subjects feel a business norm exists that favors discrimination against

women and minorities. Such norms rationalize discrimination for the good of the business,

and thereby support continuation of discriminatory practices. Adherence to such norms may,

in fact, be rewarded with career advancement. Such findings may partially explain why

stereotypes and bias prevail while regulations are in place that are designed to prevent their

perpetuation.

Affirmative Action. The precept behind affirmative action policies was to benefit

those individuals who previously had been underrepresented in the workforce--where ratios

had traditionally favored the white male. The idea of such policies therefore was to decrease,

if not eliminate, discrimination and prejudice in the work environment. These undesirable

practices may unfortunately be amplified by the existence of affirmative action practices. In

focus groups conducted by the Merit Systems Protection Board (1992), for example, the

women present felt that they were discounted on the job because males felt that women

advanced in their careers due to gender rather than qualifications. Similar feelings have been

expressed on the part of male and female black executives. Leinsten (1988) notes that many

black individuals feel that their white peers think they are moving forward in their careers on

the basis of quota fulfillment rather than competency-based merit. Add to that the stigma of

being an affirmative action hire and it is highly unlikely that the majority will deem the

female or minority to be competent. Apparently, such feelings were accentuated during the

Reagan years given the administration's position that affirmative action policies not only did

not work but were also unnecessary (Leinsten, 1988).

Heilman, Simon, and Repper (1987) explored the messages conveyed to affirmative

action hires as to their sense of competence. Given the aforementioned stereotypes that exist

regarding the characteristics one must have to lead, it seems only natural that women should

harbor self-doubt as to their capabilities to handle the job for which they have been selected.

To determine if such feelings do in fact exist, Heilman et al. (1987) looked at the effects that

sex, job assignment method (merit-based or sex-based preferential selection), and task

outcome (success or failure) had on subjects' perceptions of their leadership ability, their

performance evaluation, their assignment of responsibility, and their desire to persist in a

leadership role. In the presence of sex-based preferential selection, a negative effect existed

regarding both women's self-perceptions and their evaluation of themselves as leaders. The

strength of such feelings was further demonstrated given that contradictory positive

information was provided to female subjects regarding the quality of their performance. Thus,

even when females had the knowledge that they certainly would have been selected on the

basis of merit, the fact that they were hired through affirmative action policies held the weight

in the their self-perceptions.

24
Heilman, Block, and Lucas (1992) looked at perceptions of affirmative action hires

from a different angle, that of the minority individuals' peers. The research evaluated the

effect that job sex-type (strongly male or slightly male) and hiree (man, woman, affirmative

action woman) had on both the perceived competence of and the adjectives associated with

the minority hirees. The results demonstrated that not only were affirmative action women

deemed to be less competent than men for the strongly sex-typed job, but also for the slightly

sex-typed job. In addition, women with the affirmative action label were rated as lower in

competence for both positions than women without the label. Affirmative action women were

also deemed to be significantly more passive and more impotent than both men and nonlabeled women. Similar results were produced in the field. Heilman et al. (1992) feel that

such findings confirm that a stigma of incompetence is associated with the label of affirmative

action.

Devaluation of Stereotypical Minority Work

Minorities are hurt in two ways by beliefs that particular jobs are associated with the

characteristics of a majority subgroup. First, as previously discussed, when minorities enter a

traditionally majority field, they are expected to perform poorly. Second, when a minority

subgroup predominates in the field, the value of such positions decreases. For example, when

women enter traditionally male-dominated positions, the prestige of those jobs falls. In

contrast, when males enter stereotypically female positions, the associated prestige of the field

rises (Gutek & Cohen, 1987).

It has actually been shown that men in female fields move up more quickly than

comparative females--the glass elevator effect (Williams, 1992). Baron and Newman (1990)

note that the positions in which women and minorities form the majority also receive fewer

rewards than do similar positions in which males and whites make up the majority. This

finding holds true even when skill differences, working conditions, and labor market factors

are taken into account.

Baron and Newman (1990) evaluated the effects that sex composition and race

composition have on the perceived job worth of civil service positions. The results

demonstrated that jobs where females and minorities were high in number were deemed to be

substantially lower in worth. However, positive findings were found in that jobs that have

been revised recently have incorporated some of the pay equity concerns for females. The

influence of union membership was noted as a positive influence on the application of

comparable worth policies. Apparently, the unions give great emphasis to females' concerns

and have a large voice in the revamping of women's positions in organizations where they

have female members.

Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1987) provided further evidence regarding the devaluation of

stereotypical work. The research investigated the relationship between the proportion of

women in the field of college administration and the salaries earned by members of the field.

An inverse relationship was found between increasing numbers of female college

administrators and the salaries of both the men and women in the discipline. Freedman and

Phillips (1988) feel that such findings point to the tenet that when work starts to be defined as

"womens' work," the associated value of the work will decrease monetarily. Pfeffer and

25
Davis-Blake (1987) then point to the frequent finding that as the value of the work decreases,

more women are likely to enter the field--further exacerbating the problem.

Arguments based on supply and demand offer an alternative explanation

for the devaluation of jobs as proportions of women and minority incumbents grow. Falling

barriers to the entrance of women and minorities into an occupation increases the supply of

well-qualified applicants and decreases the compensation required to obtain quality. Baron

and Newman (1990) argued that neither "the market" nor "devaluation" alone shape the worth

of jobs. In their investigation of the effects of demographic composition on normative pay

rates attached to a given job, the focus was on the prescribed pay rates for positions, Mot on

incumbents' average wages. The authors' hypothesized that factors in addition to

demographic composition affect pay rates, and they controlled for age of the job, union

representation and activism, ambiguity of performance criteria, and uniqueness (idiosyncracy)

of the job. They found that work done disproportionately by women and minorities is

devalued most in positions that are older, not represented by activist unions, have ambiguous

performance criteria, or are most generic across organizational settings.

Jacobs' (1992) study of changes in the sex gap in managerial wages found that the

gap is narrowing as the number of women managers grows. Using the 1970 census data and

the 1988 Current Population Survey data, Jacobs found modest declines in the extent of

industrial and occupational sex segregation, and a substantial increase in the chances of men

and women sharing the same occupational specialty. While women managers still have a long

way to go before the wage gap is closed, the narrowing of the gap does coincide with a

substantial rise in the number of female managers.

Noting that his findings contradict those of Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1987), Jacobs

suggests that the different findings may relate to differences in methodology and focus, with

his study being much broader in scope and less detailed in measures. He also argues,

however, that explanations that rely on the devaluation of stereotypical work to explain wage.

disparities may oversimplify the relationship between gender/minority representation and

wages, given current political, cultural, and social forces. Federal EEO legislation, the

expanding numbers of female MBAs, and the rise of aspirations and expectations, will

influence the relationship between the gender/minority composition of the workforce and

wages.

Summary

A natural tendency exists to categorize and stereotype people who are different.

Beliefs about behavioral requirements for success in traditionally male dominated roles such

as that of manager reflect the gender role stereotype of the male. Stereotypically female

behavior patterns are deemed to be inconsistent with the model of the successful male

manager. The perceived lack of fit between the female's category and her managerial

occupation may place a woman manager in a cruel bind. The prescriptive stereotype dictating

that a woman should be, for example, passive and sensitive, conflicts with the model of the

successful manager, who should be competitive and independent.

26
The disparity between gender role expectations and job role expectations may be

greater when tokenism exists. By definition, tokens stand out, making the characteristics of

the token's stereotype more salient. Tokens are judged to be less qualified and have less

potential than their majority counterparts. As a result, success is more likely to be attributed

to favored treatment due to the token's gender or race than to his or her accomplishment.

Similarly, affirmative action hires are presumed to be incompetent, and the success of

individuals classified as such is attributed to factors other than ability or performance.

Because tokens are presumed to be incompetent, they are held to a higher standard of

performance. Both traditional and nontraditional managers report that women and minority

managers must work harder to prove themselves than white male managers. In addition,

mistakes made by women and minorities receive greater attention than those made by white

males. If a "token" manager does not meet performance standards, the stereotype of

incompetence among the token's group is reinforced. This can lead to additional pressure on

the token manager, who feels responsible for the reputation of his or her group.

Stereotypes and biases are most likely to influence performance evaluations when

evaluative criteria are ambiguous, when members of the minority group are few in number,

and when information about the individual is limited. In such cases, stereotypes can provide

structure and meaning. Familiarity with the individuals being evaluated, specific job-related

evaluative criteria developed to minimize subjectivity and bias, and training in evaluation

procedures are among the contextual factors that may override stereotypes. Such measures

may only provide partial solutions, however. According to Freedman and Phillips (1988), not

only have individuals been found to hold on to biased views upon receiving conflicting

performance information, but managers are often forced to make decisions without complete

performance information.

27
IV. INDIVIDUAL FACTORS AND GROUP DIFFERENCES

This section examines subgroup differences that might impede the career progression

of women and minorities. Performance on employment tests, education level, amount and

types of experience, willingness to relocate, family care responsibilities, degree of job

commitment, and desire for advancement are individual characteristics that are related to

managerial success (Howard, 1986; Howard and Bray, 1988; Morrison, 1992; Merit Systems

Protection Board, 1992). We examine the evidence that deficiencies among minorities and

women in one or more of these areas limit their advancement, thereby contributing to the

glass ceiling.

Employment Test Performance

An effcctive personnel system supplies a high quality work force. Recruiting activities

attract high quality recruits, and valid hiring and promotion screens identify high performers

for placement in entry- and higher-level jobs. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 requires

that the Federal personnel system supply not only a competent work force, but also a

representative one (Merit Systems Protection Board, 1992). Some would suggest that it is

difficult to achieve both quality and representativeness.

Differences in performance on cognitive ability tests used in employment have been

found between some racial/ethnic groups using a variety of measures. To the extent that

cognitive measures are used to select employees, differential performance may limit the

number of minorities in the pool of candidates that would otherwise be available for

promotion. Assessment centers have been widely used to select individuals for entry- and

higher-level management jobs; thus, the review includes research on the validity and fairness

of assessment centers for women, blacks, and Hispanics. This discussion ends with a review

of alternate employment/promotion screens that can promote both quality and

representativeness.

Test Validity and Fairness. The concepts of validity, differential validity, and test

fairness are key issues in discussions of employment testing of underrepresented groups.

Validity has been defined as "the degree to which inferences from scores are justified or

supported by evidence" (Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc., 1987).

Differential validity occurs when the validities for different subgroups are significantly

different from one another. This might occur, for example, when an employment screen is a

strong predictor of performance for one subgroup but not for another. Test fairness/bias is

most frequently defined in terms of the regression model (Cleary & Hilton, 1968). Test bias

exists when the use of a predictor results in either under- or over-predicted criterion

performance for a particular group. For example, a test is biased if it predicts lower average

levels of job performance for a minority group than it actually achieves.

Meta-analytic studies by Boehm (1972, 1977), Katzell and Dyer (1977), Schmidt,

Berner, and Hunter (1973), and Schmidt, Pearlman, and Hunter (1980) indicate that for

employment tests, differential validity by racial subgroups (i.e., blacks, Hispanics, and whites)

occurs no more frequently than would be expected by chance. With respect to gender

differences, Schmitt, Mellon, and Bylenga (1978) analyzed more than 6,200 validity

29
coefficients for male-female pairs. Schmitt et al. concluded that firm conclusions could not

be drawn about gender differences since some of the studies from which the validity

coefficients were collected had small sample sizes. Regarding test fairness, the results of a

large number of studies clearly indicate that lower test scores by whites, blacks, and Hispanics

are accompanied by lower job performance. These results show that test bias, using the

standard definition of test fairness, is not a pervasive problem (Schmidt, 1988). However,

freedom from test bias does not ensure proportional hiring rates as a result of test use.

Low test scores on valid tests are associated with low levels of job performance for all

applicants, regardless of subgroup. Differences in mean predictor scores across subgroups

may present a preliminary barrier to the hiring of minorities and women to the extent that

tests exhibiting this property are used. A lower hiring rate among these populations as a

result of differential test score performance is referred to as "adverse impact."

Cognitive Ability Tests. With respect to measures of general intelligence, mean test

score differences between males and females have been found, however, they are generally

small and of little practical significance (Department of Defense, 1982). For example,

Bennett, Seashore, and Wesman (1973) found that females performed better than males on

measures of perceptual speed and accuracy; males performed better than females on measures

of spatial ability and mechanical aptitude. Measures of numerical and verbal reasoning

indicated similar scores by males and females.

The Profile of American Youth project conducted by the Department of Defense

(1982) found racial/ethnic group differences in specific cognitive abilities. Whites scored

consistently higher than blacks and Hispanics on all subtests of the Armed Services

Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). The largest differences occurred with the Word

Knowledge subtest. The mean subtest scores did not differ much between the black and

Hispanic groups; however, Hispanics scored consistently higher than blacks on all subtests.

Degree of proficiency in the English language may account for some of the

differences in test scores among Hispanics and whites. Ramos (1981) gave Hispanic

applicants for operator/clerical jobs a choice of receiving Spanish or English instructions for a

nonverbal test battery. Although 94 percent of the Hispanic sample noted that they were

bilingual, only 29 percent requested Spanish instructions. Those who indicated such a

preference were allocated to two groups: one in fact received Spanish instructions and the

other received instructions in English. Spanish instructions resulted in a small but significant

gain in scores. Interestingly, the test performance of Hispanics who preferred English was

substantially higher than that of the Spanish-oriented group. Ramos attributed this finding to

the fact that the English-oriented group was, for the most part, educated in the United States.

Differences between whites and blacks have been found consistently on measures of

cognitive ability and general intelligence (e.g., Humphreys, 1992). A recent view of these

findings proposes that the racial/ethnic group classifications are simple categorizations that do

not really explain the test score performance differences, rather, differences in culture may

affect the scores (Helms, 1992). That is, blacks are exposed to a different culture than whites

and, therefore, score lower on tests that presumably have been developed and normed based

on the predominantly white (or Eurocentric) culture. Others have attributed lower scores to

30
education and background (Howard & Bray, 1988; Ramos, 1992). Regardless of the cause,

the research on test fairness, discussed above, demonstrates that lower scores on valid

cognitive abilities tests predict lower levels of job performance.

Assessent Center performance. Assessment centers have been used extensively to

assess managerial potential since the mid-1960s. Assessment centers consist of managerial

work samples such as in-baskets, leaderless group discussions, and role plays. The assessment

center method allows candidates multiple opportunities to demonstrate their ability using

multiple techniques as evaluated by multiple assessors.

Assessment centers have been found to be equally predictive of managerial job

performance for males and females. Moses and Boehm (1975), for example, found that the

success rate for women is comparable to that of men. Ritchie and Moses (1983) found that

potential ratings based on assessment performance were similarly distributed for men and

women. They also found similar relationships between ratings on specific performance

dimensions and the progress of males and females in their performance. Ritchie and Moses

concluded that differences in management potential are due primarily to individual

differences, not to sex differences. Huck and Bray (1976) also found that the assessment

center process was equally fair and valid for white and black females. The overall ratings

were significantly correlated with supervisory ratings of job performance and potential for

advancement.

Ramos (1992) found that performance in an entry-level assessment center predicted

progress for Hispanics as well as for whites. However, the measure of verbal and quantitative

ability used in this assessment center showed significant differences between the Hispanic and

white groups, with Hispanics scoring lower on both subscales. Ramos cautioned that the large

difference between the sample sizes (i.e., whites = 32,948 and Hispanics = 546 across an 18-

year time span) may have accounted for the statistically significant finding.

An extensive longitudinal study of managerial characteristics, career experiences, and

associated career progress was reviewed in a recent book by Howard and Bray (1988). They

reviewed two longitudinal studies conducted at AT&T--the Management Progress Study begun

in 1956 and the Management Continuity Study begun in 1977. Entry-level managers (new

college hires and internal non-management candidates for supervisory positions) underwent an

extensive assessment process, including simulation exercises, cognitive ability tests, and

personality, interest and background assessments.

Howard and Bray (1988) concluded that there were some trivial differences between

men and women, but "on no important dimensions did they [women] come up short" (p. 417).

They reported that due to some of the personality differences that exist between men and

women, women may be at a disadvantage in the higher levels of management where "job

roles place less emphasis on individual production and more on exerting power and influence

over others" (p. 418). Still, Howard and Bray did indicate that such differences were

decreasing over time.

With respect to racial/ethnic group differences, Howard and Bray (1988) indicated that

of all the assessment center measures, the cognitive ability factor showed the greatest

31
discrepancies among blacks and whites, while measures of interpersonal skill showed very few

such differences. Blacks also lagged behind whites on all measures that made up the

administrative ability factor. Hispanics and whites had nearly identical scores on the

administrative ability factor, and Hispanics scored in between whites and blacks on the

cognitive ability factor. Although Hispanic scores on the interpersonal ability factor did not

differ significantly from black and white scores, the mean score for Hispanics tended to be

lower due to low peer ratings for Hispanic women (one of the measures contributing to this

factor). These lower ratings were attributed to the reticence of the Hispanic women to speak

out in group exercises.

Assessors also assigned candidates an overall rating reflecting potential for success at

middle management. Almost 50 percent of the Hispanic and white participants in the

Management Continuity Study were judged to be qualified for middle management, whereas

only 25 percent of the blacks were deemed qualified. The authors qualified the differences

by noting that although the majority of the candidates had college degrees (the majority of

which were advanced degrees), family and educational backgrounds were different among the

racial subgroups-with whites having the greater advantage.

Alternative Employment Sciens. The identification of high-quality candidates for

hire and promotion requires the use of valid predictors of job performance. Cognitive

abilities tests, which typically have adverse impact on minorities but not on women, have

been shown to be valid predictors of performance for a range of jobs. However, other valid

screens exist that have less adverse impact. Consideration of this property of tests in

planning the development and validation of employment screens can limit the extent to which

adverse impact is an issue.

Two employment screens that are receiving increased attention of late demonstrate

little or no adverse impact: Biodata tests and situational judgment tests. Biodata tests consist

of multiple choice items that tap the test takers' background, interests, attitudes,

accomplishments, and interests. Biodata is growing in popularity because of its predictive

power and low adverse impact (Laurence & Waters, 1993; Trent, 1993). Situational judgment

tests are of more recent origin than biodata. Also called the "low-fidelity simulation," the

situational judgment test presents the test taker with a series of situations likely to be

encountered on the job. After reading each situation, the test taker chooses the best and worst

responses from a multiple choice listing of possible responses. If the best and worse

responses agree with those keyed as such by subject matter experts, the applicant receives a

score of +2. If neither choice agrees with the key, the applicant receives a score of -2.

Although relatively new, this test shows promising validities and little adverse impact

(Motowidlo, Dunnette, & Carter, 1990). Finally, recent validation research on the structured

interview demonstrates that carefully developed and administered interviews can be strong

predictors of managerial success (Harris, 1989).

Human Capital

When discussing capital, most people think of real estate, small business, and so forth.

However, discussions of human capital focus on those things that improve an individual's

societal standing, employment position, or career opportunities, for example. Becker (1975)

32
described investments in human capital as activities that influence future earnings by

increasing personal resources. He suggested that these investments include things such as

"schooling, on-the-job training, medical care, migration, and searching for information about

prices and incomes" (p. 9). He explained that these self-investments in human capital

improve knowledge, skills, and health. Although Becker approached the subject of human

capital in broad economic terms, it is useful in helping to explain the differences in

progression of gender and racial subgroups within organizations.

A study by Stroh et al. (1992) investigated whether a human capital model could

explain gender differences in managerial career progression, including salary progression and

geographic mobility. Stroh et al. used a hierarchical multiple regression approach to test

whether the inclusion of human capital variables or blocks of variables would provide

incremental prediction of salary progression and geographic mobility beyond that afforded by

tenure. Indicators of human capital were operationalized as level of education (high school,

some college, college graduate, some postgraduate work, masters degree, medical degree,

jurists degree, or doctorate), number of exits from the work force (number of times managers

left the workforce since they had entered as a full-time worker), and number of company

changes since first entering the workforce. After controlling for the effects of tenure, the

block of human capital variables accounted for additional variance in salary progression, but

not in geographic mobility. Education was the only variable within the human capital

variable block that was significant, but there was no significant difference in education

between males and females. Additionally, gender accounted for an additional 3 percent of

salary progression variance when entered last in the analysis, and an additional 1 percent of

the geographic mobility variance. Thus, rates of salary progression were significantly higher

for males than for females after accounting for both tenure and human capital.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (1992) reported that experience and education are

two of the most important factors in career advancement in the Federal government. It should

be noted, therefore, that in the government while education levels of women and men with 10

or fewer years of service are equivalent, 23 percent fewer women than men with between 10

and 20 years of service have a four year degree, and 45 percent fewer women than men with

more than 20 years of service have a four year degree. In addition, when experience and

education are controlled for, the average pay grade of women is significantly below that of

men (Merit Systems Protection Board, 1992).

In summary, these studies indicate that differences in human capital alone do not

account for different salary and advancement rates. When variables such as education, tenure,

and experience are held constant, females still lag behind males.

Mobility

Another individual difference variable to which organizations attend is mobility, or

one's willingness to relocate geographically. Markham (1987) concluded in a review of

mobility research that those who relocate for their own advancement apparently do better than

those who do not. Additionally, Markham found that men are not only more likely than

women to relocate, but that they are also more willing to do so. Similarly, Federal employees

in high grades or with more promotions tend to have relocated geographically more often than

33
those in lower grades or with fewer promotions. This is often because of either informal or

formal promotional requirements that include experience both in the field and at headquarters

locations. While the average number of relocations made by men and women for their

careers increases as grade level increases, at all levels women have clearly relocated

significantly less often than men. As a whole, 58 percent of men and 48 percent of women

surveyed said they would be willing to relocate in order to advance their careers (Merit

Systems Protection Board, 1992).

Human capital theory may help explain why relocation represents a barrier to female

career advancement. The theory suggests that "workers decide whether to migrate by

comparing the short-term and long-term benefits they expect in their present location with

those they expect to receive elsewhere" (Markham, 1987, p. 213). Since females are not in

the labor force as continuously as males (due to childbearing and/or other family matters),

Markham states that this discontinuity can impact skill deterioration and, therefore, further

career advancement. Women who work continuously are better paid than women who do not

(Suter & Miller, 1973); however, Markham noted that the cause-effect relationship in these

studies is not clear.

Another possible way that human capital theory can help explain gender differences in

migration is that families generally move based on the greatest gain for the entire family. The

idea is that since males traditionally have the higher paying job of the family, relocations will

be based more often on the male's job and not the female's job. Markham (1987) called for

more research in this area with studies that include other possible theoretical explanations and

associated variables, such as family power theory and role theory.

Family power theory asserts that the family member with the most financial resources

maintains the greatest power within the family (Stroh et al., 1992). Therefore, since men

have traditionally had the largest percentage of family income, geographic moves for the

family have been based on the career of the man. This means that the women typically have

made geographic moves favoring the man's career, perhaps thwarting their own career

progression. Of course, this theoretical explanation only helps explain the career progression,

or lack thereof, for women with families.

In a test of this theoretical explanation, Stroh et al.'s (1992) hierarchical multiple

regression approach examined a block of variables measuring work experience and company

tenure (to control statistically for any pre-existing differences between the men and women in

the sample) followed by a measure of family power and a measure of gender. Salary

progression was operationalized as the percentage increase in "salary plus bonus" between that

earned in 1989 and that earned in 1984. Geographic mobility was operationalized as the

number of geographic moves made for the company. The family power variable was

operationalized as the percentage of family income the individual contributed. Results

indicated that while the family power variable significantly increased the prediction of saJnry

progression, it did not increase that of geographic mobility beyond that afforded by the

workforce experience block. Entering gender last provided a further significant increment in

the prediction of salary progression, but not that of geographic mobility.

34
Thus, while family power did account for a significant amount of incremental variance

of salary progression beyond that of work experience, gender differences still existed after

controlling for the previous two variables. This seems to indicate that family power did not

account for all of the gender differences in salary progression. The authors did qualify their

results regarding the salary progression measure by indicating that there was no control for

starting salary.

Markham, Macken, Bonjean, and Corder (1983) found that women who viewed

themselves to be the primary provider were just as willing to move as men in the same

situation. The authors also reported that managers view willingness to move as an indicator

of ambition and career commitment. Expressing a preference to remain stationary may

therefore impact promotability. The Merit Systems Protection Board (1992) report confirmed

these findings in that willingness to relocate, whether real or assumed, is perceived to indicate

commitment to one's career along with a desire for advancement.

Family Care Responsibilities

Early research found that women with high levels of conflict between work and family

roles tended to experience low levels of job satisfaction (Andrisani & Shapiro, 1978) and job

involvement (Gordon & Hall, 1974). Some researchers have suggested that since women

have not had access to the same rewards that men have, women are likely to have lower

levels of commitment to the organization (Epstein, 1975; Aranya, 1986). Commitment is

defined as "the relative strength of an individual's identifications with, and involvement in, a

particular organization or profession" (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, p. 434). Lacking the

involvement and commitment of their male counterparts, women are promoted less frequently.

Finally, others have asked if women managers are paid less because their workplace goals

differ from those of men (e.g., Jacobs, 1992; Jackson, Gardner, & Sullivan, 1992).

Jacobs (1992) analyzed attitudinal data obtained from the General Social Survey

(GSS), a national survey of individuals conducted annually from 1972 through 1989. This

survey asked respondents if they would continue to work even if they could afford not to.

Most respondents, regardless of sex and time period, reported that they would continue to

work.

Respondents also ranked five aspects of work: high income, job security, short hours,

chances for advancement, and meaningful work. Jacobs examined sex differences and trends

in these variables and explored their impact on the sex gap in wages. In the 1970s and the

1980s, both sexes ranked the aspects in the same order, from most to least important: "meaningful work"; "chances for advancement"; "high income"; "no danger of being fired";

and "working hours are short, lots of free time." However, in both time periods the mean

ranking for meaningful work was higher for women, while the mean ranking for high income

was higher for men. Finally, Jacobs found the preference for meaningful work to be

unrelated to wages, but the preference for high wages did improve the prediction equation for

wages to a slight but significant extent. Jacobs cautions against overstating the causal impact

of values, given the potential reciprocal impact of earnings and other work experiences on

values.

35
Aranya (1986) investigated differences in the organizational commitment of males and

females in the male-dominated profession of accounting. The study looked at the effects that

gender, age, tenure, organizational level, professional commitment, overall job satisfaction,

and intrinsic and extrinsic need satisfaction had on the organizational commitment of

accountants working in professional organizations. The results showed that female

accountants are less likely to identify and be involved with organizations than males.

However, the variance in organizational commitment explained by sex disappeared when

demographic and cognitive-affective variables were controlled. Aranya suggested that as

women are relative newcomers to public accounting and their numbers are small, managers

may still be prejudiced and believe that women have lower organizational commitment than

men. In turn, rewards may be offered disproportionately.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (1992) reported evidence to support Aranya's

hypothesis, that women are perceived to have lower organizational commitment than men.

Based on survey responses to statements about job commitment, women are in fact as

committed as men. In addition, a slightly higher percentage of female survey respondents

plan to apply for promotion within the next 3 to 5 years, suggesting equivalent levels of

ambition. Finally, performance appraisal ratings show that females are judged to be at least

as capable as males by their supervisors.

Despite equivalent levels of commitment and ambition, however, several findings

suggested that women have to prove their commitment, while men do not. First, the

difference in average promotion rates for women and men is greater for those with 10 or

fewer years of experience than for those with 10 to 20 years of experience. The authors

suggest that females who have remained in the workforce for more than 10 years have proven

their commitment, whereas it is more likely to be presumed that men are committed. The

report's authors hypothesize that women in their primary child-bearing years, whether or not

they have children, may be seen as less committed because they may yet decide to have

children. Finally, focus groups and survey results suggest that women are asked to relocate

less often than are men. As previously discussed, willingness to relocate is seen as an

indicator of both career commitment and desire for advancement. As such, decision makers

might infer that women are less likely to relocate and are therefore less committed to a

managerial career. Consequently, women are offered fewer opportunities to relocate.

Focus group results did indicate that childcare responsibilities affect the amount of

time a woman can devote to her job, which in turn affects her perceived job commitment

(Merit Systems Protection Board, 1992). A trade-off may actually exist between job

accommodations to family life and pay (Jackson, Gardner, & Sullivan, 1992). In other words,

part of the discrepancy between pay and advancement between the sexes may be due to the

greater family demands placed on women, and the associated absence from the work force.

Jackson et al. found supporting evidence for this hypothesis in an investigation of factors that

mediate self-pay expectations, or what one expects to earn, and fair pay standards, or what

one perceives to be fair pay for a certain type of work.

Four hundred and forty-seven college seniors responded to questions about their

perceptions of fair pay, self-pay expectations, and six factors thought to mediate perceptions

about pay. One factor, career paths, included occupational and educational choices made by

36
males and females that might influence self-pay expectations, such as plans to continue

education, hours per week expected to work, years expected to work, and time out from the

work force for child rearing. The only gender difference found on this factor was in time out

from the work force for child rearing. Women expected to take more time out from the work

force (3 years) than did men (1 year). Another factor, job facet importance, included valued

job outcomes such as pay, promotion, and interpersonal environment (e.g., friendly

coworkers). Women considered personal development opportunities, a pleasant work

environment, and job accommodations to family life to be more important than did men.

However, there was no difference in the importance that women and men placed on high

salary, job advancement opportunities, or basic fringe benefits.

Time out for child rearing was among the significant predictors of self-pay

expectations and perceptions of fair pay at career entry. Job accommodations to family life

was among the significant predictors of self-pay expectations at career peak, but not of

perceptions of fair pay. While men and women value high pay equally, women's lower pay

expectations may be partly attributable to the importance they place on job accommodations

to family life. One recommendation made by the authors for reducing the gender pay gap

involves changing the actual and perceived relationship between job accommodations to

family life and high pay so that job accommodations to family life are no longer trade-offs for

high pay. The authors conclude that major structural and institutional changes will be needed

to accommodate a predominantly female work force, many of whom are heads of households

and are likely to demand both job accommodations to family life and high pay.

The greater gender diversity in the work force poses two major challenges to modern

employers. The first is ensuring that women's talents and abilities are fully utilized on the

job. As women become a larger portion of the work force, maximizing their productivity is

essential to competitiveness. The second challenge involves adjusting to the greater family

responsibilities of women to ensure that the first challenge is met (Jackson & Alvarez, 1992).

Since competitive success in the marketplace must ultimately be based on comparative

excellence, it is important to look at whether investments made in accommodations to family

life hinder, help, or have no effect on the productivity. A recent investigation of "work and

family" programs suggests that such programs can improve the productivity and quality of

worklife for employees and, therefore, can potentially enhance the recruitment, productivity,

and retention of a high-quality workforce (Merit Systems Protections Board, 1991). The

study reported that the vast majority of private sector firms and large Federal agencies that

sponsor child care programs believe that the benefits of these programs far outweigh their

costs. The benefits cited included lower rates of absenteeism, greater stability and loyalty

within the work force, improved employee morale, enhancement of the organization's image,

improved recruitment and retention of quality employees, less employee stress and distraction,

and earlier return of employees from maternity leave back to the workforce. The report also

looked at alternative work schedules (AWS) and how effective these programs have been.

An evaluation of the Federal AWS program by the Office of Personnel Management showed

that the benefits to the government of the flextime and compressed work schedules were

significant, when utilized in a proper fashion. Some of the positive benefits of these

programs included increased hours of service to the public, reduced employee tardiness and

absenteeism, decreased energy consumption in buildings, and enhanced general productivity.

37
Discussions of trade-offs between family care responsibilities and job demands

inevitably lead to two issues. One is the effect of job accommodations on economic

competitiveness. That is, do programs that assist employees with family care responsibilities

diminish or enhance organizational productivity? The second issue has to do with pay

fairness. Proponents on one side of this issue argue that if women are less productive at work

and less able to meet job demands requiring travel and relocation than are men, they should

be paid less, regardless of the reason. While the evidence presented by the Merit Systems

Protection Board suggests that job accommodations to family life do lead to reduced costs and

increased productivity, little is known about how family care programs will affect pay and

advancement opportunities for women.

Summary

A number of subgroup differences potentially contribute to the underrepresentation of

women in the higher management and executive levels. With the exception of the topic of

employment testing, most of the literature in this section relates to the status of women in

management, not to minority status.

The literature on employment testing suggests that adverse impact is not a problem

with respect to the performance of women. However, disparities in the proportion of whites

and minorities will exist at higher management levels to the extent that hiring and promotion

decisions are based on tests that measure cognitive abilities. The use of supervisory and

managerial selection tests that have little or no adverse impact should minimize the influence

of differences in employment test performance on underrepresentation.

Experience, education, tenure, willingness to relocate, and commitment to the job are

all highly related to advancement. However, when these factors are held constant across

males and females, females still tend to lag behind males in organizational level and pay.

These findings may be due in part to the greater role in family care that women traditionally

have held.

Women tend to be less willing to relocate than men are, and reluctance to relocate is

perceived as demonstrating a lack of commitment. Similarly, childcare responsibilities may

have a greater effect on the amount of time a woman can devote to the job than men, and this

also affects perceived job commitment. Attitudinal measures suggest, however, that women

do not differ from men on job satisfaction, job commitment, and ambition. Nevertheless,

women may be deemed to be less committed than men, regardless of family responsibilities,

and this misperception in turn may reduces opportunities for advancement.

Women do seem to view pay differently from men. While women and men value

high pay equally, the lower self-pay expectations of women at career entry and career peak

are related to greater child care responsibilities. Different pay expectations may be one

factor behind the finding that with all else equal, women are still paid less than men. To the

extent that women communicate lower pay expectations to prospective employers, they may

actually receive lower pay than men for equivalent work.

38
Evidence suggests that job accommodations to family life have a number of

organizational benefits, including reduced absenteeism and increased morale and productivity.

One would expect that to the extent such programs increase the amount of time women with

family care responsibilities can devote to the job, the gender disparity in pay and advancement

rates will diminish.

39
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section of our report integrates the findings from the literature review with the

Army's glass ceiling study. Specifically, we identify the most promising approaches to follow

in an empirical study of the glass ceiling. This section also highlights potential methods for

overcoming or limiting barriers to advancement for women and minorities. The discussion of

research approach and recommendations for improvement follows the outline of major causes:

systemic barriers, stereotypes and biases, and individual factors and group differences. We

conclude with a discussion of major planning considerations for the study.

Two main approaches were taken in the studies of the glass ceiling reviewed in this

report, and our research recommendations include them both. The first, analyses of

distributions of women and minorities across management levels relies on the information

found in personnel records. Such data can be used to pose the first question any glass ceiling

study should address: Does the glass ceiling exist? Dependent variables that might indicate

the existence of the glass ceiling include level, average salary, average bonus amount or merit

award increase, and promotion rates. Each of these variables can be examined as a function

of race and/or sex. Demographic and human capital variables known to be related to

compensation, promotion rates, and organizational level, such as age, education level, tenure,

and other available measures of experience should be controlled when conducting these

analyses. Such analyses should be performed within functional specialties such as career

programs, as well as Army wide. Finally, it is important to look at the dependent variables

over time to determine the extent to which barriers to advancement have fallen.

The second approach collects attitudinal data from interviews, focus groups and

surveys to uncover perceptions of different subgroups regarding specific factors that contribute

to advancement and those that act as barriers. Focus groups and interviews provide the initial

data, which can then be used to develop survey questions to systematically collect attitudinal

data from a broader, more representative sample. Surveys can also be used to collect personal

history data not available from personnel data bases.

Our recommendations for practice are based on the variables and results that are under

the organization's control. Several of the areas surveyed report tentative or conflicting

findings. Nevertheless, certain approaches to reducing barriers to advancement surfaced

repeatedly. We present these potential solutions here, and point out where uncertainty exists

regarding a solution's benefit.

Implicit in all of our recommendations is the need for high level commitment,

education, and effective monitoring systems to assess the impact of interventions. Morrison's

(1992) recent treatment of organizational strategies for eliminating barriers to advancement,

based on indepth study of the diversity practices of 16 major organizations, gives abundant

examples of how high level commitment can be used to promote change in this area.

It is important to note that since organizations are reflections of the society in which

they exist, changing employment policies and practices cannot totally solve the problems

discussed in this report until society as a whole resolves some of the issues of disparate

treatment. As a result, the impact of even the most promising solutions may be limited by

41
outside forces. However, changes in organizations to eliminate barriers to advancement may

well be a first step towards breaking down these barriers on a societal level.

Systemic Barriers

Future Research. The search for evidence of systemic barriers would first require

looking at the distribution of subgroups, by level, across feeder occupations or job series. The

Army may wish to make a more fine-grained distinction between dead end and feeder jobs

than did the Merit Systems Protection Board (1992) report, in which Professional and

Administrative occupations were seen as the stepping stones to higher level management jobs.

The distinction between line and staff jobs, or between dead-end and feeder positions, already

may be drawn within the Army. If not, it should be possible to identify a representative

sample of high level jobs, and analyze the job assignment history of recent incumbents for

each of them. This research will not only lay the groundwork for an analysis of power

differences across subgroups, but it could also establish a foundation for a career planning

guide for employees who demonstrate the willingness and potential to advance.

Data on individual training history would enable the Army to determine whether

subgroup members have differential access to training and development opportunities,

particularly of the sort that require nomination or competition to qualify. Differences in the

amount and types of training might indicate systemic barriers. If certain courses can be

identified as career-enhancing training, analyses of participation rates by race and gender is a

first step in detecting differential access across subgroups. We strongly encourage the Army

to establish a complete and accurate training information system. Such a database would not

only permit the analyses described above, but would also allow central searches for highly

qualified individuals who could be encouraged to apply for higher level jobs based on training

and experience.

Identifying systemic barriers to advancement requires knowledge of the factors that

contribute to successful career advancement. Research conducted in a variety of settings, such

as that reviewed in this report, provides a starting point. For example, operational

assignments that are challenging and highly visible help develop managerial and executive

skills. Data from interviews and focus groups can focus in on the specific career enhancing

opportunities available to Army civilians. This knowledge can then be used to develop survey

questions to ascertain the extent to which such opportunities are available to members of

different subgroups. If certain of these opportunities are formal training courses for which

records are kept, the training information system would be a primary data source, as described

above.

Focus group and survey data can be used to investigate the extent to which mentor

relationships have facilitated the career advancement of minorities, women, and white men,

and the extent to which some of the commonly cited problems with mentoring relationships

have been encountered by members of any subgroups. With careful planning, the information

collected could serve as a needs analysis which can in turn drive the development of future

programs. Focus groups and surveys can also be used to assess the extent to which subgroup

members perceive that they have access to the information and contacts needed for meeting

personal career goals.

42
Finally, the survey methodology can be used to determine the extent to which

perceptions of systemic barriers vary across subgroups. Recall that in the survey results we

reviewed, white males underestimated or did not recognize the barriers that women and

minorities face; rather, white males felt that affirmative action had removed the employment

barriers. Minorities and women, on the other hand, still perceived significant barriers to

advancement. Specific evidence that confirms the existence of different realities and pinpoints

areas where the perceptions of underrepresented groups and the majority diverge can form the

basis for the development of training, monitoring, and other strategies designed to increase

workforce diversity. Survey questions reported by Fine et al. (1990), Merit Systems

Protection Board (1992), Fernandez (1981), and Alderfer et al. (1980) provide a starting point

for survey construction and research design.

Recommendations for Practice. When systemic barriers exist, minorities and women

are excluded from jobs, networks, and developmental opportunities that lead to positions of

power. The recommendations for addressing systemic barriers are designed to overcome the

limited access to information and opportunity experienced by those who face them.

Identify the factors required to get ahead and then make such requirements

explicit. Create career paths so that all who have the interest and ability know

what they must do to advance.

Individuals obviously bear some of the responsibility for their own career

advancement. However, the efforts of those who are excluded from networks and who

therefore lack relevant information might be in vain. To combat this possibility, organizations

can make information available to everyone.

Provide managers with the tools, training, and support required to assist with

employee career development. Make senior managers accountable for advancing

a diverse group of employees.

Incumbent managers need information, training and resources to assist with

management development. With such support, managers can be made responsible and held

accountable for developing managers. Senior managers with a large number of direct and

indirect reports can be made accountable for facilitating the career advancement of a diverse

pool of applicants with high potential.

Develop valid methods to identify managerial potential. Encourage high potential

minorities and women to move from dead end to feeder jobs.

Providing developmental opportunities can help women and minorities in staff or dead

end jobs increase their access to jobs that can lead to advancement. An organization can

target high potential women and minorities and place them in the key line jobs that lead to

positions in the field of management (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990). Valid measures of

management potential, however, will increase the probability that those targeted for

development and advancement will be successful.

43
Modify recruitment practices as needed to ensure a diverse applicant pool for all

jobs, particularly for upper level jobs. Monitor the extent to which recruitment

strategies yield results.

While informal recruiting channels yield superior candidates, they are likely to exclude

women and minorities who do not have access to informal networks. Organizations might

broaden the recruiting network by involving the EEO director and minority and women

managers in the recruitment process. This is particularly important for higher-level openings.

Kirnan et al. (1989) suggest that by modifying the use of its formal recruiting sources,

an organization might reach its affirmative action commitments more effectively. For

example, since newspaper advertisements have been shown to produce better quality

applicants for some jobs than do employment agencies or school placements, an organization

could increase its use of newspaper advertisements over other such formal sources. In

general, Kirnan et al. (1989) encourage organizations to assess the potential impact on the

protected groups before making changes in recruitment policy.

As recommended by the Department of Labor (1991) companies should make any

executive search firms that they employ aware of their equal employment and affirmative

action obligations under the law. In the case that such executive recruitment firms fail to

submit minority and women candidates, companies should make good faith efforts to broaden

their pool of candidates.

Design formal mentoring programs so that they embody as many features of

informal mentorships as possible, thereby supporting rather than forcing the

mentoring process.

While abundant evidence suggests that informal mentoring relationships are of benefit

to managerial advancement, there is little evidence to support the benefits of formal mentor

programs (Chao et al., 1992; Merriam, 1983; Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990). Given this

finding, a number of authors have recommended policies that support rather than force the

mentoring process (Kram, 1985).

The literature does not address whether or not formal mentorship programs are

required in order for women and minorities to have the same access to mentoring relationships

as white males. In the case that formal mentorship programs are needed to help women and

minorities get mentors, Chao et al.'s (1992) suggestion to make formal mentorship more like

informal mentorship might be beneficial. They state that motivation to participate in a

mentorship is critical. To achieve such motivation, management should instill a climate of

mutual interest and participation without either obligating or intimidating participation. They

suggest this could be achieved by clarifying the purpose of such relationships and by neither

promising specific benefits from participating nor disadvantages from not participating.

Finally, Chao et al. (1985) suggest that in a formal mentorship program, matching the mentor

and protdgd on interpersonal factors may yield more effective mentoring relationships.

Training programs that teach persons how to develop their skills in the mentor role

and how to be mentored can also be helpful (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990). Training can

44
help develop an awareness of the benefits of such alliances among potential proteges and

potential mentors (Fitt & Newton, 1981). Finally, training can help mentor and protege deal

with cases where the two are not of the same gender, by encouraging both participants to

share the responsibility of behaving professionally, dealing with sexual tensions and fears,

dealing with stereotypical male/female roles, and learning to cope with any tensions or rumors

that may arise (Fit & Newton, 1981; Kanter, 1977).

Monitor and evaluate recruitment processes, career development processes,

staffing patterns, and promotions. Audit the diversity within functional

organizations, and the diversity of pools of applicants for new jobs or

promotions.

Another way to speed removal of the glass ceiling is to monitor progress and mandate

change. The U. S. Department of Labor (1991) states that monitoring for equal access and

opportunity, especially as managers move up the corporate ladder to senior management levels

where important decisions are made, should be considered either as a corporate responsibility

or as part of the planning for developmental programs and policies.

Stereotypes and Biases

Future Research. While field research on performance ratings reveals very limited

race and sex effects in evaluations of perfcrmance, experimental research shows that

stereotypes can depress performance ratings, particularly when gender role stereotypes and

management style are inconsistent. We expect that evidence of bias would be hard to obtain

from operational performance ratings, which are typically characterized by a lack of variance.

The influence of stereotypes and biases can be reflected in perceptions of others'

reactions and behavior. For example, the extent to which it is perceived that minorities and

women are presumed to be incompetent, feel that their errors receive more attention that those

of white males, and that they must work harder to prove themselves, can be assessed through

focus groups and surveys.

Recommendations for Practice. The recommendations offered in the preceding

discussion of systemic barriers all apply to minimizing the operation of stereotypes in the

workplace. To guard further against their influence, we offer the following recommendations:

Ensure that evaluation criteria are job-related, clear and unambiguous, and

known to both rater and ratee. Train managers thoroughly in the use of

performance evaluation systems and avoidance of rater errors.

In the absence of other information, stereotypes influence our interpretation of the

events around us. Objective, standardized, employment systems should produce job-relevant

performance information and the evaluation criteria needed to make unbiased judgments. As

pointed out by Freedman and Phillips (1988), however, model personnel systems may not

solve all of the problems. Individuals have been found to hold on to biased views upon

receiving conflicting performance information, and managers are often forced to make

decisions without complete performance information. Model personnel systems may go a

45
long way towards limiting the influence of stereotypes and biases, particularly when managers

must share the rationale for their judgments with employees.

Minimize the effects of tokenism by hiring and placing women and minorities in

batches, particularly in functions that traditionally have been dominated by white

males.

Kanter (1977) recommended the hiring and placement of managerial women in batches

to avoid tokenism, and extending managerial career paths to traditionally female occupations

such as clerical work. New programs are being instituted in some corporations that are aimed

at reducing the pressure of being a token. One way to change attitudes, some managers

believe, is to create a "mass of women in significant jobs within one part of the company

instead of spreading the somewhat few of these women throughout the corporation where each

is isolated and scrutinized as the token woman" (Morrison et al. 1987, p. 167). This strategy

may not be feasible beyond entry level, where placements are fewer in number. However,

minorities and women can be assigned in numbers to committees and task forces, thereby

minimizing the effects of tokenism in these settings.

Individual Factors and Group Differences

Future Research. Experience, education, tenure, commitment to the job, and

willingness to relocate have all been found to be predictive of managerial success. Women

are less willing to relocate than are men, and greater family care responsibilities may reduce

the amount of time a women can devote to the job compared to men.

Information in the personnel data base will permit an examination of the extent to

which individual factors are related to differences in promotion rates and organization level.

Differences among subgroups in human capital variables, such as education level, training

and/or experience, tenure, and number of relocations may partially explain differences in

promotion rates and level.

Focus group and survey data can supplement the analyses of personnel data. Items

measuring organizational commitment, such as those used by the Merit Systems Protection

Board (1992), can be compared across subgroups. Self-report data on the number of times

the individual has been asked to relocate can also be collected. Recall that the Merit Systems

Protection Board not only found that women relocated less often than men, but also that

women were asked to relocate less often than men.

Recommendations for Practice. The recommendations in this section broadly apply to

all three of the glass ceiling causes. The first three recommendations, all of which entail

some degree of systemic change, are becoming more common in practice to minimize the

influence of individual factors on employment and advancement opportunities. The first two

reflect the perspective of employers who believe that changes in organizational practices are

needed to accommodate increasingly diverse individual needs. The fourth recommendation

echoes the cautionary note that is common in the writing of practitioners on the use of

training as a diversity management tool.

46
Provide flexible work scheduling to accommodate family care responsibilities,

thereby minimizing individual conflict between work and family roles.

While females carry the major responsibility for family care, because of the growing

numbers of dual career couples, changing values with respect to fatherhood, and expanding

elder care demands, work and family role conflict is no longer just a women's issue (Merit

Systems Protection Board, 1991). Benefits packages that accommodate family care

responsibilities are becoming more common. Among the examples Dipboye (1987) cited

were extended leaves for women managers in the child-bearing years; the creation of parttime, lower-level, and middle-level managerial positions; the elimination of the requirement

that a manager relocate geographically as a condition for promotion; day-care arrangements;

flexible work schedules; and job sharing for managers. In her review of organizational

programs to promote diversity, Morrison (1992) cites specific examples of the latter two. In

its review of OPM's activities in this area, the Merit Systems Protection Board (1991)

recommended that more be done both within OPM and by individual agencies to

accommodate the family care needs of Federal employees.

Examine requirements for advancement to distinguish between absolute

requirements for organizational success and preferences, conveniences, and

traditions.

With the changing demographics in the workplace, success is increasingly tied to the

organization's ability to attract, retain, and motivate a diverse workforce. A correlate of

growing heterogeneity in the labor pool is the tendency of people who are different to resist

pressure to conform in order to "fit in," or assimilate into, current corporate cultures. If

assimilation requires adhering to rules established by white males, some requirements could be

difficult, if not impossible, for women and minorities (Thomas, 1992). This line of thinking

has led to the suggestion that organizations determine which requirements for individual

success also contribute to organizational success. For example, mobility is frequently

described as necessary for the breadth of experience and knowledge of the business required

for successful performance as a senior manager. The Merit Systems Protection Board (1992)

report pointed out that if mobility is a prerequisite for advancement, then this requirement

should be shown to be job-related, as required by equal opportunity legislation. Investigation

of job-relatedness may show that the developmental paths for senior management jobs do not

require the same degree of geographic mobility as previously assumed, or that the breadth and

depth of experience for some jobs can be obtained with less geographic mobility than required

for other jobs.

Consider potential adverse impact in developing selection and promotion systems.

Identify pools of individuals qualified for promotion, thereby increasing the

likelihood that qualified minorities and women will be identified as such when

positions become vacant.

The use of selection procedures that are known to be effective predictors of successful

performance not only ensures employee quality, but also can serve to minimize perceptions of

favorable treatment. That is, when all employees who have been selected/promoted have been

qualified by the same screens it is harder to attribute advancement to one's network, race or

47
sex. Many management selection and promotion systems are structured to identify a qualified

pool of candidates who are then available to be placed as positions become vacant.

Consideration of race or sex in addition to other factors, such as functional background and

experience, can then enter in to promotion decisions. Selection from a qualified pool ensures

that minorities and women who are selected are qualified. Expectations for promotion must

be considered, of course, in making decisions about the size of the pool.

Be cautious in the use of training as a solution.

The literature offers few specific insights into the best training approaches to address

glass ceiling issues. It does suggest that training for underrepresented groups may be most

useful not in skill-building, but in areas such as career- and self-awareness, mentoring, and

leadership development. However, it is important to avoid segregating women or minorities

in such training programs so they are not seen as needing special help to become equally

qualified (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990).

The literature suggests training as a partial solution for a number of glass ceiling

issues, including confronting stereotypes (Fernandez, 1981), and creating a pool of skilled

mentors, as discussed above. However, we recommend that training be designed and

developed with care, as the literature offers little guidance. Training thoughtlessly applied

might at worst, make a bad situation worse (Morrison, 1992) or at best be a waste of money.

For example, training designed to confront stereotypes might be met with resistance by white

males who feel that affirmative action gives women and minorities an unfair advantage. On

the other hand, training new male and female management hires might be wasted if the

attitudes of younger workers differ from those of older workers.

As Dipboye (1987) pointed out, few attempts have been made to evaluate training

programs, as evidenced by the sparsity of evaluation studies in the literature. Given such

limited guidance, needs assessment, pilot testing, and evaluation are important steps in

determining the value of training as a solution. Finally, Morrison (1992) points out that

training alone, in th'e absence of other supporting interventions, will have a short-term impact.

While training and education efforts, thoughtfully designed and implemented, should be a part

of any effort to change attitudes or corporate cultures, training by itself cannot support longterm change to eliminate the glass ceiling.

Planning Considerations

One issue of study design is clear from the literature review: Careful planning will be

necessary to effectively research such a complex topic. Before embarking on such a study,

we recommend that the Army clearly define the goals of the glass ceiling study. How the

results of the study will be used will affect its scope and design.

One factor to be considered is the span of years from which data will be sampled for

analyses. Longitudinal analyses are valuable in that they can reveal the changes across time

in disproportionate distributions across levels, differences in promotion rates, and so on. By

looking at trends across time, the Army can also project the rate at which parity will be

achieved in the absence of intervention, as did the Merit Systems Protection Board (1992) in

.48
their study. Such projections would be valuable input for policy makers who are considering

various ways to promote diversity. However, it is important to consider factors that might

affect demographic distributions in selecting the time frame for analysis. An obvious factor is

the recent reduction in force (RIF), and the impact of RIF regulations on the demographic

composition of the work force.

Another major planning consideration involves the subgroups to which the study will

apply. Planners should consider the need to conduct several studies in parallel, each treating

unique barriers faced by various subgroups. We would expect the existence of a core set of

barriers. For example, tokenism is probably experienced by all members of underrepresented

groups. However, subsets of non-overlapping barriers exist. For example, barriers related to

child and family responsibilities are not as relevant to underrepresented males as they are to

all females, regardless of race. Implicit in this recommendation is the need to identify the

subgroups of interest. The number of subgroups will affect the sampling, number and

composition of focus groups, contents of the survey, and all data analyses.

Not many studies on barriers to management examine employment practices for

persons with disabilities. However, in 1986 a study for the International Center for the

Disabled was conducted with over 1,000 disabled persons. Survey results indicated that 24

percent of all disabled persons under age 65 work full-time, yet 66 percent of all non-working

disabled persons (excluding students) would like to have a job. Forty-seven percent of these

individuals find that employers will not recognize that they are capable of doing a full-time

job. A 1987 follow-up study detailing employment practices for the disabled established that

managers rate disabled persons as better than or as good as their nondisabled counterparts, and

75 percent of managers say that the average cost of employing a disabled person is about the

same as that of a non-disabled person. Yet three quarters of managers surveyed believe that

disabled persons often encounter discrimination from employers and only one of ten top level

managers display an optimistic attitude towards considering them as a potential source of

employees.

It seems as though disabled individuals face barriers much earlier in the employment

process than do other underrepresented groups. Disabled individuals are not only locked out

of management jobs, but out of the job market. This situation is quite different from that

examined in the typical glass ceiling study.

The disabled are unique in another way. Unlike the distinguishing features of other

underrepresented groups--gender, accent, color--the distinguishing features of this subgroup

are large in number. That is, a disability can be manifest in a large variety of ways. The

extent to which the variety and severity of disabilities affect the treatment of the disabled in

an employment setting is unknown. Given the lack of information on organizational barriers

faced by this subgroup, we recommend that the variables included in this part of the study be

determined after a more focussed literature search and with abundant input from

representatives of the disabled community.

49
REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. P., Alderfer, C. S., Tucker, L., & Tucker, R. (1980). Diagnosing race relations

in management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, 135-166.

Alleman, E., Newman, I., Huggins, H., & Carr, L. (1986). Are all mentors alike? The impact of race and gender on mentoring relationshim. Paper presented at the American

Psychological Association National Convention, Washington, DC.

Andrisani, P. J., & Shapiro, M. B. (1978). Women's attitudes toward their jobs: Some

longitudinal data on a national sample. ersonnel Psyclogy, 31, 15-34.

Aranya, N., Kushnir, T., & Valency, A. (1986). Organizational commitment in a maledominated profession. Human Relations, U, 433-488.

Baron, J., & Newman, A. (1990). For what it's worth: Organizations, occupations, and the

value of work done by women and nonwhites. American Sociological Review, 55,

155-175.

Becker, G. S. (1975). 1Humanapita. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1973). Manual for the differential

ai2Jtu,.tes. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Blau, F. D., & Belier, A. H. (1988). Trends in earning differentials by gender 1971-1981.

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 4_1(4), 513-529.

Boehm, V. R. (1972). Negro-white differences in validity of employment and training

selection procedures: Summary of research evidence. Journal of Apglied Psychology,

M, 33-39.

Boehm, V. R. (1977). Differential prediction: A methodological artifact? Journal of Ampli

P, a2, 146-154.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P.D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A

comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts.

Personnel Psyhology, 45, 619-636.

Clawson, J. G. (1985, April). Is mentoring necessary? Training and Development Journal,

37-39.

Cleary, T. A., & Hilton, T. I. (1968). Test bias: Prediction of grades of Negro and white

students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 115-124.

51
Colwill, N. L. (1987). Men and women in organizations: Roles and status, stereotypes and

power. In K. S. Koziara, M. H. Moskow, & L. D. Tanner (Eds.), Working women:

Past. present. and future (97-117). Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs,

Inc.

Dipboye, R. L. (1985). Some neglected variables in research on discrimination in appraisals.

As cited in S. H. Oppler, J. P. Campbell, E. D. Pulakos, & W. C. Borman, Three

approaches to the investigation of subgroup bias in performance measurement: Review,

results, and conclusions (1992). Journal of Aplied Pyhology, 77, 201-217.

Dipboye, R. L. (1987). Problems and progress of women in management. In K. S. Koziara,

M. H. Moskow, & L. D. Tanner (Eds.), Working women: Past. present, and future

(118-153). Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and

women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied

Psxholog , 5, 539-546.

Dubno, P. (1985). Attitudes toward women executives: A longitudinal approach. Academy o

Management Journal, 2a, 235-239.

Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of

leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 111, 3-22.

Edwards, J. E., Thomas, M. D., & Burch, R. L. (1992). Hispanic representation in the

Federal Government: Lessons from the Navy's equal employment opportunity

enhancement research program. In S. B. Knouse, P. Rosenfeld, & A. L. Colbertson

(Eds.), Hispanics in the workplace. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Epstein, C. F. (1975). Institutional barriers: What keeps women out of the executive suite? In

F. E. Gordon & M. H. Strober (Eds.), Bring women into management (7-21). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Fernandez, J. P. (1981). Racism and sexism in corporate life. Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books.

Fine, M., Johnson, F., & Ryan, M. (1990). Cultural diversity in the workplace. Public

Personnel Management, 12(3), 305-319.

Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social

science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v.

Hopkins. American Psychogist, 46, 1049-1060.

52
Fitt, L. W., & Newton, D. A. (1981, March-April). When the mentor is a man and the

protege a woman. Harvard Business Revie, 56-60.

Freedman, S. M., & Phillips, J. S. (1988). The changing nature of research on women at

work. Jommal of Management, 14, 231-251.

General Accounting Office (1991). Federal Affirmative Employment: Status of Women and

Minority Representation in the Federal Workforc, Report No. GAO/T-GGD-92-2.

Washington, DC.

Gordon, F. E., & Hall, D. T. (1974). Self-image and stereotypes of femininity: Their

relationship to women's role conflicts and coping. Journal of Applied Psychology, L9,

241-243.

Gutek, B., & Cohen, A. (1987). Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sex at work: A comparison

of men's and women's experiences. Human Relations, 40, 97-115.

Harris, M. M. (1989). Reconsidering the employment interview. A review of recent literature

and suggestions for future research. Personnel PsycloQgy, 42, 691-726.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization

and affirmative action efforts. Journal of A ie Psychoiogy, _U, 536-544.

Heilman, M. E., & Martell, R. F. (1986). Exposure to successful women: Antidote to sex

discrimination in applicant screening decisions? Oranzational Behavior and Humn

Decision Processes, 32, 376-390.

Heilman, M. E., Martell, R. P , and Simon, M. C. (1988). The vagaries of sex bias:

Conditions regulating the undervaluation, equivaluation, and overvaluation of female

job applicants. Ornizationa Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 98-110.

Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. (1987). Intentionally favored,

unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions

and self-evaluations. Journal of AMiedsy lgy, 12, 62-68.

Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive

ability testing? American Psycholoist 47, 1083-1101.

Howard, A. (1986). College experiences and managerial performance. Journal of AWied

Pbsyhoogy Mong om h, 21(3), 530-552.

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Maagerial lives in transition: Advancing ae and

hangingtimes. New York: The Guilford Press.

53
Huck, J. R., & Bray, D. W. (1976). Management assessment center evaluations and

subsequent job performance of black and white females. Personnel Psychology, 29,

13-30.

Humphreys, L. G. (1992). Commentary: What both critics and users of ability tests need to

know. Psychological Science, 3, 271-274.

Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool.

Academy of Management Review, 2(3), 475-485.

International Center for the Disabled (1986). The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans:

Bringing Disabled Americans into the Mainstream, Study No. 854009. New York.

Irons, E. D., & Moore, G. W. (1985). Black managers: The case of the banking industry.

New York: Praeger.

Jackson, L. A., Gardner, P. D., & Sullivan, L. A. (1992). Explaining gender differences in

self-pay expectations: Social comparison standards and perceptions of fair pay. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 77, 651-663.

Jackson, S. E., & Alvarez, E. B. (1992). Working through diversity as a strategic imperative.

In S. E. Jackson & Associates (Eds.), Diversity in the Workplace: Human Resources

Initiatives (13-29). New York: The Guilford Press.

Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K.

(1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group

heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 76, 675-689.

Jacobs, J. (1992). Women's entry into management: Trends in earnings, authority, and values

among salaried managers. Administrative Science Ouarterly, L7, 282-301.

Jones, E. W., Jr. (1986, May-June). Black managers: The dream deferred. Harvard Business

Review, 84-93.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kanter, R. M. (1979, July-August). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Buin

Review, 65-75.

Katzell, R. A., & Dyer, F. J. (1977). Differential validity revived. Journal of Applied

syho, 62, 137-145.

54
Kirnan, J. P., Farley, J. A., & Geisinger, K. F. (1989). The relationship between recruiting

source, applicant quality, and hire performance: An analysis by sex, ethnicity, and age. Personnel Psychloty, 42, 293-308.

Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance

ratings. Journal of A9h1e Psychlgogy, 70, 56-65.

Kram, K. E. (1985, April). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development

Journal, 40-43.

Larwood, L., Gutek, B., & Gattiker, U. E. (1984). Perspectives on institutional

discrimination and resistance to change. Gru and ganization St , 2, 333-352.

Larwood, L., Szwajkowski, E., & Rose, S. (1988). Sex and race discrimination resulting

from manager-client relationships: Applying the rational bias theory of managerial

discrimination. Sex Roles, 18, 9-29.

Laurence, J. H., & Waters, B. K. (1993). Biodata: What's it all about? In T. Trent and J. H.

Laurence (Eds.), Adaptability Screening for the Armed Forces. Washington, DC:

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel), 41-71.

Leinsten, C. (1988). Black executives: How they're doing. Forln©, January 18, 109-120.

Leventhal, G., & Herbert, H. (1990). Effect of subjects' sex and sex-role attitudes on real and

perceived performance using gender-related stimuli with traditional and nontraditional

female experimenters. Psvcholo a & 259-266.

Mainiero, L. (1986). Coping with powerlessness: The relationship of gender and job

dependency to empowerment-strategy usage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31,

633-653.

Malveaux, J., & Wallace, P. (1987). Minority women in the workplace. In K. S. Koziara, M.

H. Moskow, & L. D. Tanner (Eds.), Working women: Past. present. and future

(265-298). Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

Markham, W. T. (1987). Sex, relocation, and occupational advancement. In A. H.

Stromberg, L. Lombard, & B. A. Gutek (Eds.), Women and work: An annual review

(Vol. 2, 207-231). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Markham, W. T., Macken, P. 0., Bonjean, C. M., & Corder, J. (1983). A note on sex,

geographic mobility, and career advancement. SociaLForces, 61, 1138-1146.

Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and proteges: A critical review of the literature. Adult Education

Quar~x, &3, Spring, 161-173.

55
Morrison, A. M. (1992). The new leaders. Guidelines on leadership diversity in Ameri . San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in management.

American Psych gist, g4(2), 200-208.

Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., Velsor, E. V., & The Center for Creative Leadership (1987).

Breaking the glass ceiling. Can women reach the top of America's largest corporations?

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

Moses, J. L., & Boehm, V. R. (1975). Relationship of assessment center performance to

management progress of women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 0, 527-529.

Motowidlo, S. I., Dunnette, M. D., and Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection

procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 25, 640-647.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). EmoyeOQrganization Linkages.

New York: Academic Press.

Oppler, S. H., Campbell, J. P., Pulakos, E. D., & Borman, W. C. (1992). Three approaches

to the investigation of subgroup bias in performance measurement: Review, results, and

conclusions. Journal of A9 ied Psycholog, 77, 201-217.

Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1987). The effect of the proportion of women on salaries: The

case of college administrators. Administrative Sciene Quarely, 31, 1-24.

Pulakos, E. D., White, L. A., Oppler, S. H., & Borman, W. C. (1989). Examination of race

and sex effects on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, L4, 770-780.

Ramos, R. A. (1981). Employment battery performance of Hispanic applicants as a function

of English or Spanish test instructions. Journal of Applied Psychology, f&(3), 291-295.

Ramos, R. A. (1992). Testing and assessment of Hispanics for occupational and management

positions: A developmental needs analysis. In K. F. Geisinger (Ed.), Pbycholo"gi

Testing, of Hisais. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ritchie, R. J., & Moses, 1. L. (1983). Assessment Center Correlates of Women's

Advancement into Middle Management: A 7-year longitudinal analysis. Journalf

Appied Psyhology, 68(2), 227-23 1.

Roche, G. R. (1979, January-February). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review,

57(1), 14-28.

56
Rosen, B., Templeton, N. C., & Kichline, K. (1981, December). First few years on the job:

Women in management. Business Hoiz , 24, 226-229.

Schmidt, F. L. (1988). The problem of group differences in ability test scores in employment

selection. Journal of Vocational e , , 272-292.

Schmidt, F. L., Berner, J. G., & Hunter, J. E. (1973). Racial differences in validity of

employment tests: Reality or illusion? Journal of Agied syholog 5&, 5-9.

Schmidt, F. L., Pearlman, K., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). The validity and fairness of

employment and educational tests for Hispanic Americans: A review and analysis. Personnel Esyholy" 3 705-724.

Schmitt, N., Mellon, P. M., & Bylenga, C. (1978). Sex differences in validity for academic

and employment criteria, and different types of predictors. Journal of AWli

PsydID~gy, 63, 145-150.

Sheehy, G. (1976). Passages: Predictable crises of adult life. New York: E. P. Dutton and

Co.

Sigelman, L., Milward, H. B., & Shepard, J. M. (1982). The salary differential between male

and female administrators: Equal pay for equal work? Academy of Manament

Journal, 21(3), 664-671.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (1987). Principles for the validation

and use of persnnel selection procedures (3rd ed.). College Park, MD.

Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. (1992). All the right stuff: A comparison of

female and male managers' career progression. Journal of Apglied Psychology, 77(3),

251-260.

Suter, L. E., & Miller, H. P. (1973). Income differences between men and career women.

American Journal of Sc2iogy, 28, 963-974.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology,

.U, 1-39.

Terborg, J. R. (1977). Women in management: A research review. Journal of AM id

Paghology, f2, 647-664.

Trent, T. (1993). The Armed Services Applicant Profile (ASAP). In T. Trent and J. H.

Laurence (Eds.), Adaptbility Screening for the Armed Forces. Washington, DC:

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel),

71-100.

57
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1984). A role set analysis of gender differences in performance

affective relationships, and career success of industrial middle managers. Academy_.o

Management Journal, 27, 619-635.

Thomas, D. A., & Alderfer, C. P. (1989). The influence of race on career dynamics: Theory

and research on minority career experiences. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S.

Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of Career y (133-158). Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1992). Managing diversity: A conceptual framework. In S. E. Jackson &

Associates (Eds.), Diversity in the Workplace: Human Resources Initiatives (306-317).

New York: The Guilford Press.

U.S. Department of Defense (1982). Profile of American Youth: 1980 Nationwide

Administration of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Washington, DC:

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and

Logistics).

U.S. Department of Labor (1991). A report on the glass ceiling initiative. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Labor (1992). Pifline of progress. A status report on the glass ceiling.

Washington, DC.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1991). Balancing work responsibilities and family

needs. Washington, DC: Office of Policy and Evaluation.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1992). A question of equity: Women and the glass

ceiling in the federal government. Washington, DC: Office of Policy and Evaluation.

Valerio, A. M. (1990). A study of the developmental experiences of managers. In K. E.

Clark, & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of Leadershi (521-534). West Orange, NJ:

Leadership Library of America, Inc.

Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1990). The career success/personal failure phenomenon as

perceived in others: Comparing vignettes of male and female managers. Journal of

Vocational e r, 7, 209-224.

Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the "female"

professions. Social Prgob , 32, 253-267.

58
Appendix A

Highlights of Civil Rights Legislation and Case Law

In 1991, the Glass Ceiling Act, contained in Title II of the 1991 Civil Rights Act, was

established for two main purposes: to establish a Glass Ceiling Commission that will

terminate in 1995; and to establish an annual award for excellence in promoting a more

diverse skilled workforce at higher levels. The purposes of the Glass Ceiling Commission are

to focus greater attention on the importance of eliminating artificial barriers to the

advancement of women and minorities to management and decision-making positions and to

promote workforce diversity. The commission is chaired by the Labor Secretary and consists

of two senators, two House representatives, 21 presidential appointees, and 10 House and

Senate appointees. The Commission is required to examine and make recommendations

concerning preparations and opportunities for advancement by women and minorities, and

employers' practices and policies regarding such issues. This Act constitutes the first large

scale effort by the government to examine the barriers faced by women and minorities.

Although the Glass Ceiling Act does not itself generate change in legislation, it is part of the

1991 Civil Rights Act which does generate legislative change in regard to recent case law.

Historically, legislation concerning discrimination in the workforce began with the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of this Act states that it is an unlawful employment

practice to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin. At this

time, sex was included with the other characteristics by some members of Congress only to

ensure that the bill would not be passed. However, the bill was passed and protection against

discrimination for women became law. Provisions of the Act include the granting of power

to the courts to decide upon equitable relief when employers are proven to have intentionally

engaged in prohibited practices. Equitable relief included restoring individuals to positions

they would have occupied had they not been subject to discrimination, backpay, and other

forms of equity deemed appropriate by the courts. In addition, the Act established the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which was given the power to investigate and

file charges against alleged violators, but not to bring suit directly against employers.

However, the EEOC could provide informal conciliation to settle disputes.

In 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act was passed to give enforcement

power to the EEOC such that the EEOC (as well as a private individual) could prevent

unlawful employment practices by bringing suit directly against an offending employer. The

amended Act then functioned in two ways; first, to provide equitable relief to the

individual(s) discriminated against, and, second, to eliminate and deter workplace

discrimination by forcing companies to provide relief to the individuals.

From 1972 until 1991, the interpretation of Equal Opportunity regulations has

developed not as a result of the activities of various federal agencies, but as a direct

consequence of highly significant federal court interpretations on a variety of cases. For

example, in the landmark case of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), the

Supreme Court ruled that it is the results and consequences of an employer's actions --not the

intent--that determine whether the employment practice is discriminatory. Case law also

A-I
stated that any employment practice or policy which has a disparate impact on members of a

protected class or which perpetuates the effect of previous discriminatory practices is

unlawful. The only exception to this is proof that such a policy or practice is required by

"business necessity." A practice is considered to be required as a business necessity only if it

is valid and job-related. It is the employer's burden to prove beyond any reasonable doubt

that such a policy is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business.

However, a number of Supreme Court decisions from 1989 to 1991 reversed some of

the above decisions. During this period it became increasingly difficult for complainants to

win or even bring suits alleging discrimination. Many critics said that the Supreme Court

was ignoring Congress's overall purpose to eradicate discrimination. Examples of the

significant cases and decisions include Wards Cove Packing Co. vs Atonio, Patterson vs.

McLean Credit Union, and Price-Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In the Wards vs. Atonio case, the

court made it the responsibility of the employee to prove that an employment practice

adversely affected protected classes without any "business necessity." In the second case, the

court decision limited the coverage of a key race discrimination statute to hiring only (not to

promotion or any other practice). Based on this decision, approximately 200 claims of

harassment, discriminatory firing, or other employment practices were dismissed in the

following 8 months. In the infamous Price Waterhouse case, the Supreme Court ruled that an

employer could avoid liability of an intentionally discriminatory employment decision, as long

as the decision is partially motivated by legitimate reasons, and the employer can show that

the same decision would have been made without taking into account the discriminatory

reason(s).

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 ended two years of bitter debate concerning employment

discrimination, overturning in whole or in part seven decisions handed down by the Supreme

Court that had reduced complainants rights. Specifically, the new legislation overrules the

Wards Cove decision, reinstating the previous legal standard that once disparate impact is

shown by the complainant, the emplover has the burden to prove that the challenged

employment practices are "job related for the position in question and consistent with

business necessity." The Act also makes it clear that all discriminatory employment practices

and policies are covered by law. In reference to the Price Waterhouse decision, the 1991 Act

provides that it is unlawful to rely on race, sex, or any prohibited factor in motivating a job

decision, even if other legal factors might also justify the employment decision or practice.

Therefore, intentional discrimination is unlawful in every case.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 also expands the remedies available to victims of

discrimination.' Historically, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, victims of discrimination

(based on race, color, national origin, religion, or sex) could recover back pay, employment or

reinstatement, and other forms of injunctive relief, but not compensatory or punitive damages.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act,

victims of discrimination due to race or ethnicity could receive compensatory or punitive

damages. Since the 1866 Civil Rights Act did not include other protected groups, they were

SThe remainder of this section was extracted from Vinick, S. (undated). A summary of the

1991 Civil Rights Act. Washington, DC: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

A-2
not included in the ruling. In 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act resulted in allowing

victims of discrimination based on disabilities to recover backpay, employment, or other

forms of injunctive relief, but not compensatory or punitive damages.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 seeks to allow all victims of intentional discrimination to

receive compensatory, and in certain cases, punitive damages. This includes victims

discriminated against based on race, color, national origin, ethnicity, religion, sex, and

disabilities. However, compensatory and punitive damages are subject to combined caps

ranging from $50,000 to $300,000 depending on the size of the firn. The damage caps have

been criticized because victims of discrimination based on race or ethnicity can file under

Section 1981 with no damage caps, while victims discriminated against based on sex, religion,

or disability must file under the 1991 Act with damage caps. Critics of the damage caps

contend that even victims of discrimination will be treated disparately. Defendants of the

damage caps contend that their purpose is to limit the incentives for suing individuals and for

lawyers to pursue claims that could result in large sums of money being awarded.

Other new laws enacted under the 1991 Civil Rights Act include the right of any

person filing a claim under the Act to demand a jury trial for claims in which compensatory

or punitive damages are sought, and the right of employees in the federal sector to sue for

compensatory damages.

A-3 940322