ChapterPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Institutions of higher education have committed significant resources to diversity efforts over the past 50 years (Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005). For the most part, these resources have been allocated to improve student representation and experiences for women and persons of color (Jackson, 2004a). In doing so, less attention has been given to similar organizational experiences for women and professionals of color. Therefore, fewer research and practice-based resources are available to address workplace discrimination challenges in higher education. Accordingly, this chapter draws heavily from glass ceiling effects research conducted in business and the armed forces to help understand how higher education can foster workforce diversity. Concurrently, social closure theory is introduced as an analytical framework to advance organizational ownership of workplace discrimination in general and glass ceiling effects in particular.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Enlarging Our Understanding
of
Glass Ceiling
Effects with Social Closure Theory
in Higher Education
Jerlando
F.
L. Jackson
and
Raul
A.
Leon
As we witness demographic shifts that shape the future
of
our nation, both empir-
ical and practice-based examinations are needed to understand the implications
of
this transformation (Moore, 1995). Women and people
of
color have dramatically
transformed the country's economy
by
entering sectors
of
the U.S. workforce
in
the late 1 960s and early 1970s (e.g., the armed forces) that were previously dom-
inated
by
White men (Winborne, 2007). This growth continues and employment
data
in
the United States illustrate that women are nearing a balanced representation
in the workforce and people
of
color have increased their presence across several
employment sectors (e.g., business) (Toossi, 2005). These shifting demographics
have profoundly altered the image
of
the U.S. workforce and will continue
to
trans-
form the country. For instance, according to the Hudson Institute, people
of
color
represent
16%
of
the workforce today, but it
is
predicted that the growth will sur-
pass the 30% mark
by
2020 (California Diversity Council, 2005). With regards
to
women, their impact is also significant, as they comprise approximately 47%
of
the
total workforce (Winborne, 2007).
As the representation
of
these two groups continues to grow, other popula-
tions have also increased their presence
in
today's U.S. workforce. These groups
include persons with disabilities, members
of
the gay and lesbian community, peo-
ple with diffcrent religious affiliation, and senior citizens among others (Williams
& Wade-Golden, 2008). Overall, this increased representation
by
other groups has
enlarged our notion
of
diversity
in
society.
In
panicular, diversity as a workforce
challenge has evolved from its general conception
in
terms
of
labor force composi-
tion, to a subject where deeper challenges that
atl"ect
workforce dynamics must
be
considered, such as impediments
for
these diverse groups with regards
to
ascending
to
senior-level positions.
J.F.L
Jackson
(181)
Educational Leadership and Poliey Analysis. University
of
Wisconsin-Madison. Madison.
WI
53706. USA; National Center for Institutional Diversity. University
of
Michigan.
Ann Arbor.
MI48109,
USA
e-mail: jjackson@education.wisc.edu
J.e.
Smart (ed.). Higlrer Education: Handbook (!fTf1eory and
Re.<earch
25.
DOl 10.1007/978-90-481-8598-6_9. © Springer Sciencc+Business Media
B.
V.
2010
351
352
353
J.EL. Jackson and R.A. Leon
The
employment sector or social domain that is central
to
these workforce
challenges is higher education. Like churches, institutions
of
higher education in
many ways serve as a compass for moral development and character
in
the United
States (Thelin, 2(04). With
few
exceptions, institutions
of
higher education have
embedded
in
their mission statements responsibility for the development
of
the
moral character
of
its graduates (Morphew & Hartley, 2006).
In
addition to being
charged with enhancing moral development, which
is
linked to principles
of
dif-
ference and diversity. these institutions also have a societal charge to supply the
workforce with competent workers (Grubb, 1997). Subsequently, institutions
of
higher education are equally held accountable
to
expand and absorb the growth
of
societal diversity
on
their respective campuses. In general, conversations about
diversity on college campuses are narrowly focused on students, ignoring the need
to enhance diversity among the higher education workforce as well (Jackson, 2001,
2004a). In turn, less attention has been placed on the diversification
of
senior-level
positions (e.g., deans and provosts).
Without question, diversity is seen as one
of
the most critical issues facing higher
education
in
the twenty-first century (Hurtado & Dey, 1997; Tierney, 1997). For
that reason, creating work environments that are conducive for the professional
growth
of
diverse individuals and the organization itself becomes a concern that
must be addressed. While the initial challenges to expanding workforce diversityl
is
numeric representation
of
diverse groups, it
is
imperative not to interpret this goal
as disconnected from comprehensive efforts for continuous improvement within
the organizational context (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1999).
We
acknowledge that a central concern for any efforts to move toward work-
force diversity
is
the challenge
of
workplace discrimination.2 Decades
of
research
Cohn & Fossett, 1995; Tomaskavic-Devey & Skaggs, 2002; Wilson, 2005)
have conceded that human capital deficits may account for workplace outcome
differences. However, when human capital controls are
in
place, income deficits,
employment disparities, and inequalities
in
promotion and authority still remain.
Roscigno, Garcia, and Bobbitt-Zeher (2007) note that inequalities
in
employment
typically infer discrimination
as
a key causal mechanism. Therefore, some attention
must be given to the role
of
the place
of
employment and employers
in
workplace
outcome differences. That is, some employers hold biased views, based on stereo-
types, that inform skewed hiring, promotion, and firing decisions formally known
as detrimental employer biases (Moss & Tilly, 200
I;
Pager, 2003).
In this chapter, we narrow our focus to glass ceiling effects which
is
a form
of
workplace discrimination linked specifically
to
senior-level position attainment.
We
begin with an analysis
of
the glass ceiling effects literature that moves away from
replicating the loosely coupled nature
of
higher education research to explore other
employment sectors (i.e., business sector and the armed forces). Next, we present
original data analysis and a synopsis
of
prior research on workforce diversity chal-
lenges in higher education.
We
then turn to social closure theory as a valuable
framework for sense-making regarding glass ceiling effects,
in
addition to under-
standing the need for organization ownership for glass ceiling effects. The research
questions explored herein are: (a) what can we learn about workplace discrimination
Glass Ceiling Effects
from glass ceiling effects research; (b) what can higher education learn from other
employment sectors confronting glass ceiling effects; (c) do data on the national
landscape
of
senior-level positions3 support notions
of
disparities for people
of
color
and women; and (d) how does social closure theory advance our understanding
of
glass ceiling elfects?
Conceptualizing Glass Ceiling Effects as a
Form
of Workplace
Discrimination Across Three Employment Sectors
As noted by other scholars (e.g., Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia, & Yanneman, 2001;
Maume, 2004) a glass ceiling
OCcurs
when discrimination increases
in
severity
with movement up the occupational hierarchy. As a result, inequality grows over
the course
of
a person's career. A glass ceiling is also apparent when racial and
gender inequality
is
observed after controlling for productivity-relevant factors.
These aforementioned studies provide confirming evidence that the glass ceiling
is
a unique form
of
inequality, and that bias against women and people
of
color may
be more severe later
in
the career than at labor market entry.
Cotter et
aJ.
(200
I)
proposed a four-prong empirical test
to
measure for the exis-
tence
of
a glass ceiling. These four criteria inform our conceptualization
of
glass
ceiling effects and give structure
to
the current inquiry. In fact, Cotter et al.'s (2001)
work formed the basis
of
other studies seeking to understand glass ceiling effects as
well (e.g., Maume, 2(04). First. a glass ceiling must represent a gender or racial dif-
ference that
is
not explained by other job-relevant characteristics
of
the employee.
Second, a glass ceiling effect
is
greater at higher levels
of
an outcome rather than
lower levels. Third, glass ceiling effects reside
in
the chances
of
advancement into
higher levels. not merely the proportion
of
individuals currently at those higher lev-
els. Lastly, a disparity represents differences
in
advancement and opportunity that
increase over the course
of
a career.
Concerned with issues such as workplace discrimination, a glass ceiling
is
per-
ceived as a barrier or a set
of
impediments
to
career advancement for women and
people
of
color (Baxter & Wright, 2000; Morrison, White, &
Yon
Yelsor, 1987).
The term glass ceiling was originally coined in the Wall Street Journal (Hymowitz
& Schellhardt, 1986) and over the last two decades it has been widely defined as
"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 &
Yon
Glinow,
1990, p. 200).
Since the 1980s, a large body
of
research emerging from various employment
sectors
of
the economy has contributed to the understanding
of
this phenomenon.
Research sponsored by the United States Federal Government (Glass Ceiling
Commission, I 995a, I 995b; Powell & Butterfield, 1994), the business sector
(Morrison &
Yon
Glinow, 1990; Morrison
et
aI., 1987; Robinson & Dechant,
1997; Winborne, 2007), armed forces (Baldwin, I 996a, 1996b; Office
of
the
Under Secretary
of
Defense Personnel and Readiness, 2002), and higher education
354
355
J.F.L. Jackson and R.A. Leon
(Chliwniak, 1997; David & Woodword, 1998; Johnsrud, 1991) has examined the
roots
of
this problem, and described the types
of
effects associated with the glass
ceiling. This research has cultivated a growing interest, illustrating that examin-
ing the glass ceiling
is
a challenging task, and dealing with its effects presents a
greater obstacle. This section provides a review
of
the literature on the glass ceil-
ing across thrce employment sectors (i.e., business sector, armed forces, and higher
education).
Busilless as
an
Employment Sector
As an outcome
of
the civil rights movement, Title VII
of
the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, made it illegal for organizations to engage
in
employment practices that dis-
criminated against employees
on
the basis
of
race, color, religion, sex, and national
origin (age and disability were legislated after 1964) (Kochan
et
aI., 2003). However,
nearly three decades later, the U.S. Department
of
Labor introduced its glass ceil-
ing initiative
in
1991. This initiative provided the foundation for the creation
of
the
Glass Ceiling Commission, which focused
on
exploring the workforce composition
in
the United States' business sector (Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995b).
The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission gathered information at the manage-
ment level
in
the private sector on historically underrepresented groups including:
women, African Americans/Blacks, American Indians, Asians/Pacific Islanders,
and Hispanics. These data demonstrated that over the past 30 years, great progress
has been made, providing large numbers
of
individuals from diverse groups with
the opportunity
to
participate
in
the business sector
of
our society. However,
the
report also acknowledged that there was still a great deal
to
do with regards to bar-
riers hindering access to senior-level positions for diverse groups (Glass Ceiling
Commission, I 995 a). Following this recommendation, businesses started to recog-
nize that managing diversity is a step that organizations must take
in
order to succeed
in
today's market. Today, one could observe a "war for talent" where companies not
must seek the best candidates available, but also face the need to identify
tal-
ent
in
different forms and reap benefits from this diversity (Caudron, 1998; Kochan
et aI., 2003).
Today's companies need to leam how to use diversity to drive business growth
with valuable benefits such as increased marketplace understanding, greater cre-
ativity, higher quality team problem-solving, improved leadership effectiveness,
and better global relationships (Robinson & Dechant, 1997). Likewise, they must
recognize that managing diversity is also a cost saving strategy that when appropri-
ately implemented will avoid legal actions, high employee turnover, and negative
consumer image (Robinson & Dechant, 1997). As stated
by
Winborne (2007),
busi-
nesses that "successfully embrace diversity
by
taking advantage
of
all the talent
that exists
in
their available pool will be ahead
of
their competition. And those that
successfully manage the diversity within their workplace are at
an
even greater com-
petitive advantage" (p. 4). Howevcr, neither the economic imperatives nor practices
adopted
in
the business sector have deterred companies from finding more tangible
Glass Ceiling Effects
and compelling priorities that win out
in
the short run when compared to diversity
initiatives (Robinson & Dechant, 1997).
Consequently, business as an employment sector is at a place where resources
have been invested
in
this sector to mitigate glass ceiling effccts since the 1980, but
companies stilI struggle to incorporate diversity as a core aspect
of
their organiza-
tion, reproducing a critical mistake that depicts diversity as
an
impediment rather
than a valuable input (Johnston & Packer, 1987). Therefore, it is imperative to
explore what
is
happening to women and people
of
color
in
this context, particu-
larly consideri
ng
that some believe that the business sector sets the tone for other
employment sectors
in
terms
of
workforce diversity (Coleman, 1998).
Illustrating the level
of
complexity that the business sector encounters when
developing workforce environments that welcome people
of
color,
it
must
be
emphasized that despite the fact that all groups face challenges
in
the current labor
market, African AmericanslBlacks and Hispanics are worst off when regarding
labor disparities, and are still more likely
to
be
unemployed when compared to
any other group (U.S. Department
of
Labor, 2008). Likewise, they only account for
5%
of
all corporate officer positions
in
Fortune 500 companies (Catalyst, 2000b).
The 2007 U.S. Department
of
Labor report, Labor Force Characteristics by Race
alld Ethnicity, utilizes data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) 10 provide
valuable information examining the status of women and people
of
color
in
the
labor force. The report makes evident that these two groups continue to achieve
educational gains, and are slowly transitioning into high-skilled occupations with
higher salaries; however, their overall representation
in
management and profes-
sional
occupations-the
highest-paying categories--is still below the proportions
for Whites.
In 2007, labor data showed that 27.1%
of
African AmericanslBlacks and 17.8%
of
Hispanics worked
in
manager and professional occupations, a much lower
fig-
ure compared to their White (36.
1%)
counterparts. In considering non-management
level positions, the percentage
of
African AmericansIBlacks and Hispanics
in
ser-
vice occupations, a sector defined by lower paying jobs tells a different story, is
disproportionately high. Only 15.5%
of
Whites held such positions, compared with
23.3%
of
African Americans/Blacks and 24. I %
of
Hispanics (see Table I).
These disparities
in
representation are also reflected
in
a salary gap for full-
time wage and salary workers for African AmericanslBlacks and Hispanics. Despite
educational progress and a movement toward higher-paying occupations, the earn-
ings
of
these two groups remain significantly below their White and Asian/Pacific
Islanders counterparts (U.S. Department
of
Labor, 2008) (see Appendix). White
men reported median weekly earnings
of
$716, compared to $569 for African
Americans/Blacks and $503 for Hispanics (U.S. Department
of
Labor, 2008).
Likewise, these disparities persist at the
level
of
managerial, professional, and
service occupations.
The U.S. Department
of
Labor report highlights a similar outcome when data
are categorized
by
gender. In this particular case, approximately 22%
of
African
American/Black men and
14%
of
Hispanic
men
worked
in
management, protes-
sional, and related occupations, while 33% of White men were employed in these
356
357
J.EL.
Jackson and R.A. Leon
Table I Proportional representation by occupation level
in
the business sector
2007
Manager and professional
(%)
Service
(%)
Racelethl1icity
African American/Black
27.1
23.3
Hispanic 17.8 24.1
Asian/Pacific Islander
48.1
16.0
White 36.1 15.5
Gender
Male 32.7 13.2
Female 38.6 20.4
Source: U.S. Department
of
Labor (2008. Table 14).
positions. Considering service occupations, 12%
of
White males held these posi-
tions, while
14%
of
AsianlPacific Islander men,
19%
of
African American/Black
men, and 20%
of
Hispanics comprised the largest groups.
When data from the U.S. Department
of
Labor report are analyzed for the female
population, White women are better represented
in
higher paying positions when
compared to women
of
color. In 2007,40%
of
White women worked
in
manager and
professional occupations, while only 31%
of
African American/Black women, and
23%
of
Hispanic women served
in
these positions. As
is
the case with the male pop-
ulation, AsianlPacific Islander women fared better than all groups and constituted
47%. The story repeats
in
the service occupations with females
of
color comprising
the largest group.
In
the service category, 27%
of
African AmericanlBlack women
and 31% Hispanic women work
in
these positions, but only
19%
of
White and
AsianlPacific Islander women are employed
in
service type jobs.
Data
in
Table I highlights two
key
outcomes that warrant further discussion.
First,
it
shows that AsianslPacific Islanders deviate from a pattern
of
low repre-
sentation for people
of
color in managerial and professional occupations and also
shows that this group is earning higher salaries.
In
the business sector, AsianslPacifie
Islanders do fairly well and
in
some cases better than Whites. For instance, nearly
48.1 %
of
AsianslPacific Islanders work
in
managerial and professional occupations,
the largest representation among all groups when categorized by race and ethnic-
ity. This particularity also takes place
in
the service occupation category, but here
16%
of
Asians are employed, a comparable figure to the percentage
of
Whites
(15%). As far as median weekly earnings,
it
is
reported that this group earns $830,
the highest figure for all groups (U.S. Department
of
Labor, 200S). This excep-
tion
in
the business sector
is
comparable
to
evidence cited for career success of
AsianlPacific Islander faculty
in
higher education 2002).
Second, when considering gender, a larger percentage
of
women are employed
in
managerial and professional occupations when compared
to
males.
In
2007, approx-
imately 3S.6%
of
women worked
in
these positions compared to 32.7% for males.
This represents progress; however, disparities continue
to
persist at the top levels
of
the organizational hierarchy. This is manifested
by
low representation
of
women
in
Glass Ceiling Effects
corporate officer positions. In alignment with notions
of
glass ceiling effects,
ities appear to get more severe as individuals move
up
the occupational hierarchy.
Catalyst (2000b) shows that only 13%
of
women held corporate officer positions
in
Fortune 500 companies. As Thomas and Gabarro (1999) note, diverse groups not
only typically face much more difficulty
in
early stages
of
their careers to secure
promotions than their White colleagues, but also must be better prepared than their
colleagues if they expect
to
reach corporate officer levels.
Considering glass ceiling effects more directly, Passport to Opportunity:
u.s.
Women
in
Global Business provides a comprehensive overview
of
barriers associ-
ated with this phenomenon (Catalyst, 2000a). This study affirms that women face
greater challenges
to
entering the pool
of
qualified candidates, suffer from a lack
of
mentorship, and must deal with tightly coupled male networks
in
order to move
up
in
the organizational hicrarchy.
In
addition, lack
of
recruitment initiatives,
few
opportunities for advancing, and minimum access to information, among other chal-
lenges constitute major concerns when referring
to
the glass ceiling and to the status
of
these populations
in
this employment sector (Castro, 1997). For that reason,
when exploring the glass ceiling, one must truly assess the impact
of
organizational
environments on women and people
of
color, and must recognize the invisible and
pervasive nature
of
this phenomenon.
Moving beyond the barriers associated with glass ceiling effects, two factors
must be highlighted
in
the business sector. First, it
is
argued that the presence
of
a glass ceiling has
in
fact encouraged women and people
of
color to pursue other
routes and create their own businesses
in
order to gain access
to
leadership positions.
This reaction is attributed to continuous discrimination in the formal labor market
(Weiler & Bernasek, 200
I),
where women and people
of
color "arc expected
to
play
fW]hite male rules
in
order
to
get ahead or even
to
be accepted
in
a corporate
culture" (Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995b,
p.
41). As pointed out
by
the Center
for Women's Business Research (200S), women-owned firms show extraordinary
growth representing 40%
of
all firms. As
of
200S,
10.1
million women-owned
firms employ
13
million people and generate nearly $2 trillion
in
annual revenues.
Hispanic-owned businesses grew at three times the national rate for all companies
from 1997 to 2002, representing 1.6 million businesses according to a report from
the Census Bureau (Ohlemacher, 2006). The implications
of
these statistics are out
of
the scope
of
this chapter, but
it
is
undeniable that the progress
of
women and
racial/ethnic groups and the connection to the glass ceiling ought to be considered.
The
Armed
Forces as an Employment Sector
Over the past two decades, the armed forces have been viewed
by
some as a model
for the American labor force for equal opportunity practices, mainly referring
to
pay
and benefits (Evenson & Nesbitt, 2004). However, for women and people
of
color
in
this employment sector, numerical representational disparities are apparent at all
ranks, and worsen as one explores the hierarchy structure at top levels. Since the
late 1940s, the representation
of
women
in
the armed forces has "increased from
less than one percent to approximately
16%
of
the total force popUlation, with the
358 359
J.F.L. Jackson and R.A. Loon
Air Force displaying the largest proportion, 17%, while the Marine Corps has the
smallest representation at
6%"
(Evertson & Nesbitt, 2004, p. I). However, despite
this growth, low representation is accompanied by low rates
of
promotion, where
the small numbers
of
women promoted as percentages
of
total promoted indicate
the presence
of
a glass ceiling (Baldwin, 1996b).
One
of
the main reasons cited to explain this phenomenon
of
low representation
at senior-level positions4 is the fact that until the 1990s, women were not allowed
to participate on
fly
combat missions
or
serve on combat vessels
at
sea. Because
of
these impediments, they were also excluded from direct ground combat, which
comprises 33%
of
the Army's positions and is the branch from which most generals
come (Baldwin, I 996a). Considering these circumstances, it appears logical to think
that advancing to senior-leadership roles was implicitly out
of
the picture for women
in
some
fields within the armed forces. However, one must not ignore the culture
of
discrimination
in
the armed forces, where practices that extend beyond mere reg-
ulations have prevented women from accessing cenain ranks and have limited the
progress
of
women.
Evertson and Nesbitt (2004) note that men are not particularly comfortable when
working around women, especially when situated in leadership positions. Cases are
cited in their study where male officers continuously refuse to share responsibilities
with female officers,
or
to even directly communicate with them. They also note that
as part
of
the discrimination practices common in the armed forces, the behavior
of
one individual is generalized
to
the whole population (e.g., all other women
in
the
armed forces). This attitude can be attributed
in
part to the power
of
"good old
boys" networks that still play a major role on the rates
of
promotion
of
female
officers, forcing women to continuously prove themselves regardless
of
their rank
or
experience, reinforcing credibility before being accepted
by
male groups.
As stated by Evertson and Nesbitt (2004), slower progression through the ranks
and a lack
of
representation above the rank
of
Captain (03) is a common denomi-
nator for women in the armed forces. Everston and Nesbitt suggest that this lack
of
representation is equivalent to what occurs to the female population in other sectors
of
the workforce, where their representation is reduced above middle management
positions. To support this claim, Table 2 illustrates the percentage
of
women serving
in
the armed forces at each level
of
the officer ranking system
(0-
I to
0-10)
and pro-
vides valuable insights to understand the status
of
women in this employment sector
(Office
of
the Under Secretary
of
Defense Personnel and Readiness, 2002). As this
table indicates, women are outnumbering males at the lower levels
of
the officer
ranking system (i.e., Company Grade
(01-03
».
However, as one progresses through
the armed forces, men have a higher representation at the Field Grade (04-06) and
the General Officer (07-010) ranks.
For people
of
color, their experiences resemble those
of
women, where dis-
crimination practices and a hostile environment defines their experiences
of
many
officers
of
color. Adams (1997) cites the case
of
the Marine Corps as
an
organization
with a "racially troubled" reputation. Although Adams found that this organization
has continuously attempted to change these perceptions by focusing on minor-
ity concerns and emphasizing minority officer achievements and opportunities, its
Glass Ceiling Elfects
Table 2 Commissioned officer representation by racelethnicity and gender (2004)
01-03 (Company 04-06 (Field
07-010
(General
Armed forces grade)(%) grade) (%) officer)(%)
Army
White 57.2 41.2 0.5
African American
60.1
39.6 0.3
Hispanic 68.6 31.2
0.1
Male 57.3 41.3 0.5
Female 66.8
33.1
0.0
Navy *
White 56.2 43.4 0.5
African American 71.9
2804
0.2
Hispanic 78.0 21.9
0.1
Male 58.4 41.1
004
Female 62.7 37.2
0.1
Air force
White 56.0 43.6 0.4
African American 60.0 39.6 0.3
Hispanic 55.0 45.0 0.0
Male 55.3
44.3
0.5
Female 67.4 32.5
0.1
Marine corps
While 61.2 38.2 0.6
African American 74.0 25.8 0.3
Hispanic 79.9 20.0 0.0
Male 62.7 36.9 0.5
Female 79.5
2004
0.1
'The
equivalent officer groupings in the Navy for pay grade are: junior grade,
mid·grade and
flag
Source: U.S. Department
of
Defense, PopUlation Representation
in
the Military
Services. FY2002 (2004, Tables 4 and 48).
reputation appears to reflect a larger problem affecting the entire armed forces.
Corroborating this concern, many White officers still believe that people
of
color
have "weak academic and military educational backgrounds" and they are promoted
only because
of
preferential treatment
or
quotas, rather than merit
or
ability (Office
of
the Under Secretary
of
Defense Personnel and Readiness, 2002,
p.
83). These
assumptions are based in part on the perception that historically Black colleges pro-
vide a lower quality education. However, HBCUs are a major source
of
African
AmericanslBlacks that attain officer ranks, especially
in
the Army. As a result, their
contributions must not be overlopked. especially when
43%
of
all 706 officer com-
missions awarded to African AmericansIBlacks were earned by HBCU graduates
(Office
of
the Under Secretary
of
Defense Personnel and Readiness, 2002.)
360
361
J.EL. Jackson and R.A. Leon
Illustrating the negative effect
of
a discriminatory and hostile environment, a
CBS News (2008) report highlighted that despite the fact that 60 years have passed
since President Truman desegregated the military
in
1948:
Only one
of
the 38 four-star generals
or
admirals serving as
of
May [2008] was [BJlack.
And just 10 [B]lack men have ever gained four-star rank -
five
in the Army. four in the Air
Force and one
in
the Navy (n.p.).
These statistics are alarming and contribute to building a case where the
low
repre-
sentation
in
senior-level positions
in
the armed forces signals the presence
of
a glass
ceiling. Likewise, the proportion
of
Whites
in
pay grades
0-4
and above is consis-
tently greater than those for people
of
color
of
the same gender
in
an officer ranking
system (0-1
to
0-010)
(Office
of
the Under Secretary
of
Defense Personnel and
Readiness, 2002). Table 2 presents
an
overview
of
these disparities across the armed
forces and illustrates that African AmericanslBlacks outnumber White officers at the
lower end
of
the ranking system (Company Grade (01-03»
in
all branches
of
the
armed forces. but this trend
is
reversed as officers advance through the ranks. For
Hispanics, a similar outcome
is
presented for the Army, the Navy, and the Marine
Corps. However,
in
the Air Force. Whites outnumber Hispanics at the Company
Grade (01-03)
by
one percentage point, and Hispanics outnumber Whites by
1.4%
and at the Field Grade
(04-06)
rank. However, at the General Officer level, the rep-
resentation
of
Whites
is
consistent with the presence
of
a glass ceiling for people
of
color.
Higher Educatioll as all Employment Sector
Employment data
in
the United States illustrates
an
increased presence
of
diverse
groups
in
the workforce today (Toossi, 2005). However, this increased presence
does not necessarily guarantee that doors will open for diverse groups
to
advance to
senior-level positions, and some scholars stress that the workforce environment
in
higher education is still less receptive than other employment sectors
of
the economy
(Bain & Cummings, 2000; Burbridge, 1994). While our chapter narrows it's inquiry
of
senior-level positions
in
higher education to academic leadership positions, we
do include literature and relevant findings on senior-level faculty
in
order to help
eontextualize the challenge
in
higher education. Namely, Trower and Chait (2002)
state that despite 30 years
of
affirmative action, full-time faculty
in
the country
at
recognized universities remains largely White and male, and they suggested that
institutions must not ignore what hides beneath the surface, embedded
in
the core
of
each organization, where unweIcoming environments are nourished
by
practices
of
discrimination and the views
of
a dominant majority.
Regarding the status
of
women
in
the higher education workforce, the percent-
age
of
women
in
full-time faculty position reached 36%
in
1998,
an
increase
of
13
percentage points since the I 970s (Trower & Chait, 2002). These statistics confirm
that
in
terms
of
professional standing, women arc slowly moving through the ranks
of
colleges and universities (Ards, Brintnall, & Woodward, 1997; Johnsrud, 1991).
Despite this substantial gain, differences persist with women representing only 24%
Glass Ceiling Effects
of
all
full
professors, and "the gap between percentage
of
tenured men and the per-
centage
of
tenured women has not changed
in
30 years" (Trower & Chait, 2002,
n.p.).
Another aspect relevant to the status
of
women
in
higher education
is
that
in
addi-
tion to an overrepresentation
of
women at the lower academic ranks, they tend to
advance
in
the faculty track
in
certain types
of
institutions (Jennifer, 2005). Women
are more likely to gain full-time faculty status in public 2-year colleges and liberal
arts colleges with a 44 and 37% representation respectively. However, they are less
likely
to
attain this status
in
public and private doctoral universities. Only 25%
of
full-time faculty in public doctoral granting institutions are women, and this low
representation is mirrored with 23%
in
private doctoral granting institutions.
As
in
the business sector, a gap
in
compensation
is
also evident for women at the insti-
tutional level. On average, women earn $4,400 less than their malc counterparts
in
2-year colleges, and $8,350 less
in
doctoral-granting institutions for faculty with a
full professor status (Trower & Chait, 2002).
At the presidentiallevcl, Corrigan (2002) cites The American College President
Report issued by the American Council
on
Education (ACE)
to
reveal two trou-
bling facts
in
relation to the representation
of
women. First, women hold 40%
of
all faculty and senior staff positions, but only 21.\ %
of
all college presidents are
women. Their representation
in
the president positions at baccalaureate institutions
is
18.7 and 25%
in
2-year colleges (Jennifer, 2005). Second, males constitute 80%
of
college and university presidents, 83%
of
business officers, and 75%
of
academic
dcans. Therefore, these aforementioned data represent a small part
of
a larger con-
cern, where women are not only underrepresented at the presidential rank but face
a work environment that obstructs their development as professionals (Chliwniak,
J997). Morley (2006) attempts to uncover these abstract and nebulous forms
of
gen-
der discrimination through the use
of
the conceptual framework
of
mieropolitics.5
The glass ceiling encompasses many
of
these forms
of
discrimination, and acknowl-
edging this reality becomes a
key
aspect
of
understanding how these practices are
reflected
in
the low levels
of
representation
of
women and people
of
color
in
the
academy.
It
is further argued that policy reforms with a national scope do not always
target what occurs at the level
of
individual or group experiences (Morley, 2006).
Therefore, forms
of
gender discrimination sometimes represented
by
"sarcasm,
jokes, exclusions and throwaway remarks" (p. 544) are indeed, "notoriously dif-
ficult to disrupt via policy interventions such as gender mainstreaming and equality
of
opportunities" (p. 541).
For women, this becomes a serious issue, particularly considering that the per-
centage
of
advanced degrees received
by
this group has steadily increased during the
last three decades. Women received 57%
of
master's degrees and 44%
of
doctoral
degrees
in
the year 2000 (Trower & Chait, 2002). However, they are still underrep-
resented at the apex
of
higher education institutions and studies (e.g. Cotter et aI.,
200 I; Cunis, 2005; Riger, Stokes, Raja, & Sullivan, 1997) reveal gaps
in
salary,
overt forms
of
discrimination, and the presence
of
women with executive posi-
tions in less prestigious institutions, signaling the presence
of
a glass ceiling for
this group.
362 363
J.EL. Jackson and R.A. Leon
Regarding the presence
of
people
of
color
in
the higher education workforce,
Jackson and O'Callaghan (2009) state that the exploration
of
glass ceiling effects
in
higher education is a relatively young and growing area
of
research. However, there
is evidence that concludes that race is the most significant explanation for persis-
tent differences
in
rank among faculty, and suggests the presence
of
a glass ceiling
for these populations at the senior-level ranks (Ards
et
aI., 1997; Jackson, 2004b;
Jackson & Daniels, 2007). In Fall 200 I, faculty
of
color made up approximately
15%
of
all faculty
in
higher education, with AsianlPacific Islander faculty repre-
senting 6.5%
of
this group, followed
by
African AmericanlBlack faculty with 5.4%,
and Hispanic faculty with a
3.1
% representation (Jennifer, 2005).
Similar to the status
of
women
in
academe, people
of
color are also better rep-
resented at the lower levels
of
faculty positions. For instance, 24%
of
all African
AmericanlBlack and 25%
of
all Hispanic full-time faculty are employed at the
instructor and/or lecturer level, while only
17%
of
all White faculty held these posi-
tions. In this case, it is necessary to point out that a lowcr percentage
of
Asian/Pacific
Islander faculty (13%) are employed at this level. However, at the other end of the
academic hierarchy, only 10.2%
of
all faculty with full professor status are peo-
ple
of
color, with a 5.2% representation
of
Asian/Pacific Islander faculty, followed
by a
3.1
% representation of African AmericanlBlack faculty, and a 1.9% figure for
Hispanic faculty. This lack
of
representation has certainly become a persistent phe-
nomenon for people
of
color, where disparities are reflected in the fact that
91
%
of
full-time professors at research universities are White (Trower & Chait, 2002).
Likewise, as evidenced
by
the proportion
of
African AmericanlBlack faculty at pre-
dominantly White institutions today, their representation
is
practically the same as
in
1979, and they are less likely to obtain full professor status
or
tenure when compared
to White faculty (Bradburn, Sikora, & Zimbler, 2002).
These statistics highlight the fact that people
of
color continue to be largely
employed
in
faculty positions below the assistant professor category. As mentioned
by Trower and Chait (2002), this can be attributed to the presence
of
a glass ceil-
ing, and a comparison can be made between what is happening to people
of
color
in
higher education with the current status
of
people
of
color in the business sec-
tor and armed forces, where Hispanics and African AmericanslBlacks
in
particular
continue to struggle and face barriers when attempting to reach leadership positions
within these employment sectors. In higher education, these two groups face tremen-
dous challenges, and the glass ceiling
is
more pervasive at the levels
of
executive,
administrative, and managerial litles, where Whites hold the overwhelming major-
ity,
representing 83%
of
these positions (Jennifer, 2005). In 2004, the total number
of
president posts was 3,896 and White presidents held 86.3%
of
these positions
(Jennifer, 2005). Data published
by
the American Council
of
Education shows that
this trend continues, and
in
2006, African Americans/Blacks held 5.8%
of
all pres-
idencies, Hispanics accounted for 4.6%, AsianslPacific Islanders held 0.9%, and
American Indians and Multiracial presidents made
up
0.7 and 1.5% respectively
(Ryu,2008).
Overall, 13.6%
of
all college presidencies arc held
by
people
of
color (King
& Gomez, 2007). However, Corrigan (2002) suggests that a deeper interpretation
must accompany these statistics, because the total percentage
of
presidents
of
color
Glass Ceiling Effects
includes presidents
in
historically Black colleges and universities and Hispanic
Serving Institutions (HSIs). This clarification ought
to
be considered because "vir-
tually all
of
the HBCUs are headed
by
African-Americans and more than one-third
of
Hispanic-serving institutions (HIS) are headed
by
Hispanics" (Jennifer, 2005,
p. 20). As such,
it
must not be ignored that leadership roles are perceived and
judged on the type
of
institutions that one leads, and as Jackson and O'Callaghan
(2009) argue,
if
women and people
of
color tend to secure senior-level positions
in
less prestigious 4-year institutions, a careful interpretation must take place
in
order to truly understand what occurs at the top
of
the higher education hierarchy.
1cnnifer (2005) refers to the concentration of people
of
eolor
in
2 year institu-
tions and draws attention to the fact that
in
2004, 39%
of
African American/Black
presidents, and 44%
of
Hispanic presidents served
in
2-year institutions. However,
only 36%
of
White presidents served
in
2-year institutions. In 4-year institutions,
the opposite occurs with 64%
of
White presidents holding this post, but only
60.9%
of
African Americans, and 55.6%
of
all Hispanic presidents serving
in
these
institutions.
Overall, these figures support Jennifer's (2005) claim. However,
it
is
necessary
to
clarify that this interpretation must be set
in
the appropriate context
to
understand
what
is
occurring
in
higher education. First.
it
is undeniable that White males still
hold the largest share
of
president posts
in
higher education. However,
it
must not
be
ignored that some progress has been made for pcople
of
color
in
senior-level posi-
tions, and certain groups fair better
in
specific types
of
institutions. For instance.
presidents
of
color are slightly better represented
in
public institutions when com-
pared with their private counterparts.
In
2006. approximately
15%
of
presidents
in
public institutions were people
of
color, but only 8% held this position
in
private
institutions (Ryu, 2008). The opposite occurs for White and Asian presidents, who
are better represented
in
private institutions. Table 3 offers a summary
of
these data
for
the
period between 1995 and 2005.
However, what is
of
particular concern
is
the fact that
few
people
of
color
lead prestigious institutions (Harvey, 1999). and this literature review suggests that
organiultions dealing with glass ceiling effects could benefit from examining this
phenomenon across three different sectors
in
order
to
find
responses to their own
predicaments. As the field
of
higher education continues to address glass ceiling
effects, understanding how organizations can reduce and hopefully eliminate the
glass ceiling is a priority.
To
better understand how organizational arrangements can
be shaped
by
workplace discrimination
in
such ways that they beeome embedded
in
the nature
of
organizations, this chapter provided
an
overview
of
a selected form
of
workplace discrimination (i.e., glass ceiling elfects) across two employment sectors
beyond higher education. Through this approach,
we
offered scholars and practi-
tioners a heuristic tool to build upon when examining other forms of workplace
discrimination embedded across colleges and universities. Glass ceiling effects were
selected because as previously noted
by
Jackson and O'Callaghan (2009), the explo-
ration
of
this specific type
of
discrimination
is
a relatively young and growing area
of
research and there is no doubt that higher education can immensely benefit from
the experiences
of
other employment sectors attempting to move toward workforce
diversity, while confronting workplace discrimination challenges.
364 365
J.F.L. Jackson and R.A. Leon
Table 3 College and university presidents
by
institutional type, race/ethnicity, and gender:
1995
and 2005
1995 2005
Private Public 2-year 4-year Private Public 2-year 4-year
Raceletllllicity
African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
White
Gender
Male
Female
62
8
21
1,426
1,697
381
109
51
14
1,049
1,243
217
57
31
10
875
1,156
258
114
27
25
1,594
1,777
339
86
23
32
1,581
1,733
423
125
68
13
1,147
1,135
385
70
48
II
953
1,025
391
141
42
34
1,763
1,832
414
Note: Figures include presidents
of
regionally accredited, degree-granting institutions
in
the
United States
or
its outlying areas (e.g., Puerto Rico). The term president is defined within
the American Counci I on Education's ART Corporate Database
as
the president, chancellor,
superintendent, executive director, campus dean, etc., including interim/acting president heading
regionally accredited institutions, branches, and affiliates.
Source: American Council on Education database. Data compiled
in
June 2006.
The Workforce Diversity Challenge in Higher Education:
A National Portrait
of
Senior-Level Academic Leadership
Positions
Jennifer (2005) reminds us that higher education is one
of
the largest employ-
ment sectors
in
the U.S. economy.
In
Fall 2001, 3,083,353 including full-time and
part-time individuals were employed
by
colleges and universities across the nation.
Considering the size
of
this employment sector,
it
appears rational to expect that
an
increasingly diverse society will,
of
course,
be
reflected
in
increasingly diverse col-
leges and universities (Blimling, Whitt, & Associates, 1999). Unfortunately, this
is not the reality for many institutions and there
is
evidence
of
a great concern
among campus leaders dealing with issues that refer to campus climate and diver-
sity (Hurtado
et
aI., 1999). However, diversity as a challenge is not a recent one, as
higher education leaders have attempted to address issues involving campus climate
for many years (Hurtado, 1992; Kezar, 2008).
The pathways or trajectories to academic leadership positions are seldom dis-
cussed
in
the literature
or
in
open forums (GmeJch, 2003). For most faculty
academic leadership positions are an "after thought" and not an aspiration, because
assuming administrative positions
is
seen
as
changing careers (Moore, 1983; Moore
& Sagaria. 1982). However, some view the work
of
the academy (university'S busi-
ness) as the work
of
the intellect, thus believing that faculty and administrators share
the same work and career (Martin, 1988). This idea
is
embodied
by
the notion
of
the
"first among equals" concept and that administrators should come from the ranks
of
facuIty (Montez, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 2003).
The administration
of
higher education institutions can
be
broken down into at
least three specialty areas: (a) academic affairs (i.e., academic leadership positions);
Glass Ceiling Effects
(b) student affairs; and (c) administrative affairs (Sagaria, 1988). Academic affairs
or
academic leadership positions include positions sueh as: president, academic deans,
vice president or provost
of
research, and department chairs. Student affairs posi-
tions include: vice president for student affairs, dean
of
students, and director
of
financial aid. Administrative affairs encompass positions such as vice president for
finance, director
of
alumni affairs, and the director
of
computer services. Career
mobility differs among the three specialty areas (Moore & Sagaria, 1982); however,
the focus
of
this chapter is on the area
of
academic leadership positions which are
typically held
by
faculty.
The journey to academic leadership generally requires successfully navigating
three significant hurdles (Gmelch, 2003). First, one would have
to
successfully
obtain a terminal (e.g., Ph.D.)