Content uploaded by Sarah Winterwood
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah Winterwood on Aug 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work
David Purcell*, Kelly Rhea MacArthur and Sarah Samblanet
Department of Sociology, Kent State University
Abstract
The glass ceiling is a popular metaphor for explaining the inability of many women to advance
past a certain point in their occupations and professions, regardless of their qualifications or
achievements. In this article, we review sociological research on glass ceiling effects at work. We
discuss the current state of the glass ceiling, methodological and theoretical concerns with research
in this area, and a number of the key factors that contribute to the creation and maintenance of
glass ceiling effects, including selection effects, cultural capital, homophily, networking, gender ste-
reotypes, gender discrimination and occupational segregation, and characteristics of organizations.
We conclude with a discussion of research that is aimed at lessening gendered glass ceiling dispari-
ties in the workplace.
Introduction
Like many social science concepts that enter the mainstream, discussions of the glass ceil-
ing are often fraught with confusion and misunderstanding. In 1999, Carly Fiorina
became the first woman to lead a Fortune 100 company when she was named the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of Hewlett–Packard. Although Fiorina was one of just three
female CEOs in the entire Fortune 500, she told reporters that women face ‘no limits
whatsoever…there is not a glass ceiling’ (Meyer 1999). Yet nearly a decade later, Senator
Hilary Clinton referenced the barrier while conceding the Democratic presidential nomi-
nation to Barack Obama, noting that although she was unable to ‘shatter that highest,
hardest glass ceiling’ in the land, her supporters helped her put ‘about 18 million cracks
in it’ (Nagourney and Leibovich 2008). The complexity of questions surrounding the
glass ceiling is reflected in the headlines of important mainstream publications: e.g. Wash-
ington Post, ‘Does a Glass Ceiling Persist in Politics?’ (Kornblut 2009); Forbes, ‘Are
Women Happy Under The Glass Ceiling?’ (Clark 2006); and The Economist, ‘The
Conundrum of the Glass Ceiling’ (2005).
What does the glass ceiling refer to exactly? The popular metaphor explains the failure
of many women to advance past a certain point in their occupations and professions,
regardless of their qualifications or achievements (Cotter et al. 2001; Lorber 1994). This
concept was popularized by a Wall Street Journal column in 1986 and later served as the
focus of a government committee chaired by then Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich.
The committee’s report defined the glass ceiling as ‘those artificial barriers based on atti-
tudinal or organizational bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in
their organization into management level positions’ (U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission
1995). (The report extended the original usage of the term to include racial⁄ethnic
minorities and all managerial and decision-making positions. This article will focus only
on the gendered glass ceiling.)
Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
ª2010 The Authors
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The glass ceiling does not refer to all gender disparities, but rather to those that are
more pronounced at higher levels of an organizational hierarchy than they are at lower
levels. This unique form of inequality has been documented in a variety of occupational
settings (Elliott and Smith 2004), as well as more specifically in large corporations (Cata-
lyst 1999, 2007, Kanter 1977), science (Rosser 2004), law firms (Gorman and Kmec
2009; Kay and Hagan 1998), social work (Chernesky 2003; Gibelman and Schervish
1993), state-level bureaucracies (Reid et al. 2004), manufacturing (Tabak 1997), and cler-
ical and service jobs (Harlan and Berheide 1994). However, as noted earlier, there is a fair
amount of confusion over the extent to which the glass ceiling still exists. We know that
women have entered the workforce at greater numbers than ever before – are not they
making headway into management positions as well?
In this article, we will clarify the current state of the glass ceiling. First, we explore the
extent to which the glass ceiling continues to limit the upward mobility of women in
21st century America. The public uncertainty over this issue is unfortunate, as sociologi-
cal research finds that women are still far less likely than white men to be found in the
upper levels of organizational management. Second, we examine theoretical and method-
ological concerns associated with the study of the glass ceiling. In the third section, we
outline the most significant causes of the glass ceiling. We close with a brief discussion of
research aimed at lessening glass ceiling effects.
What is the current state of the gendered glass ceiling?
Over the past few decades, American companies have come under pressure to increase
female representation and reduce discriminatory practices. Fueled by legislation such as
the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, and most
recently, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, many workplaces have developed for-
mal hiring and promotion policies that limit the discretion that often leads to discrimina-
tion (Dencker 2008; Diprete and Soule 1988). Although women have entered the labor
force at increasing rates over the last forty years and now represent approximately half of
the American workforce, they are frequently not promoted to the high-paying manage-
ment roles that are predominantly occupied by white men. Women have the skills, quali-
fications, and desire for positions of power, authority, and prestige – and are often close
enough to the top of work hierarchies to be considered for such positions – but receive
them far less often than white men (Maume 2004).
Some progress has been made: from 1983 to 2000, the percentage of managerial jobs
held by women increased from 32 to 45 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002). But
women fare much worse at higher levels of organizational hierarchies. A 2006 study of
the management of Fortune 500 companies found that women made up just 1% of
CEOs, 15.6% of corporate officers, and 6.7% of the highest-paid positions; at the cur-
rent rate of change, women would need 47 years to reach parity with men in terms of
corporate officer positions. Further, women in these companies were half as likely as
men to be in jobs that carried expense ⁄revenue responsibilities for a major account, cli-
ent, or product line (Catalyst 1999, 2007). Other studies report similar findings con-
cerning the under-representation of women in high-paying, senior executive positions
(Baxter and Wright 2000; Dencker 2008; Meyerson and Fletcher 2000; Reskin and
Padavic 1994; U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission 1995). Overall, women are disadvantaged
in nearly every aspect of work achievement, including hiring (Fernandez and Sosa
2005), income (Kilbourne, Stanek, England, Farkas, Beron and Weir,1994; Leicht
2008; Tomaskovic-Devey 1993), promotions (Acker 1990; Baldi and Mcbrier 1997;
706 Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Baron and Newman 1990), turnover (Fuller 2008), and authority (Baxter and Wright
2000; Wright et al. 1995).
Much of the research on the glass ceiling has focused on large corporations and the
professions. The legal profession is an instructive example that demonstrates the many
ways in which women are disadvantaged compared to men. Gorman (2006) finds that
women account for approximately half of law students and entry-level law firm associates
but just 17% of partners in large firms. Kay and Hagan (1998) find that men are 50%
more likely to make partner than women; several other studies find similar results (Abel
1989; Beckman and Phillips 2005; Curran 1986; Hull and Nelson 2000). Even when
women achieve partner status, a substantial gender gap in earnings persists, with the dif-
ferential increasing as women move up the ladder (Kay and Hagan 1995). The gender
gap in earnings remains, even when factors such as type of position, specialization, quality
of law school attended, academic distinction, labor supply, current work hours, family sit-
uations, and type of organization are taken into account (Hagan 1990; Noonan et al.
2005). The strength of the glass ceiling is demonstrated by the fact that women are
accepted into law school and entry-level firm positions but restricted from obtaining part-
nership status, the major indicator of high income, power, and prestige among lawyers.
Contrary to Carly Fiorina’s views, there are limits to how far women can climb on pro-
motion ladders despite having human capital and motivations that are comparable to their
male counterparts.
Researchers find that women also face systematic disadvantages in terms of vertical
mobility, authority, and low-income, lower-status jobs. Here, the phenomenon is often
described as the ‘sticky floor,’ to denote the distinction between lower-status jobs that
offer little opportunity for promotion and the white-collar jobs that are typically exam-
ined in glass ceiling research (Harlan and Berheide 1994; Reskin and Padavic 1994). The
most extensive work on the ‘sticky floor’ in low-paying jobs (i.e. jobs in which a worker
earns less than 150% of the federal poverty threshold for a family of four) is that of Har-
lan and Berheide (1994). Rather than focusing solely on vertical movement within an
internal hierarchy, the authors examine job advancement, or the barriers to mobility to
higher paying, more prestigious jobs between organizations. Using a wide range of empiri-
cal data, they document a glass ceiling in areas such as clerical work, blue-collar jobs,
service, and sales.
Harlan and Berheide’s findings are supported by more recent research that identifies
systemic barriers to job advancement for women in a variety of occupations outside of
prestigious white-collar occupations. For example, a sticky floor is present in manufactur-
ing in which women are increasingly less likely to be represented within each level of
the hierarchy (Tabak 1997). Women clergy are over-represented in subordinate positions,
a situation that remains constant over time and throughout their careers (Sullins 2000).
Women have a lower probability than men of entering leadership roles in schools, even
after controlling for personal characteristics and teaching fields (Addi-Raccah and Ayalon
2002). Male social workers are disproportionately represented in social work managerial
positions and reach those positions earlier in their careers (Gibelman and Schervish 1993).
Reskin and Padavic (1994: 82), in an extensive overview of gender in the workplace,
note that the glass ceiling is pervasive and ‘blocks on-the-job mobility of women of all
classes, as well as minorities of both sexes.’
Evidence suggests that glass ceiling effects are amplified for women of color across
occupations and outcome variables. Studies show a consistent glass ceiling effect for non-
whites in terms of managerial attainment ⁄promotion (Baldi and Mcbrier 1997; Maume
2004), authority (Elliott and Smith 2004; Mcguire and Reskin 1993), and pay gaps
Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work 707
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
(Huffman and Cohen 2004; Mccall 2001; Tomaskovic-Devey et al. 2005). However,
most studies focus on race or gender, rather than the intersectionality of race, class, and
gender (Elliott and Smith 2004). Furthermore, studies that recognize race and gender as
interlocking stratification systems often conceptualize race only as black or white, and
ignore Latinos and many other racial ⁄ethnic groups that face a glass ceiling barrier.
Theoretical and methodological concerns
As noted earlier, despite the public and scholarly attention paid to the concept of the glass
ceiling, the current state of this barrier is often misunderstood. Further, some research on
private sector firms finds that women’s mobility prospects actually improve as they climb
corporate ladders (Dencker 2008; Petersen and Saporta 2004). This lack of clarity is in
large part because of ambiguity over what the glass ceiling really means and how it should
be measured. As the previous discussion demonstrates, many different outcome variables
are used in research on the glass ceiling. While many studies focus on female representa-
tion among managers, studies also examine the gender gap in pay across many occupa-
tions (Fuller 2008; Leicht 2008) and probabilities of promotion (Diprete and Soule 1988;
Elliott and Smith 2004).
Scholars diverge over both theoretical and methodological considerations. A notable
example is Baxter and Wright’s (2000) examination of the glass ceiling hypothesis in US,
Swedish, and Australian organizations, a study that generated criticism from noted schol-
ars of gender and work. The authors conceptualized the glass ceiling to exist only when
the ratio of probabilities of women to men being promoted declines as women move up
the hierarchy, and when this probability is because of barriers to promotion rather than
other mechanisms. The study concluded that while there are gender gaps in authority for
US employees, no glass ceiling effect exists because the chances of gaining authority do
not decrease for women at higher levels of job hierarchies. Critics countered that such a
literal definition of the glass ceiling ignores three key facts: levels within an internal labor
market are not independent of each other (Ferree and Purkayastha 2000); self-reported
occupational positions likely reflect gendered definitions of jobs; and occupational sex
segregation has already sorted individuals into fields more or less likely for promotion to
high-paying, decision-making, prestigious positions (Britton and Williams 2000).
Further, Ferree and Purkayastha (2000) criticized Baxter and Wright’s notions on a
number of grounds: combining data across different time periods, which obscured historic
and political conditions that could have affected odds of promotion; using six levels of
management, aggregated across occupations and industries, while not taking into account
occupational sex segregation; and examining only the women who remained in the labor
force, which did not recognize the women who have already left because of the effects
of the glass ceiling. Britton and Williams (2000) noted that the authors did not consider
the selection effect of those women who did reach the top of job hierarchies. Given that
these women are often similar to men in terms of types of personal attributes that corpo-
rations prefer for management positions – i.e. the unencumbered male who focuses on
career concerns without domestic responsibilities or interruptions – the reality is that ‘if
the only women who advance are those who are most like the men who are already in
power, it suggests that the vast majority of women face formidable obstacles to the top’
(Britton and Williams 2000: 806). Thus, because of significant theoretical and methodo-
logical shortcomings, Baxter and Wright’s assertion and subsequent implications that
efforts toward gender equality should be focused on the bottom of job hierarchies are
flawed and echo Carly Fiorina’s misinformed comments about the glass ceiling.
708 Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Just as an overly narrow operationalization of the glass ceiling can deflect efforts toward
gender equality, so too can an overly broad approach. Cotter et al. (2001) bring clarity to
this issue by proposing that the glass ceiling must be a form of gender inequality that: (1)
is not explained by an employee’s other job-relevant characteristics; (2) is greater at
higher levels of a given outcome (e.g. earnings, managerial attainment, or authority); (3)
represents gender inequality in the chances of advancement into higher levels; and (4)
increases over the course of a career. Research employing these criteria finds that women
face a glass ceiling in terms of earnings (Cotter et al. 2001) and managerial attainment
(Maume 2004).
Gorman and Kmec (2009) make significant theoretical contributions to glass ceiling
scholarship by arguing that various processes, including gendered stereotypes, lead deci-
sion-makers to select men over women at all levels, and that key factors – high status,
work uncertainty, and the historical predominance of male incumbents – characterize
highly ranked positions and heighten the gender bias of decision-makers. Further, the
authors contend that a pattern of increasing disadvantage in internal promotions is most
likely to be found in large organizations, on identifiable job ladders, and where entry-
level positions are relatively integrated by gender. The authors support their arguments
with findings from an examination of corporate law firms. Studies such as these are
important for refining the glass ceiling concept theoretically and methodologically, and
thus, demonstrating that the glass ceiling is distinct from more general gender disparities,
and a form of inequality with unique causes, effects, and solutions.
How is the glass ceiling created and maintained?
Some of the most compelling work in this area uncovers factors that contribute to the
creation and maintenance of glass ceiling effects, an important step toward developing
policy solutions that are targeted at such disparities in the workplace. In this section, we
present an overview of some of the most salient factors.
Opting out?
The processes that select out women from paid work are a major barrier to work
advancement. This initial selection effect is germane to the glass ceiling because it reduces
the number of women in the workforce, particularly in certain jobs. Thus, many women
never even encounter the glass ceiling because they are prevented from entering the
doorway to paid employment.
Both in popular rhetoric and research, many have explained women’s tendency to
leave work, reduce their hours, or not work in the first place as a product of personal
preferences for more traditional female roles or an inability to balance work and family.
Men often question whether women’s assumed primary roles as caretakers of home life
will hinder their abilities to be successful in careers (Davies-Netzley 1998). Recent work
by Stone (2007), however, suggests that many women are being ‘forced out’ of work
rather than ‘opting out’ and identifies factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Strong
ideologies of caring compel women to invest heavily in mothering and elder care.
Women also experience discrepancies between societal messages and realities. Many hus-
bands offer symbolic support to wives trying to balance work and family but opt out of
sharing family responsibilities in favor of privileging their own career advancement. Fur-
ther, ‘family friendly’ policies in the workplace often translate into unstable arrangements
and significant career penalties. Thus, women who try to balance being ideal workers
Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work 709
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
and ideal mothers face a ‘double bind.’ Such ‘supermoms’ often face burnout and marital
difficulties from trying to balance work with a ‘second shift’ of family responsibilities at
home (Hochschild 1989). For these women, ‘options’ are rarely options at all.
Cultural capital and homophily
Cultural capital and homophily preferences are influential, yet elusive contributors to the
glass ceiling. These informal, interactional processes are vital for understanding how sys-
tems of stratification are reinforced and reproduced at the microlevel. A number of
researchers have drawn on the work of Pierre Bourdieu (2001) to examine how forms of
capital are used to create and maintain social networks. Lizardo (2006) notes that the con-
sumption of cultural goods is one of the primary ways that people create and maintain
social integration. However, cultural capital can be used both as a ‘fence’ to exclude and
as a ‘bridge’ to include others in particular networks. Kay and Hagan (1998) found that
although men were more likely than women to attain partner status, firm-related cultural
capital (e.g., the respondent’s desire to be a senior partner, his or her status in terms of
public recognition, and if she ⁄he was honored by a professional organization) and the
ability to attract clients were positive factors only for women. In other words, law firms
were predisposed to offer partnerships to men, and women were expected to demonstrate
exceptional performance in cultural terms to advance.
Homophily, the tendency for individuals to associate with others who are socially and
culturally similar, also influences women’s occupational mobility. As revealed in Kanter’s
(1977) classic work, management positions, especially higher in the corporate hierarchy
where the glass ceiling is likely to occur, are generally marked by a great deal of uncer-
tainty in terms of decision-making. Interdependence and rapid communication are
required among managers and their subordinates, and these job characteristics lead manag-
ers to value traits such as trust, discretion, and predictability in their hires. Managers seek
to find these traits by hiring employees who are similar to them socially and culturally.
Thus, men are generally more likely to receive the mentorship that is crucial for success
in the workplace (Ragins and Cotton 1991; Ragins and Scandura 1997). Meanwhile,
women who succeed in male-dominated jobs often face hostility, harassment, isolation,
and heightened stress as ‘tokens’ (Kanter 1977; Roth 2004b; Spangler et al. 1978). Kanter
termed this process ‘homosocial reproduction,’ because it illustrates how the demograph-
ics of an organization are reproduced. Given that white men have long dominated man-
agement positions in various occupations, homophily processes have played a key role in
the construction and maintenance of the glass ceiling.
Homophily preferences are not limited to co-workers. Erickson et al. (2000) found
that some clients resisted female workers in the security industry, while Roth (2004a)
found that Wall Street clients often prefer to work with professionals who are similar to
themselves. Again, this is in large part because of the assumption that similar others are
trustworthy and competent, and that similarity leads to increased efficiency and improved
communication. Whether client preference is real or perceived matters little, as organiza-
tions use these to match providers and clients who are similar.
Individuals also use these perceived preferences to make decisions about their own
career paths. Roth (2004a), for example, found that women were most likely to succeed
in areas that workers perceived as less influenced by client preferences, and the same
women were likely to move to such jobs. Overall, perceptions of homophily preferences
often serve to perpetuate inequality along gendered lines. However, these preferences
are subject to influence as well: Beckman and Phillips (2005) suggest that increased
710 Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
relationships with external corporate female leaders increase the preference for working
with women within a corporation.
Networking
Workplace networks are closely related to homophily and cultural capital. Networks con-
fer certain benefits and advantages to members, such as information, resources, and sup-
port (Ibarra 1997), and these advantages can translate into large differences in workplace
mobility, status, and pay by reproducing inequality. Among Wall Street professionals,
women could not participate in some networking opportunities with male colleagues
because to do so would mean overstepping gendered expectations about heterosexual
femininity – a move that would no doubt hinder relationships with peers and clients in
addition to sacrificing their own feelings of personal comfort. Although men could
choose whether to participate in male networking activities, women did not have the
option to participate (Roth 2004a). Men generally have more opportunities to engage in
homosocial reproduction and therefore exceed at reproducing power through networks
(Elliott and Smith 2004).
However, men often do not realize or acknowledge the role that networking plays in
success. The corporate men in Davies-Netzley’s (1998) research minimized the role of
social networks and instead emphasized personal qualifications and meritocracy in their
success. They also endorsed patriarchal explanations for the scarcity of women in top
positions, which they attributed to a lack of necessary skills and knowledge. Corporate
women, however, emphasized the importance of social networks in achieving corporate
success, especially for elite positions. They noted that among the ‘old boys’ network, sim-
ilar interests and activities increase men’s chances of promotion but relegate women to
the status of ‘outsiders to a system that accommodates men’ (Davies-Netzley 1998: 347).
Even when women are able to break into male circles, workers may rank network
members along gendered lines. Examining survey data from over one thousand financial
services employees, Mcguire (2002) found that while female workers often had a similar
number of network members, they received less informal help than did men, even when
the women and their network members controlled valuable resources. These findings
suggest that gendered workplace rankings mirror gendered cultural rankings in which
women are held in less esteem and status than men. Women and men may also use
different types of networks to access similar occupational resources (Ibarra 1997).
Gendering and gender stereotypes
Examining the workplace as both a gendered institution and a site for producing gender
is a promising framework for understanding gender inequality (Acker 1990, 2006; Erick-
son et al. 2000; Martin 2003; Ridgeway 1997). Organizations are gendered because
‘advantage and disadvantage…are patterned through and in terms of a distinction between
male and female, masculine and feminine’ (Acker 1990: 146). Put succinctly, the values,
qualifications, and criteria important for succeeding in organizations have derived from
existing gender hierarchies and favor the ideal male worker. Glass ceiling research pro-
vides consistent evidence of gender inequality embedded in organizational logic that is
reinforced by labor divisions, symbols and images, interactions, and identities (Acker
1990; Martin 2003; Ridgeway 1997).
Existing gender hierarchies are reproduced in occupational hierarchies in part through
the uncertainty that surrounds women as workers. Women are often viewed as less
Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work 711
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
influential and less competent than men (Erickson et al. 2000; Gorman 2006; Lucas
2003). Men often doubt women’s abilities to do certain jobs (Erickson et al. 2000) and
assume that women’s primary roles are as caretakers of the home, which will hinder their
performance on the job. Notably, men often do not view family responsibilities as
hindrances to their own careers, likely because they understand their primary family roles
as financial bread-winners (Davies-Netzley 1998).
For example, Kay and Hagan (1998) describe how having children benefits male and
female lawyers in different ways. Prospects for men’s partnership increase by having chil-
dren, while women’s prospects increase by taking parental leave (and returning). The
authors suggest that this represents a set of gendered expectations: men signify commit-
ment to firm culture simply by having children while women must have children, take
parental leave, and return to working the same hours to demonstrate commitment to the
firm. Women but not men are ‘required to embody standards that are an exaggerated
form of a partnership ideal’ (Kay and Hagan 1998: 739).
Gorman (2006) describes how women are required to perform better than men to
achieve the same levels as men. In law firms, uncertainty about female professionals
decreases the probability that they will be offered promotions, especially when the major-
ity of those making promotion decisions are men. Thus, uncertainty leads to homo-
social reproduction and the persistent belief that males are competent and women are not
(Erickson et al. 2000; Gorman 2006). In order to advance, women must perform beyond
the baseline requirements acceptable for men’s advancement; additionally, research sug-
gests that women have to work harder as a result of being held to stricter performance
standards (Gorman and Kmec 2007).
Discrimination and segregation
The effects of workplace discrimination and segregation offer a clear reminder that sepa-
ration is never equal. Several recent studies confirm consistent historical findings that
men benefit and women suffer from work-related segregation (Cotter et al. 2003; Kmec
2005; Maume 1999; Roth 2004a). One way that gender segregation manifests is in
unbalanced workplace compositions. Cotter et al. (2003) find that women’s (particularly
black women’s) earnings suffer in gender-segregated occupations and local labor markets.
Maume (1999) finds that the percentage of women in the workplace increases the
chances that men are promoted to management positions but decreases the chances that
women are promoted to such positions; women must also wait longer to receive promo-
tions. Finally, Roth (2004a) reports that female Wall Street professionals are less likely to
work with external clients than men and are often relegated to clients and accounts that
generate less revenue.
Such segregation has consequences not only for the women who immediately experi-
ence it but for other women in the workplace as well. Cohen and Huffman (2007) report
that when qualified women are blocked from high-status management positions, their
absence increases the wage gap among non-managerial workers. When women attain
these high-status management positions, however, wage gaps among non-managerial
workers decrease. These findings suggest that desegregation in management would actu-
ally benefit women at all job levels.
The sex composition of workplaces may be influenced by inter-organizational
exchanges. Beckman and Phillips (2005) find that working with corporate clients who
employ female leaders increases the growth rate of women partners in law firms. This is
particularly true when the focal organization is dependent upon the external organization,
712 Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
and when the external organization has women in particular positions. Thus, just as the
presence of women in management positions decreases the wage gap for other women
(Cohen and Huffman 2007), the presence of female leaders in outside organizations
improves the positions of women in the home organization (Beckman and Phillips 2005).
Characteristics of organizations
Methods of recruitment are another way that organizations disadvantage women. Infor-
mal recruitment, such as network referrals, tends to reproduce higher proportions of male
workers, while open recruitment methods, such as advertising jobs or utilizing employ-
ment agencies, reduces sex ascription in hiring (Reskin and Mcbrier 2000). Organiza-
tional changes also influence the occupational mobility of women. Haveman et al. (2009)
explore the effects of organizational changes, such as founding new organizations, growth
and decline in existing organizations, and mergers, on women. Female managers were
disadvantaged during both good and bad times – they benefitted less than male managers
during periods of foundation and growth and were harmed more than male managers
during declines and mergers. The authors suggest that this is not because of gender per se,
but rather the gendered sorting that places women in the ‘lowest ranks and the smallest
firms (where) women are less able to discover and take advantages of opportunities
created in good times, and less able to protect themselves when jobs are destroyed in bad
times’ (Haveman et al. 2009: 141).
This gendered sorting, combined with organizational changes, disadvantages women
during all phases of an organization. Organizational restructuring often sets the stage for
responding to pressures for gender equity in the workplace with the result that women’s
promotion rates often exceeded men’s. However, the changes lack long-term benefits
because women started in lower-status jobs relative to men, and the benefits of promo-
tion were often brief (Dencker 2008).
Conclusion: addressing inequality
If the glass ceiling metaphor invokes images of ‘invisible barriers through which women
can see elite positions but cannot reach them’ (Davies-Netzley 1998: 340), then identify-
ing these elusive barriers is part of the solution. The research discussed earlier contributes
to this progress. Scholars have also recommended better ways to examine glass ceiling
effects. Reskin (2003) contends that sociologists should focus on causal mechanisms – the
processes that link ascribed characteristics to variable outcomes – rather than individual-
level data and the unobservable motives of those in power. Doing so harnesses a primary
strength of sociology: the ability to analyze structural inequalities and explicate the mech-
anisms that perpetuate them. To this end, sociology needs more publicly available data at
the organizational level, as well as more qualitative work that documents the moments
when inequality is created and reproduced in workplaces. Similarly, numerous scholars
(Acker 1990, 2006; Erickson et al. 2000; Martin 2003; Ridgeway 1997) advocate for the-
orizing and analyzing gender as an institution to illuminate the properties of its enduring
structure and continued inequality. This focus includes examinations of microlevel data,
such as interactions among workers, as well as macrolevel data, such as characteristics of
organizations.
Such efforts will enhance our abilities to recommend meaningful social policies that
might reduce gender disparities. Reskin and Mcbrier (2000) and Roth (2004a) find
that subjective evaluation procedures increase gender inequality in workplaces and suggest
Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work 713
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
that formal procedures – such as written rules and procedures for hiring, firing, and eval-
uations – should lessen subjective bias in decision-making. However, increased formaliza-
tion must be backed by mechanisms that ensure compliance by managers and
gatekeepers. This is particularly difficult in small organizations or those led primarily by
men, so affirmative action is likely to be necessary for providing equal opportunities
to women (Reskin and Mcbrier 2000). Research indicates that institutionalizing, and
thus legitimizing, female leadership increases equality (e.g. greater influence and pay for
women), and that having men and women work in the same positions may lessen
inequality over time (Cohen and Huffman 2007; Haveman et al. 2009; Lucas 2003).
Finally, scholars must assess the effectiveness of workplace policies. Kalev et al. (2006),
in an exemplary assessment of corporate efforts to reduce inequality and increase diversity,
find that the best practices for reducing inequality are those that establish responsibility in
the structure of the organization, rather than those that target individual bias or educa-
tion. Such practices lead to better results from diversity training and evaluations, network-
ing, and mentoring. Employers who must comply with federal affirmative action
guidelines also see stronger results from diversity programs. We hope that researchers will
build from the findings of important sociological work, such as the studies cited in this
article, to construct institution-focused theories of workplace policy, inform future
research on gender inequality in the workplace, and support efforts to crack the glass
ceiling.
Short Biography
David Purcell is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Kent State University. His research
focuses on race ⁄class ⁄gender inequality, culture, neighborhoods, work, and teaching &
learning. Much of his research focuses on the reproduction of inequality in institutional
contexts. Current projects include an examination of cultural capital in a corporate work-
place and an investigation into everyday racial segregation in urban sociocultural spaces.
His work has been published in Research in the Sociology of Work, Social Science & Medicine,
Sociological Focus, and the Journal of the National Medical Association. David received his
PhD in sociology from the University of Cincinnati.
Kelly Rhea MacArthur is a doctoral student at Kent State University. She received her
BA in sociology at Fairleigh Dickinson University and her MA at Kent State University.
Her Master’s thesis is entitled ‘Doing Gender’ in Doctor-Patient Interactions: Gender
Composition of Doctor-Patient Dyads and Communication Patterns.’ Kelly’s research
and teaching interests include medical sociology, sex ⁄gender, doctor-patient interaction,
health disparities, and health care policy.
Sarah Samblanet is a doctoral student at Kent State University. Her research interests
focus on work, family, gender, race and social psychology. Sarah is currently authoring or
co-authoring papers on self-efficacy in the workplace, work hour mismatches among
spouses, status inconsistency among couples, and organization in welfare agencies.
Note
* Correspondence address: David Purcell, Department of Sociology, Kent State University, PO Box 5190, Kent,
OH 44242-0001, USA. E-mail: dpurcell@kent.edu
714 Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
References
Abel, Richard L. 1989. American Lawyers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Acker, Joan. 1990. ‘Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.’ Gender & Society 4: 139–58.
Acker, Joan. 2006. ‘Inequality Regimes.’ Gender & Society 20: 441–64.
Addi-Raccah, Audrey, and Hanna Ayalon 2002. ‘Gender Inequality in Leadership Positions of Teachers.’ British
Journal of Sociology of Education 23: 157–77.
Anon. 2005.The Conundrum of the Glass Ceiling. The Economist 376 (8436): 63–5.
Baldi, Stephan and Debra Brabch Mcbrier 1997. ‘Do the Determinants of Promotion Differ for Blacks and Whites?’
Work & Occupations 24: 478–97.
Baron, James N. and Andrew E. Newman 1990. ‘For What It’s Worth: Organizations, Occupations, and the Value
of Work Done by Women and Nonwhites.’ American Sociological Review 55: 155–75.
Baxter, Janeen and Eric Olin Wright 2000. ‘The Glass Ceiling Hypothesis: A Comparative Study of the United
States, Sweden, and Australia.’ Gender & Society 14: 275–94.
Beckman, Christine M. and Damon J. Phillips 2005. ‘Interorganizational Determinants of Promotion: Client Lead-
ership and the Attainment of Women Attorneys.’ American Sociological Review 70: 678–701.
Bourdieu, Pierre 2001. ‘The Forms of Capital.’ Pp. 96–111 in The Sociology of Economic Life, edited by M. S. Grano-
vetter and R. Swedberg. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Britton, Dana M. and Christine L. Williams 2000. ‘Response to Baxter and Wright.’ Gender & Society 14: 804–8.
Catalyst 1999. Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners, 1999. New York.
Catalyst 2007. Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners, 2006. New York.
Chernesky, Roslyn H. 2003. ‘Examining the Glass Ceiling: Gender Influences on Promotion Decisions.’ Administra-
tion in Social Work 27: 13–8.
Clark, Hannah 2006. ‘Are Women Happy under the Glass Ceiling?’ Forbes. http://www.forbes.com (Last Accessed
August 3, 2006).
Cohen, Philip N. and Matt L. Huffman 2007. ‘Working for the Woman? Female Managers and the Gender Wage
Gap.’ American Sociological Review 72: 681–704.
Cotter, David A., Joan M. Hermsen, Seth Ovadia and Reeve Vanneman 2001. ‘The Glass Ceiling Effect.’ Social
Forces 80: 655–81.
Cotter, David A., Joan M. Hermsen and Reeve Vanneman 2003. ‘The Effects of Occupational Gender Segregation
across Race.’ Sociological Quarterly 44: 17.
Curran, Barbara A. 1986. ‘American Lawyers in the 1980s: A Profession in Transition.’ Law & Society Review 20:
19–52.
Davies-Netzley, Sally Ann 1998. ‘Women above the Glass Ceiling: Perceptions on Corporate Mobility and Strate-
gies for Success.’ Gender & Society 12: 339–55.
Dencker, John C. 2008. ‘Corporate Restructuring and Sex Differences in Managerial Promotion.’ American Sociolog-
ical Review 73: 455–76.
Diprete, Thomas A. and Whitman T. Soule 1988. ‘Gender and Promotion in Segmented Job Ladder Systems.’
American Sociological Review 53: 26–40.
Elliott, James R. and Ryan A. Smith 2004. ‘Race, Gender, and Workplace Power.’ American Sociological Review 69:
365–86.
Erickson, Bonnie H., Patricia Albanese and Slobodan Drakulic 2000. ‘Gender on a Jagged Edge.’ Work and Occupa-
tions 27: 294–318.
Fernandez, Roberto M. and M. Lourdes Sosa 2005. ‘Gendering the Job: Networks and Recruitment at a Call
Center.’ American Journal of Sociology 111: 859–904.
Ferree, Myra Marx and Bandana Purkayastha 2000. ‘Equality and Cumulative Disadvantage: Response to Baxter
and Wright.’ Gender & Society 14: 809–13.
Fuller, Sylvia 2008. ‘Job Mobility and Wage Trajectories for Men and Women in the United States.’ American Socio-
logical Review 73: 158–83.
Gibelman, Margaret and Philip H. Schervish 1993. ‘The Glass Ceiling in Social Work: Is It Shatterproof?’ Affilia:
Journal of Women & Social Work 8: 442–55.
Gorman, Elizabeth H. 2006. ‘Work Uncertainty and the Promotion of Professional Women: The Case of Law
Firm Partnership.’ Social Forces 85: 865–90.
Gorman, Elizabeth H. and Julie A. Kmec 2007. ‘We (Have to) Try Harder.’ Gender & Society 21: 828–56.
Gorman, Elizabeth H. and Julie A. Kmec 2009. ‘Hierarchical Rank and Women’s Organizational Mobility: Glass
Ceilings in Corporate Law Firms.’ American Journal of Sociology 114: 1428–74.
Hagan, John 1990. ‘The Gender Stratification of Income Inequality among Lawyers.’ Social Forces 68: 835.
Harlan, Sharon L. and Catherine W. Berheide 1994. Barriers to Workplace Advancement Experienced by Women
in Low-Paying Occupations. New York, USA: Center for Women in Government, University at Albany, State
University of New York. Working Paper.
Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work 715
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Haveman, Heather A., Joseph P. Broschak and Lisa E. Cohen 2009. ‘Good Times, Bad Times: The Effects of Organi-
zational Dynamics on the Careers of Male and Female Managers.’ Research in the Sociology of Work 18: 119–48.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York, N.Y.,
USA: Viking.
Huffman, Matt L. and Philip N. Cohen 2004. ‘Racial Wage Inequality: Job Segregation and Devaluation across
U.S. Labor Markets.’ American Journal of Sociology 109: 902–36.
Hull, Kathleen E. and Robert L. Nelson 2000. ‘Assimilation, Choice, or Constraint? Testing Theories of Gender
Differences in the Careers of Lawyers.’ Social Forces 79: 229–70.
Ibarra, Herminia 1997. ‘Paving an Alternative Route: Gender Differences in Managerial Networks.’ Social Psychology
Quarterly 60: 91–102.
Kalev, Alexandra, Frank Dobbin and Erin Kelly 2006. ‘Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of
Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.’ American Sociological Review 71: 589–617.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kay, Fiona M. and John Hagan 1995. ‘The Persistent Glass Ceiling: Gendered Inequalities in the Earnings of Law-
yers.’ British Journal of Sociology 46: 279–310.
Kay, Fiona M. and John Hagan 1998. ‘Raising the Bar: The Gender Stratification of Law-Firm Capital.’ American
Sociological Review 63: 728–43.
Kilbourne, Barbara Stanek, Paula England, George Farkas, Kurt Beron and Dorothea Weir 1994. ‘Returns to Skill,
Compensating Differentials, and Gender Bias: Effects of Occupational Characteristics on the Wages of White
Women and Men.’ American Journal of Sociology 100: 689.
Kmec, Julie A. 2005. ‘Setting Occupational Sex Segregation in Motion.’ Work and Occupations 32: 322–54.
Kornblut, Anne. 2009. Does a Glass Ceiling Persist in Politics? Washington Post: A01. 1 ⁄23 ⁄2009.
Leicht, Kevin T. 2008. ‘Broken Down by Race and Gender? Sociological Explanations of New Sources of Earnings
Inequality.’ Annual Review of Sociology 34: 237–55.
Lizardo, Omar 2006. ‘How Cultural Tastes Shape Personal Networks.’ American Sociological Review 71: 778–807.
Lorber, Judith 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lucas, Jeffrey W. 2003. ‘Status Processes and the Institutionalization of Women as Leaders.’ American Sociological
Review 68: 464–80.
Martin, Patricia Yancey 2003. ‘‘Said and Done’ Versus ‘Saying and Doing’: Gendering Practices, Practicing Gender
at Work.’ Gender & Society 17: 342–66.
Maume, David J. 1999. ‘Glass Ceilings and Glass Escalators: Occupational Segregation and Race and Sex Differ-
ences in Managerial Promotions.’ Work and Occupations 26: 483–509.
Maume, David J. 2004. ‘Is the Glass Ceiling a Unique Form of Inequality? Evidence from a Random-Effects
Model of Managerial Attainment.’ Work and Occupations 31: 250–74.
Mccall, Leslie 2001. ‘Sources of Racial Wage Inequality in Metropolitan Labor Markets: Racial, Ethnic, and Gen-
der Differences.’ American Sociological Review 66: 520–41.
Mcguire, Gail M. 2002. ‘Gender, Race, and the Shadow Structure: A Study of Informal Networks and Inequality
in a Work Organization.’ Gender & Society 16: 303–22.
Mcguire, Gail M. and Barbara F. Reskin 1993. ‘Authority Hierarchies at Work: The Impacts of Race and Sex.’
Gender & Society 7: 487–506.
Meyer, Michael 1999. ‘In a League of Her Own.’ Newsweek 134 (5): 56.
Meyerson, Debra and Joyce Fletcher 2000. ‘A Modest Manifesto for Shattering the Glass Ceiling.’ Harvard Business
Review 78: 126–36.
Nagourney, Adam and Mark Leibovich. 2008. Clinton Ends Campaign with Clear Call to Elect Obama. New York
Times, June 8, 2008.
Noonan, Mary C., Mary E. Corcoran and Paul N. Courant 2005. ‘Pay Differences among the Highly Trained:
Cohort Differences in the Sex Gap in Lawyers’ Earnings.’ Social Forces 84: 853–72.
Petersen, Trond and Ishak Saporta 2004. ‘The Opportunity Structure for Discrimination.’ American Journal of Sociol-
ogy 109: 852–901.
Ragins, Belle Rose and John L. Cotton 1991. ‘Easier Said Than Done: Gender Differences in Perceived Barriers to
Gaining a Mentor.’ Academy of Management Journal 34: 939–51.
Ragins, Belle Rose and Terri Scandura 1997. ‘The Way We Were: Gender and the Termination of Mentoring
Relationships.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 945–53.
Reid, Margaret, Will Miller and Brinck Kerr 2004. ‘Sex-Based Glass Ceilings in U. S. State-Level Bureaucracies,
1987–1997.’ Administration & Society 36: 377–405.
Reskin, Barbara F. 2003. ‘Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality.’ American Sociological
Review 68: 1–21.
Reskin, Barbara F. and Debra B. Mcbrier 2000. ‘Why Not Ascription? Organizations’ Employment of Male and
Female Managers.’ American Sociological Review 65: 210–33.
Reskin, Barbara F. and Irene Padavic 1994. Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
716 Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1997. ‘Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment.’
American Sociological Review 62: 218–35.
Rosser, Sue V. 2004. The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed. London: Routl-
edge.
Roth, Louise Marie 2004a. ‘Bringing Clients Back In: Homophily Preferences and Inequality on Wall Street.’ Socio-
logical Quarterly 45: 613–35.
Roth, Louise Marie 2004b. ‘The Social Psychology of Tokenism: Status and Homophily Processes on Wall Street.’
Sociological Perspectives 47: 189–214.
Spangler, Eve, Marsha A. Gordon and Ronald M. Pipkin 1978. ‘Token Women: An Empirical Test of Kanter’s
Hypothesis.’ American Journal of Sociology 84: 160–70.
Stone, Pamela 2007. Opting Out?: Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Sullins, Paul 2000. ‘The Stained Glass Ceiling: Career Attainment for Women Clergy.’ Sociology of Religion 61: 243.
Tabak, Filiz 1997. ‘Women’s Upward Mobility in Manufacturing Organizations in Istanbul: A Glass Ceiling Initia-
tive?’ Sex Roles 36: 93–102.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald 1993. ‘The Gender and Race Composition of Jobs and the Male ⁄Female, White ⁄-
Black Pay Gaps.’ Social Forces 72: 45–76.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald, Melvin Thomas and Kecia Johnson 2005. ‘Race and the Accumulation of Human
Capital across the Career: A Theoretical Model and Fixed-Effects Application.’ American Journal of Sociology 111:
58–89.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002. Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation and Sex, 1983–2000, Current
Population Survey.
U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission 1995. Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wright, Erik Olin, Janeen Baxter and Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund 1995. ‘The Gender Gap in Workplace Authority:
A Cross-National Study.’ American Sociological Review 60: 407–35.
Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work 717
ª2010 The Authors Sociology Compass 4/9 (2010): 705–717, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00304.x
Sociology Compass ª2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd