Explanation of Women‘s Underrepresentation

Some women may advance to the top of the middle management and academic hierarchy but are unable to pass through the barriers (Amondi, 2011; Cochran et al., 2013; Fox and Xiao, 2013; Gardner and Blackstone ,2013; Harris and Leberman, 2012; Hult and Callister, 2006; Helen, 2014; Kakker & Bhandhari, 2015; Machado-Taylor & Özkanli, 2013; Nemoto, 2013).

These barriers might restrict them to reach the top of hierarchical levels, with many other suppressing factors, the glass ceiling could be a major factor which might be contributing to the underrepresentation of women at academic excellence and positions of power in universities.

2.3.1 Glass Ceiling

The word ‗ceiling‘ implies there is a limitation, preventing career growth and ‗glass‘ represent transparent and unseen. The glass ceiling (GC) is a form of discrimination that is affecting women‘s lack of access to power and status in organisations. The term "the glass ceiling" refers to the invisible barrier, stated that "the higher the post, the fewer the women." As an "invisible" barrier, the glass ceiling is hard to eradicate through legislation. According to Cornell University, the ―glass ceiling‖ is a metaphor first used by Nora Frenkiel in Adweek in March 1984 to explain the subtle, invisible obstacles women face after they attain mid- management positions. Despite the professional eligibilities and ample opportunities, female employees are not aptly represented in the highest corridors of organizational powers (Altman, 2004; Bell & Bentley, 2005; Chi and Li, 2007; Cook & Glass, 2014; Dehaghani, Cholmaghani, & Goli, 2013; Ghaus, 2013; Pillai, Prasad & Thomas, 2011; Kensbock et al., 2013; Schwanke, 2013).

The U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission remarks the glass ceiling effect is a transparent unbreakable barrier that keeps the minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, despite their qualifications and achievement (as cited in Mattis 2004).

Therefore, this phenomenon in organisational settings implicitly conveys the opportunity to get promoted to the higher echelons in the corridors of organisational power and authority is not as easy as being absorbed into the organisational fraternity. Moreover, the women find it nearly impossible to break the gender prejudice and marginalisation in the corridors of institutional powers. Reports by international agencies disclose that participation of women in the labour market is on the rise (ILO, 2011). More women are entering the job market (ILO, 2011) in an unprecedented manner due to globalisation and changing perceptions of women‘s economic and productive engagement. A myriad of studies across the world 9 disclosed that men primarily hold most of the top management positions. Female

9_{Stanford report 2014,Liu 2013, Oforiwaa & Afful-Broni 2013 , Benschop & Brouns 2010,}

Catalyst 2013, Gender survey of UK professoriate, 2013, UCU 2013, Machado-Taylor & Özkanli 2013, Akpinar-Sposito 2013, International Labour Organisation 2012, Robbins et al. 2010, Spoor & Schmitt 2011, Grout, Park & Sonderegger 2009 , Ceci, Williams & Barnett

head/managers, if they can grasp the position, tend to be concentrated in lower leadership positions and hold less authority and discretionary power than men, which is termed as a labyrinth of leadership by Eagly & Carli (2007). On the contrary, those who somehow manage to achieve central hierarchical positions may have to pay the cost of success (Grout et al., 2009).

The gender dimension of the glass ceiling is most often applied in organisations where the upper echelons of power are prejudiced in favour of men, and the women counterparts are sidelined in the race to organisational hierarchies. Women hold positions on corporate boards, are public officials, and run larger companies. Despite these accomplishments, the scarcity of women at the highest levels of employment is well established. The glass ceiling can describe this lack of progress.

The glass ceiling could also refer to the ―artificial barriers to the advancement of women and minorities.‖ It is an invisible barrier based on attitudinal or organisational bias and discrimination that prevents the minorities and women from rising the corporate ladder and into high-level management positions, regardless of their qualifications and achievements. A glass ceiling inequality represents a gender ―that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee,‖ ―glass ceiling is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome (Hymowtiz and Schellhardt, 1986; Kensbock et al., 2013).

It can also be described as ―phenomenon of gender stratification‖. Meanwhile few women in the workforce are shattering the glass ceiling to reach senior management positions in the public sector. Nevertheless, women managers tend to be evaluated less favourably, receive less support from their peers, are excluded from critical networks, and receive greater scrutiny and criticism, even when performing the same leadership roles as men (Palus and Bowling, 2011; Riccucci, 2009).

Informal networking and mentoring are frequently suggested as means of increasing the numbers of executive women (FGCC, 1997). Further, networking and mentoring offered

2009, Wilson 2008, Robbins & Olliver 2007, Equal Employment Opportunities Commission

2006, Drakich & Stewart 2007, Mason 2007, CAUT 2006, AAUP, 2006, Reinhold 2005,

by executive men can be less fruitful and more problematic for the junior women, who may be assumed to be sexually involved with their mentors. In sum, the relative lack of women managers and executives, the support roles many female workers provide to men workers and occupational sex segregation all facilitate sexual harassment. Women who work for male supervisors or managers‘ report greater harassment and perceive their organisations as being more tolerant of harassment, (2) women rarely perpetrate harassment, (3) women view harassing behaviours differently from men (Bell, 2002; Scott and Martin, 2006).

Women do not fit the image of the (masculine) leader. If women‘s behaviour seems too assertive and masculine, they may be seen as competent but not likeable; if their behaviour is too feminine, they may be seen as likeable, but incompetent (Bombuwela & De Alwis, 2013; Eagly & Carli, 2007). Also, women are encouraged to work in departments that have fewer developmental opportunities (assistants, secretaries, and health workers) or do not translate to executive advancement (Guerrero et al., 2011; Kilgour, 2012). Although prejudices and discrimination towards women in the workforce have diminished, they still exist strongly for women in senior positions (Akpinar –Sposito, 2013; Bell, 2002; Bombuwela & De Alwis, 2013).

It is also found that women are less likely to have tenure and more likely to hold part- time and limited-term appointments and to experience a pay gap (AAUP, 2006; AUT, 2004;Benschop & Jansen, 2013; CAUT, 2006; Drakich & Stewart ,2007; Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, 2007; Grund, 2014; Johns, 2013; Liu, 2013; Mason & Ekman, 2007; Obaapanin & Broni, 2013; Robbins & Simpson, 2009; Stanford Report ,2014; Side & Robbins, 2007; Spoor & Schmitt, 2011; Wilson, 2008).

The Catalyst (2013) study of the US and European business leaders, also found that women leaders have to work harder than men at the same corporate levels to be perceived as equally competent and to receive the same levels of rewards. This stereotyping and discrimination are often unrecognised, even as it enters into assessments of candidates for hiring or promotion (Mattis, 2004). For instance, in Swedish banks in the 1980s, women and men in the same entry level job classification were assigned to different duties by their supervisors, men had commitments that led to a promotion, women did not (Acker, 2006; Akpinar –Sposito, 2013; Bombuwela & De Alwis, 2013).

The glass ceiling has remained a modern-day issue, with many surveys and reports being undertaken internationally (Al-Manasra, 2013; Bombuwela & De Alwis, 2013; Bruckmüller, 2014; Catalyst, 2013; Chi & Li, 2007; Cocchio, 2009; Cook & Glass, 2014; Dehaghani, Cholmaghani, & Goli, 2013; European Commission, 2013; Kilgour, 2012; Omotayo et al, 2013; Osibanjo et al, 2013; Singh & Vinnicombe, 2004; Taylor-Abdulai et al, 2014). So, the following section will discuss how the glass ceiling practices in organisations.

2.3.2 Glass Ceiling Practices

The glass ceiling is manifested in multiple ways: informal recruitment practices that fail to recruit women, lack of opportunities for training and mentorship, exclusion from informal networks, menial assignments rather than challenging tasks that would progress their careers, wage gaps between men and women despite comparable work, and placement in jobs that have very little advancement opportunities. Gender stereotypes, male-dominated structures, and discrimination have placed barriers to progress for women. Not only that, there is substantial evidence of the under-representation of women in leadership positions in many countries all over the world10. This literature has pointed that there are many barriers, women are facing when they are trying to climb the hierarchical ladder. Evidence suggests that they may face invisible barriers preventing their rise in leadership positions. The metaphor used to implicate this situation is called ‗GC‘ Subsequent metaphors such as ‗‗glass

10_{Sri Lanka (Bombuwela & De Alwis 2013), Japan (Nemoto 2013), India (Namita & Neha}

2014 ,Chaudhuri 2010), Iran (Dehaghani, Cholmaghani, & Goli, 2013),Pakistan (Jabbar & Imran 2013, Batool, Sajid & Shaheen 2013, Hasan & Mustafa 2013),Malaysia (Sharif 2015),Australia (Davidson & Burke 2012; Maginn, 2010; Still, 2006), New Zealand (Harris & Leberman 2012), China (Tan, 2008), France (Barnet-Verzat & Wolff, 2008), Sweden ( Peterson 2015), South Africa (Booysen & Nkomo, 2010; Mathur-Helm, 2006), United Kingdom (Davidson & Burke 2012; Thomson, Graham & Lloyd 2008) Canada (Cocchio 2009) and United States (Davis & Maldonado 2015,Gago & Macıas 2013,Eagly & Carli, 2007, Fassinger, 2008).

elevators‘‘ and ‗‗glass cliffs‘‘ refer to the greater scrutiny and criticism that women may have to face in leadership roles (Peterson, 2015; Ryan & Haslam, 2005).

Researchers found there are different kinds of GC barriers such as different pay for comparable work (FGCC, 1995), sexual, ethnic, racial, religious discrimination or harassment in the workplace, the prevailing culture of many businesses, lack of family-friendly workplace policies (Acker, 2006). Several other factors that impede the advancement of women in the senior positions has been human capital barriers (lack of education, finances, resources, and experience); gender-based stereotypes; discrimination and sexual harassment differences in communication styles; exclusion from informal networks; limited management support for work/life programs; lack of mentors and role-models; occupational sex segregation; and attitudinal and organizational biases (Bombuwela & De Alwis, 2013; Croson & Gneezy, 2009; Hannum et al, 2015; Vinkenburg et al., 2011).