“When there are no ceilings, the sky’s the limit” -Hilliary Clinton during a speech when nominated as the presidential candidate for a major US political party
It’s no secret. The majority of corporate leaders in the United States happen to be white and male. According to a Fortune 500 article, 91% of the Fortune 500 CEOs and white males with less than 5% of CEOs female. Although we live in a society where equality and affirmative actions are advocated, it is still apparent that woman and non-white ethnicities are losing in corporate leadership. Although pre-existing notions have indicated that women do not make as effective leaders as men, empirical support from various meta-analyses indicate otherwise (Northouse, 2016). There are indications of an increase in diversity within leadership roles at corporations, but why are we as a country still failing to remove the barriers that impede woman and other out-groups from climbing the corporate ladder? This can be explained through the concepts of in-group favoritism and the social dominance theory.
The “glass ceiling” is a metaphor often used to describe the disadvantages certain demographics experience when progressing up the corporate ladder. Women especially have experiences this ceiling when exhibiting similar characteristics of effective leadership that were acceptable for men but not women. This ceiling or labyrinth is phenomenon where women are disproportionately concentrated in lower-level and lower-authority leadership positions compared to men (Powell & Graves, 2003). According to Northouse, the barriers consist of organizational biases that put woman at a disadvantage, interpersonal barriers that deprive them of relational support, and personal barriers such as work-home conflicts (Northouse, 2016). It’s easy to dive into the statistics and descriptions of how out-groups are disadvantaged in the corporate world, but I thought it would interesting to explore why.
To start, humans have a natural tendency to favor others who share similar demographics as themselves. This tendency is what often leads to positive associations with others of the same ingroup and negative associations with members of out-groups (Shockley-Zalabazk, 2012). The concept is often coined as “in-group favoritism” which leads to subjective decision making and bias for others who are similar to oneself. I often see this at work when I conduct interviews with some of my peers. For example, I noticed a colleague of mine would change his tone and body language (smile more) when interviewing a candidate who happened to be a veteran. He was also a veteran and naturally related to the candidate’s work experience, but this created a bias in his evaluations as he provided a slight advantage to the interviewee by providing more positive feedback. In-group favoritism is what creates social groups that become associated with labels or act discriminatorily. Within the spectrum of these groups, they will begin to identify under certain labels and eventually establish a position or role within the hierarchy.
As white males dominated the inter-group hierarchy many years ago, it was only natural to typically see a white man in position of power, as women, or blacks and hispanics were disadvantaged in support and capital. As society advanced towards acheiving equal rights for all, policies were not able to completely change many of the arbitrary set and legitimizing myths that were in place during the time white males were in control (Northouse, 2016). Outgoups were often associated with negative attributes in an effort for men to maintain their position of dominance within the social hierarchy. This phenomenon is explained by the Social Dominance Theory, or the theory of group relations that focus efforts to reinforce and benefit ingroups (PSU, WC, Psych 485, lesson 13, 2016). When women would exhibit effective leadership traits, they were often looked in a different light than if a man would exhibit them. For example, behaviors that were not aligned with gender roles were looked at negatively which in turn, put women at a disadvantage at work (Norhouse, 2016). Outgroups such as blacks and hispanics were labeled with negative attributions from stereotypes which often elicited prejudice behavior from white leadership.
In today’s world, policies and laws attempt to combat gender and racial discrimination, however are not doing so effectively as many ingroup biases remain along with social dominance. Policies can be worked around as it’s very difficult to identify and label actions that derive from ingroup favoritism. Until the glass ceilings are removed, organizations will never reach the potential capabilities that could come from leveraging the strengths of a equal and diverse workforce.
References
Penn State World Campus (2016). PSYCH 485: Leadership in Work Settings. Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity. Retrieved from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1803831/modules/items/21139952
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2012). Fundamentals of organizational communication:
Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Fairchild, C. (2014). Number of Fortune 500 women CEOs reaches historic high. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2014/06/03/number-of-fortune-500-women-ceos-reaches-historic-high/