Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (35)

It discusses the perceived phenomenon of the "glass ceiling" experienced by some groups such as women or minorities. In 1994 only two of the Fortune 1500 companies had female CEOs. The article seeks to examine the presence and influence of bias in executive talent. However, this article says that although the numbers reflect under representation of these groups in this sector, it is not necessarily attributable to company or hiring bias. Specifically that women themselves self- select out of the competition for a position, thus contributing to their under representation in executive positions. The article frames its argument in a very complex way, but in lamens terms their theory is as follows: productivity and leadership (desired executive qualities) are predicted by someone's level of intelligence, men and women mate with a partner of their equivalent intelligence level, also observed that women's participation in the work force declines as their spouse generates more income. (So basically saying that two people got together because they had similar intelligence thus executive potential, but when the husband reaches that executive level, instead of the equivalently intelligent woman doing the same, her participation in work decreases, thus withdrawing her from the potential for an executive level position.) So basically its saying that the women in the applicant pool are on average less intelligent because it is assumed their husbands are of equal intelligence and thus earning a lesser income which does not affect her level of participation in the workforce. The reasoning behind dropping out of the work force is related to career sacrifices for family or parental obligations. Conclusion: intelligent women are underrepresented in the labor force, however, those who are of high intelligence will often be unmarried without family, thus bias from above is not necessarily entirely culpable for the glass ceiling, in part the actions of women are. (this is a really radical conclusion...)
Story of a random girls life, (im gonna just time line I guess?)
She had her first daughter and planned to take some time off afterward, but she couldn't do this because she and her husband would not be able to purchase a home. So she worked part-time, the firm seemed family friendly. However, part-time status affected her standing as an associate, her limited availability greatly affected her influence with in the biglaw company. She realized the long hours and last minute travel that accompanied law was alright as a 20 smething but not as a 30 something. She chose to maintain her limited hours during maternity leave, and returned on the expected date, unlike a similar coworker who was the highest earner and came back early from her leave, resuming the constant travel. To this author the promotion seemed to be more important to her work associate. Another associate not eligible for maternity leave chose to be in the office although her twins were born premature and had to stay in the hospital extensively. She became pregnant with her second child 6 weeks into returning to work (ew). During her second maternity leave she worked a great deal less. She came back to work again, it was more stressful, and it was obvious to those around her she was not into promotion. She decided that the burden of uninteresting work and her pride was too much. To accommodate her not working they had to move out of DC and the moved to cville while her husband lived at her parents house during the week and came home on weekends. She documented that the difference between her and her associates was the dependency of the family on their incomes, her family was not while the other women's families were. Honestly this article is irrelevant, its just about one woman's decision to choose family over her career... so whatever you take out of that go for it.
1. Men's orientation toward achieving status and taking career risks to obtain top position and greater income. Women have a greater desire to be involved in their children's lives. These differences contribute to the 'glass ceiling' and gender gap in compensation.
2. Sex differences in risk taking, competitiveness, social orientation, and various cognitive abilities lead to sex differences in occupational interests and distributions.
3. Men score higher on occupational interest in realistic, investigative, and enterprising jobs. Women score higher on occupational interest in artistic and social jobs.
4. Women's representation in science field is lower overall than men's, but not in all areas. Women are more involved in social sciences like psychology and lowest in engineering.
5. Men and women integrate more in white collar jobs than blue collar jobs. Men are more present in blue collar jobs particularly b/c most of them are the realistic type (building etc.)
6. Blue collar jobs also typically require more strength so men are more suitable
7. Cultural differences do contribute to these occupational differences, but you can't ignore that biology also play a role
8. One central flaw in the purely social affect is that it fails to explain cross cultural differences, but the biosocial approach does stating that the distribution of men and women into social roles within a society, which have come from biological differences: men's greater size and women's childrearing and nursing***important fact
9. Talks about the typical androgen and testosterone differences in the sexes in prenatal stage
10. Psychological sex differences have an ancient history where the mind was sexually dimorphic, which is why it's that way today. Evolved preferences and behavioral predispositions along with social forces have driven men and women to follow different career paths***
The glass ceiling: an invisible barrier that seems to keep women from rising to the top.
Most executives and managers are overwhelmingly male. When it comes time for a promotion women do a number of things to their disadvantage:
1. Women portray less confidence than men
2. Young men are more outgoing to approach their bosses and people higher up in the company to make their name known
3. Men are better at getting their work recognized, while women do not want to come off as boasting
4. Different conversational styles: when talking about their work and accomplishments men mostly say "I" where women say "we"; some seeing women's conversational styles as being indecisive, unauthoritative, or even incompetent which hurts their chances of promotion; Women also do not generally vocalize what they're doing to make things run smoothly and when there is no problem people don't really pay attention to the woman's achievement
5. Women are more likely to take into account people's emotions before talking so they are not as direct. For example a female doctor came off as not knowing what she was talking about b/c she was trying to not freak a mom out about the condition of her baby when she knew perfectly well how to describe it.
6. Many women claim to not be comfortable standing out and when it comes to higher tasks they would rather be assigned it rather than speak up and take it
7. Women are also more hesitant to risk
8. Men establish higher up relationships that give them an upper edge on promotions while women are less likely to play that role.
9. Men and women who do not conform to expectations for their gender may not be well liked.