The upper management positions in professional careers are occupied most frequently by men– this is a product of patriarchal structures and sexism in business. The homogeneous gender composition of high ranking positions means that when a woman does procure such a rank, her ability to effectively deliver upon the requirements of the position are constantly questioned. This paper examines the divide in skill between the genders in CEO positions and argues that there is no significant difference in success between male and female CEOs– in fact, women (when given the chance) prove that they can be not only just as good, but better than their male counterparts. Also examined is the historical and societal context of a woman’s role in the workplace, including which tasks have been deemed suitable of a “woman’s skills”.
Despite the lack of evidence supporting the claim that women are ineffective leaders, the perception continues to be just that. This is demonstrated most clearly in the salary divide. Bryce Covert reports in “Companies With Female CEOs Beat The Stock Market” that “last year, female CEOs made less than 80 percent of what male ones made.” This fact is made even more outrageous when considering that Covert presents that female leadership produces superior results– she explains that companies where women are in charge of finances tend to beat the stock market on average; that female run companies produce higher revenue; and that companies with women on their executive boards perform better than those with all-male boards.
Regardless, female CEOs on average make 18 percent less than their male counterparts. The negative perception of female CEOs is rooted also in that people think women do not engage in successful risk-taking– however, that is not the case. Ted Devine, the CEO of Insureon, identifies the differences in definition when it comes to risk-taking in “How Men and Women Take Risks Differently in Business”. Devine identifies that a man’s interpretation of risk-taking is in “physical and financial terms”, when there exists a much broader scale of risk. Women are consistent in refusing to lower quality to make a profit and are concerned with maintaining a pleasant reputation with their customer base, both of which are taking risks. A man’s definition of risk-taking is tied closely with impulsivity regarding investment of time and finances while a woman’s is more closely tied with quality of the business model and worker/customer satisfaction. The conventional perception of risk-taking contributes to why 34% of respondents believe that male executives are better at assuming risk than females.
In addition, the fact that respondents see a clear difference between “coming to a compromise” and “negotiating” proves that there is correlation between words that denote strength being used to describe men and words that denote cooperation being used to describe women. The purpose of negotiating is to reach compromise, and compromising is simply another word for negotiating– they are synonyms, but the word “compromise” creates an image of a submissive and cooperative female. Furthermore, the understanding of taking risks is generally skewed– standing up for one’s beliefs is not defined as a risk despite the fact that it absolutely is. Spending $1,000 on niche items and losing $1,000 for standing up for one’s values yields the same loss but is not regarded as the same risk. Women are painted in honor and integrity but not in ambition which is not a fair assessment and contributes to harmful stereotypes.
Deeply rooted social ideologies serve as the most apparent hindrance to the success of female executives. “A mid-1960’s survey of 1,000 men and 1,000 women executives…found that more than two-thirds of the men and almost one-fifth of the women said they would not feel comfortable working for women.” (Ferber, et. al., Preference for Men as Bosses and Professionals, p.467) The historical idealization of women actively opposed them in even entering the workforce, nevermind procuring executive positions. However, this perception of women has not evolved much; “…even the best-intentioned managers often fell back on timeworn ideas about women’s proper role” (Ferber, et. al., Preference for Men as Bosses and Professionals, p.467). Cultivation of executive roles for women is not something that is done– throughout history or even in the present. Women “[fail] to receive the organizational support that their male counterparts automatically enjoy” (Ferber, et. al., Preference for Men as Bosses and Professionals, p.467). The implications that women are ineffective leaders stems directly from the historical impact.
Stigmatization of the “modern working woman” role peaked in the 1950s with the advent of the nuclear family– a condition of which was a housewife whose duty was to eventually become a stay-at-home mother. The 50’s was the first decade in which the concept of working women became apparent during a time with an absence of a World War. During the World Wars, women became champions of industry; they joined the workforce in large numbers, taking over the jobs vacated by the men off at war and becoming the home’s primary breadwinner. Even after the Wars, some women chose to remain in the workforce. During World War 2, propaganda in the form of Rosie the Riveter contributed to an unprecedented increase in women joining the workforce and after the War, even more women stayed in their jobs or found better paying ones because having a role outside of the home improved women’s quality of life, self-esteem, and general life satisfaction. (Miller, et. al., Motherhood, Multiple Roles, and Maternal Well-Being: Women of the 1950s) Women generally played assistive roles, doing little more than contributing to the success of her male boss and a stereotype was created of women being nothing more than secretaries, typists, and retailers; “more than half the men said that women were temperamentally unfit for management.” (Ferber, et. al., Preference for Men as Bosses and Professionals, p.467) Women becoming a part of the workforce was certainly a positive thing, however it set a dangerous precedent of what types of jobs are suitable for a “woman’s temperament” and corporate CEO is certainly not one. To reduce the increasing number of women in the industry, there came an aggressive push from society, particularly caused by the surge in consumerism perpetuated by corporations through targeted advertisement as well as the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, to return women to the home to contribute to the ideal American family. (Miller, et. al., Motherhood, Multiple Roles, and Maternal Well-Being: Women of the 1950s)
This stereotyping of women in positions distinctly lacking in power persists to this day. Even though 80% of people think men and women make equally good leaders (Fig.1), a significant portion of people believe that women fit better into positions of power in institutions that encompass some sort of caretaking (retail, medicine, food production, etc.) over institutions of STEM origins, which is a negative stereotype in and of itself. The association of women with nurturing roles, even at the highest seat of institutionalized power, contributes to the stereotype established in the 1950s. There are very few women in top executive positions, Caroline Fairchild in “Why so Few Women are CEOs (in 5 charts)” says that “only 25 companies in the Fortune 500 are run by women” (Fig.2)– it’s easier for women to rise to the C-Suite when the institution in which they hope to advance is one that represents the stereotype.
(Figure 1)
(Figure 2)
It is without reason that women managers are not treated with the same level of deference as their male counterparts. While it is true that men and women bring unique perspectives and managerial styles, this does not in the end cause a significant impact on effectiveness. Much like the issue of risk-taking, female managers are held to a very narrow and male dominated definition of “managerial success”. Women are “[forced] to fit the male model of managerial success, emphasizing such qualities as independence, competitiveness, forcefulness, and analytical thinking” (Powell, One More Time: Do Female and Male Managers Differ?, p.68) and while this criteria isn’t unfair, it is not all-encompassing and if a female manager does not have some of these qualities, she is not immediately an ineffective administrator but the definition of managerial success does not take this into consideration. There are two types of managerial behavior: people-oriented and task-oriented. “Task-oriented behavior is directed toward subordinates’ performance and includes initiating work, organizing it, and setting deadlines and standards,” (Powell, One More Time: Do Female and Male Managers Differ?, p.69-70) male managers generally fall into this category. “People-oriented behavior is directed toward subordinates’ welfare and includes seeking to build their self-confidence, making them feel at ease, and soliciting their input about matters that affect them,” (Powell, One More Time: Do Female and Male Managers Differ?, p.69-70) which is the category female managers tend towards. Neither behavior is superior to the other in terms of producing success (both types are equally effective), but the task-oriented style is accorded more deference than the people-oriented style because it is more closely aligned with male managers. The impact is the same, therefore, women should not logically receive less opportunities to accelerate in the workplace hierarchy– the reality is that the notion of efficiency is exclusive of the male gender in the ideology of a professional workplace.
This paper has talked in excess about the standard of effectiveness that female CEOs are held to and how that standard is unfairly skewed to read male and does not focus on an overall depth of success– however, the standard is not something that is based solely in the ability of men, but also in the fact that they are men. “Even when women do all the right things and have all the right stuff, they continue to be blocked from the innermost circles of power.” (Daily, et. al, A Decade of Corporate Women: Some Progress in the Boardroom, None in the Executive Suite, p.98) There is significant gender bias against female CEOs and competency is largely tied to gender. Businesses led by women neither go out of business nor generate lower earnings than businesses led by men (Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991), there is also no difference in decision quality or risk propensity (Johnson and Powell, 1994); it is not with consideration of facts that a CEO is chosen, but a defaultation to prejudice about the sexes. For the standard of effectiveness to include a broader characterization, it is important that decision-making boards make a conscientious choice to increase the number of women they nominate to CEO positions for the interest of industrial equality. “Investors have more difficulties judging the ability of female CEOs because they have no frame of reference due to the proportional rarity of female CEOs.” (Martin, et. al., CEO Gender: Effects on Valuation and Risk, p.26) If boards were more inclined to nominate women, investors would have precedent upon which to base their conclusions. As of now, assessments of a CEO’s efficiency does not take into account a broad enough spectrum of characteristics to determine success and the selection process is muddied by the inclination to one gender over the other.
Despite the bleak picture painted by this paper, there has been some progress– particularly in boardrooms. Catalyst reported in 1994 that women held 10.6 percent of large firm board seats (Daily, et. al, A Decade of Corporate Women: Some Progress in the Boardroom, None in the Executive Suite); by 2015, that number rose to 14.7 percent in 2015. It is slow growth and women are still grossly underrepresented, but it is proof that change is happening, be it at a snail’s pace. “The importance of gender diversity is related to market segmentation practices,” (Daily, et. al, A Decade of Corporate Women: Some Progress in the Boardroom, None in the Executive Suite, p.98) women are some 60 percent of buyers/consumers in the United States and so having women on corporate boards makes “good business sense”. While it is true that when pitted against a colleague of the same rank and experience for a CEO seat the man is often chosen over the woman, there is an emerging trend of women being present in oversight positions on managerial boards. So while executive positions are still very much a boy’s club, the boardroom approval-providing seats are certainly more available to female members. It’s a win on one front, and a loss on another. Perhaps in the future, there will be a more measurable increase in female CEOs– for now, conventional sexism continues to be the biggest hindrance to the success of female executives.