Glass Ceiling

Ouch, I hit my head!

The phrase or term “glass ceiling” was coined in 1986 by two Wall Street Journal reporters describing the invisible but impenetrable barrier that prevents women from reaching the top positions in business regardless of accomplishments or merits. The glass ceiling is a manifestation of the perpetual struggle for equal access and equal opportunity. More formally, the Department of Labor defined the glass ceiling as the artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their organization (Baron & Byrne, 2002, p. 245).

Is the barrier real, and if so, why does it occur? In an attempt to answer this two-part question, different sources ranging from federal laws, supporting facts, business studies and theories will be cited in addition to subtle discriminating forces and logical assumptions about the corporate culture. We’ll also review techniques successful executive women have used to climb the corporate ladder and a possible solution that employers’ could/should adopt to help women in their struggle to advance.

To begin, this barrier is not only real but also not new. It has been in place since women started redefining their roles beginning in World War II. Women became a part of the workforce while their husbands went off to war to support the family. Upon their return this “new culture” did not change; many women choose to stay in the workforce despite the fact this choice was not popular. That was just the beginning of the multiple barriers women would face in the years that followed.

Up until 1963 there was nothing established to protect the female from any form of discrimination in the labor force. Two acts proved important to the progress and advancements of today’s women. The first, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 stated:

No employer … shall discriminate … on the basis of sex by paying wages … at a rate less that the rate at which he pays … the opposite sex … for equal work … equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions (Byars & Rue, 2003, p. 43).

The second, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established laws against the intent to discriminate. It prohibited the employers from discriminating against individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Byars, et al., 2003, p. 43). The acts forced employers to examine their hiring practices and can be perceived as the beginning of advancement for women because employers were now accountable to the government and liable to employees.

However, if the goal of both acts were meant to melt away the inequalities associated with gender and increase the opportunity for females to advance based on potential and ability, decades of government enforcement have not yet met the intended goals. As a result, in the early 90s, disparities and