This is the first time I have participated in a blog forum such as this, so I apologize in advance if I post in the wrong place or comment somehow in error! I would like to focus on what I perceive as a "layered" glass ceiling, which is my way of thinking about this metaphor in perhaps a more complicated manner. I do not think of a glass ceiling as yes, it is there, or no, it is not there. I think of it as different layers or phases of professional status and rank, and as status and rank go up and up in prestige and power, that is where the glass gets thicker, harder to break, and perhaps even more smudged and harder to see through (to keep with the metaphor!).
1. Example in the university with public relations departments and journalism colleges: In our department the director of undergrad and grad studies are women--these are IN the dept and the positions hold no ability to fire, hire, make salary decisions, etc. The chair of the dept is a woman who does have power to fire and hire, but her "pot" of money actually is decided by the Dean. The Dean is male. And in fact, across the University of Maryland all the Deans are male except 1. There are assistant deans and associate deans, etc., some female, but they do not control the power of the money. And of course, provost and president are male.
2. Example in public relations agency: When I worked at Hill and Knowlton (DECADES Ago, which shows my age!) many account supervisors were female and they decided how to pitch clients and how to plan campaigns. However, the senior manager of the Dallas office was male, and the CEO in NYC where I worked in business development was male. There are many many examples of females now in senior VP positions across agencies, and many women-owned agencies now. However, take a look at the boards of directors, the one CEO head, and the chief Financial Officers, and you will find that they continue to be male.
3. Final example: Professional associations. PRSA is moving toward equity in senior leadership and over the last 10 years has had women in the positions of chair and president. The current board of directors and president comprise 40% women, which is one of the highest proportions of women found on boards and executive leadership of our professional societies. The Arthur Page Society has only 2 women on the President's Council, representing former presidents; and 30% of the Board of Trustees are women.
These examples tell me that the reason why we need to continue to consider and discuss a glass ceiling is because of its impact on power and decision making in the public relations profession.
From my experience, the metaphor of a layered glass ceiling is very accurate. Over the summer, one of the places I interned was a non-profit organization. Although all of the people I directly reported to were female, the CEO and other C-level executives were male. Women held respected and important positions where they were able to provide their input and be heard clearly. However, while everyone in the organization was treated equally, the men still held the highest positions. I think this is a common trend in many organizations, especially in the public relations field. Hopefully, as ideas about women in the workplace continue to evolve, women will more commonly hold high level positions. As women hold these positions they will provide a different management style and having a variety of styles will allow for greater collaboration and engagement.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dr. Aldoory. Your comments are very insightful. I was interested to see the the PRSA board was overcoming the gender gap in its leadership structure more quickly than other institutions (even your own school and department at Maryland). How would you account for the progress being made by PRSA, compared to other organizations?
ReplyDeleteI recall your 2004 study, co-authored with Elizabeth Toth, Leadership and Gender in Public Relations: Perceived Effectiveness of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles, published in the Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(2), 157-183. Your study produced some interesting results:
-- participants agreed that men and women were equally capable of becoming leaders.
-- Men more strongly agreed that they considered themselves leaders and more strongly disagreed that women made better leaders.
-- Most participants preferred female leaders over male leaders.
-- Even though there existed a preference for female leaders, and there was a perception that men and women were equally capable of becoming leaders, you and Dr. Toth reported, "Most participants admitted that for social, structural, or environmental reasons women do not have the same leadership opportunities as men do in the [PR] industry" (p. 177). One of your participants even remarked, "It's still a man's world" (p. 177).
So, if constraints like organizational policies, structures, and environments are impeding progress in overcoming the gender gap, what can students, faculty, and practitioners do about this? Seems like we need to stop repeating the familiar refrain that the gap is narrowing but still exists ... and start taking stronger action.
Thanks again,
Mark