The Glass Ceiling: Reality or Myth? A Gender Analysis of Leadership Veerle Draulans ABSTRACT This article focuses on the reality of the ‘glass ceiling’ metaphor, the invisible barrier that women experience in their upward career mobility which prevents them from reaching the top of an organization. The first part describes the origins and development of the concept. Next, the debate concerning the existence of a specific male or female leadership style has been broadened to an analysis of the context of leadership. As part of that, the phenomenon of ‘tokenism’ is analyzed. The few women that succeeded in breaking through the glass ceiling often arrive in a token position. Persons in leadership positions who belong to a minority group, are looked at as representing the whole of (stereotypes ascribed to) the minority group. Specific personal competencies, characteristics and activities are relegated to the background. The presupposed male/female stereotypes dominate the relationships. How can effective leadership be realized if someone functions as a token? Not only women, but also people belonging to ethnic minorities can be confronted with token positions. Diverse factors of influence such as the choices made by women themselves and the organizational structures and cultures are described. An organizational culture is difficult to describe, and so is the impact on the career growth possibilities and upward mobility of women. Some strategies for change are presented. In order to make these strategies operational, a clear distinction between three dimensions has to be made: an analysis of the numerical proportion of male to female employees, an analysis of the organizational culture, and a gender analysis in terms of content (e.g. gender in topics of research, educational programmes, etc.). Different policy instruments can be used: legislation, equal opportunity and positive action programmes, and mainstreaming programmes. The whole debate about gender and leadership is a debate about value options and value preferences. KEYWORDS Gender and Leadership; Glass Ceiling; Business Ethics; Equal Opportunity Programmes; Company Cultures AUTHOR INFORMATION Veerle Draulans. Faculty of Theology, University of Tilburg, Postbox 9130, 5000 HC Tilburg (The Netherlands) – E-mail: [email protected]; K.U.Leuven, Gender Studies, Van Evenstraat 2B, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium) – E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction I would like to start by explaining the title, as it might sound somewhat mysterious to some. What is the ‘glass ceiling’? For some, it is no doubt a well-known concept. For others, it might be a mysterious metaphor. The notion of a ‘glass ceiling’ has been a prevailing concept since Morrison, White & Van Velson published a book in 1987,

entitled Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America?1 Using this metaphor, the authors try to explain why so few women can reach leading positions, why, compared to their male colleagues, they succeed less quickly in ascending the hierarchy of an organization or company, and why they are confronted with more stringent requirements for promotion. The metaphor of the ‘glass ceiling’ refers to an invisible barrier that

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 66

prevents women from reaching the top of an organization. From the beginning, the authors argue, the ‘glass ceiling’ is not just a barrier in the career of an individual woman, but a fact that affects women as a group because expectations and requirements may, consciously or not, be more stringent for women. The notion of ‘glass ceiling’ is often associated with the laborious promotion of women to the highest levels in an organization or company, the so-called ‘senior positions’ or executive managers. Depending on the country, figures indicate that women hold only between 1% and 5% of those senior positions. In the US, the percentage increased from 2.4% in 1996 to 5.1% in 1999. For comparison: during the same period, the percentage of Australian female executive directors stagnated at 1.3%. In addition, it is remarkable that the percentage of female executive managers does not correspond to the percentages of US top wages: among the top wage earners, only 1.9% were female in 1996, as against 3.3% in 1999.2 Research indicates that legal measures and affirmative action can stimulate the process of women’s achieving more middle management positions, but these middle management positions are often characterized by limited authority and relatively low wages. For these reasons as well, a number of talented women leave big companies and move into smaller companies or start their own.3 It is clear that measures to stimulate the inflow of women into organizations and companies do not guarantee that these women will move on to higher positions, decision-making positions or policy-making positions. Nevertheless, a sufficient number of women in high-level management positions is needed to guarantee the inflow of the next generation of female employees.4 Since the catalyst effect of the above-mentioned book Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women reach the Top of America? in 1987, the concept of ‘glass ceiling’ has been adopted in diverse publications. The term is often used in a broader context than the originally intended limited opportunities for women to reach top

management functions in big organizations or companies. Not only company life, but also, for example, the civil service was analyzed in a search for invisible barriers that limit the promotion possibilities of women. Later, all societal sectors were subjected to a glass ceiling analysis: political life, education5, service industries, and churches.6 Researchers concluded that the glass ceiling concept was not only valuable for analyzing the executive level, but could be useful to analyze other company or organization levels as well. It suddenly became clear that women are confronted with a glass ceiling on diverse levels and in diverse kinds of organizations and companies. Moreover, the glass ceiling seemed to be lower than was originally believed: it was not only the top of the organizational pyramid that was difficult for women to reach. Researchers broadened the notion ‘glass ceiling’ to include ‘glass walls’. This metaphor indicates that, in the career of employees, some events or factors function as mechanisms of exclusion or at least as mechanisms of retardation.7 Let me give the example of a male and a female employee, equally qualified, both starting to work at the same moment at the same level in a company. Each absence due to pregnancy or giving birth can retard the career possibilities of the female employee, while the male employee is continuously present in the organization or company and can keep all of his options open and intensify collegial contacts and go on networking. For the sake of completeness, I have to mention that the concept of ‘glass ceiling’ is not exclusively used in reference to women’s experiences, but also to visualize career barriers for minorities. Does a specific feminine leadership style exist? A specific current in feminist theory accentuates the notion of ‘difference’, either to indicate differences between men and women, or to indicate differences among women (age, religious conviction, social class, educational degree, sexual preferences). Reflections on leadership and management style could not escape this perspective. The debate started by asking whether men and women have different leadership styles.

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 67

The research findings led to a debate between defenders of a maximalist view, who argue that great differences in leadership styles exist, and defenders of a minimalist view, who insist that only minimal differences in male and female leadership styles can be observed.8 Popular, spontaneous, and less theoretically grounded presuppositions in today’s society seem to support a maximalist view which emphasizes the existence of a female leadership style. Here, one may think of articles in newspapers arguing in favour of a ‘female colour’ for a company’s management, or statements to the effect that the 21st century will be the century of the feminine. It is remarkable that, on this subject, different research methods lead to different research results. Scientific research, done on the basis of written questionnaires, completed by male and female leaders, supports a minimalist interpretation. Observational research and in-depth interviews tend, on the other hand, to maximize differences between the two sexes.9 Contrary to these prevalent presuppositions, which speak of a typically ‘female’ style of leadership, various empirical studies in different countries have come to one and the same conclusion: on the basis of written questionnaires among male and female managers, few significant differences in leadership style, or none at all, appear to exist between the two sexes. This finding is sometimes disputed or explained away with reference to assimilation processes: women who have achieved high management positions within various sectors of government, trade and industry owe these positions to a far-reaching adaptation to norms and standards that predominate in that environment. Or these women in higher management positions would have, more than most women, personal traits that are associated with masculinity. Nonbelievers comment that it is a wonder that questionnaires show no difference between male and female managers. It is remarkable, however, that studies on the basis of another research method have shown differences. When the actual leadership style of

women is studied on the basis of qualitative interviews or using observational methods, in which their actions and time investments at work can be closely analyzed, female leadership is typified as follows.10 Women in managerial positions want clarity on the values and the vision they defend. They want to encourage workers in a positive manner, give them feedback and make them visible. Empowerment is a central term here. Women in managerial positions spend a lot of time listening and communicating. Their attitude is non-defensive and is characterized by great care for the collective. They also want to arrive at meetings wellprepared and with in-depth knowledge of the cases at hand. This is often the perception that people associate, spontaneously and apart from academic research, with a female style of leadership. The position of female managers among colleagues and subordinates is presented as the centre of a web structure.11 Their position is not defined in terms of a hierarchical top-down structure, but as an interrelational structure, built around a strong centre formed by the manager. From this centre, communication and connection lines depart to the various sections of the organization. Authority in this structure is so defined: “Authority comes from connection to the people around rather than from distance from those below.”12 One should not fall into the trap of discussing a so-called ‘specifically feminine’ leadership style. The risk of essentialism is real: this kind of research can slide into a fixation on differences, or into a discussion about the so-called ‘natural’ talent of women to be leaders with specific leadership capacities. Recently, the focus of research has shifted from the person of the leader to the context of leadership. How does this context influence the process of leadership in a positive or a negative way? This influence by context can be given a broad or a narrow interpretation. The cultural climate has undergone a slow change, and for a number of years now, the above-mentioned characteristics of ‘female leadership’ have met with growing appreciation by trade, industry and organizations.

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 68

Communication, the willingness to listen, care for the collective, non-hierarchical thinking, and attention to the combination of work and family have become key concepts in defining presentday leadership styles. This has even resulted in people using such slogans as: ‘the women’s decade’. The story of an outspoken positive appreciation of so-called ‘feminine values’ on the macro level of society already sounds a little more sophisticated when a specific organization or company culture is taken into consideration. Rather than using terms like ‘feminine values’, I prefer to speak of ‘values associated with femininity’. This choice goes to the core of a gender analysis, which, after all, refers to the culturally defined implementation of what people spontaneously associate with masculinity and femininity. It concerns idealized ascriptions of behaviours, qualities, and attitudes of men and women, which are internalized by means of socialization processes. The English language makes a distinction between biological sex and culturally defined gender by using two different words for them: male/female refers to biological sex; masculine/feminine refers to culturally defined gender. The distinction between the two concepts is quite fundamental: unlike biological sex, culturally defined gender refers to dynamic processes. In other words: gender ascriptions are open to change.13 Let us return to the company or organizational context. In 1999, the Dutch government’s Department of Social Affairs and Employment commissioned a study comparing cultures in diverse organizations on the labour market.14 One central question was developed and analyzed for diverse organizations (banking and insurance sector, service industry sector, medical service sector, governmental organizations, and process industry): “How does an organizational culture prevent women from moving up to higher management positions?” In this research, top male and female managers indicated that, in their opinion, the so-called feminine qualities (collegiality, development of talents, positive

feedback, harmony between family life and professional career) were more important than socalled masculine qualities (competition, performance, feeling for initiative, material reward, hierarchy). The same group of respondents was asked to indicate what they thought were desirable characteristics or qualities for top managers. In their answers, both groups of respondents, men and women, mentioned mostly stereotypes associated with masculinity as preferable qualities for top managers, such as a sense of initiative or ambition. Emotions that might show personal weakness or uncertainty were strongly rejected. Nevertheless, the Dutch research illustrates that male managers value a so-called feminine leadership style as important for the wellbeing of a company or organization. Relational competence, ability to communicate, even ‘emotional intelligence’ become pillars of a good human resources development policy. The authors concluded that there is a difference between what is proclaimed in the formal organizational culture, such as values and norms formulated in ‘mission statements’, on the one hand, and the more implicit organizational culture that one may find by inquiring about the image of the ideal leader.15 For example, more and more people are becoming convinced of the necessity of a good balance between private life and professional life. When one expects managers to work for more than 40 hours a week, however, this dream of a harmonious combination of private and professional life becomes unattainable. I turn now to tokenism and reflections on stereotyping and minority positions. One ought to analyze the specific organizational structure, group composition, and activities of every company or organization separately to chart the limits, possibilities and difficulties of women in management positions. By way of illustration, I restrict myself to the importance of the group composition. It makes quite a difference whether people are in charge of a uniform group in which all group members have the same personal characteristics in

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 69

terms of race or gender, or whether they lead a heterogeneous group. In groups where more than 65% of the group members have similar personal characteristics, a dominant style and manner of behaviour develops; and minority members have to function within this dominant style. The dominant group defines the standards. The members of the minority groups are seen as symbolic figures representing the whole minority group. Their individual personal characteristics tend to be noticed far less. Many women in executive positions work in such a situation. In other words: in the eyes of their male co-workers, colleagues, or subordinates, many female executives symbolically represent ‘the group of women’. Rosabeth Moss Kanter described this process in the 1977 study “Men and Women of the Corporation”.16 She called the people in leading positions, but belonging to the minority group ‘the tokens’, or people with a ‘solo status’. Whoever has a token position in a company or organization will be confronted with a number of special characteristics. First, there is the aspect of ‘visibility’, automatically implying that there is a special pressure to excel. When one is the only woman in a company of men, it is not just one’s physical presence that stands out. Together with a greater visibility or a different voice sound, her dedication and manner of participation, compared with the male colleagues, become more visible and conspicuous. The dominant group has a strongly stereotypical way of viewing a ‘token’, causing characteristics attributed to the minority group as a whole to also be recognized in the behaviour of the single group member. Together with the stereotyping of the minority group or the individual, a contrasting effect develops: the consciousness of the identity of the dominant group is strengthened and all associated stereotypes and characteristics become intensified. At the same time, the presupposed differences between the tokens and the dominant group are exaggerated. The smaller the minority group, the stronger the isolation and gender stereotyping. The

social isolation that derives from the solo status leads to tokens finding it difficult to be accepted and trusted by the other group members. The pressure on the tokens towards assimilation and conformity with the values, norms, and expectations of the (male) majority becomes particularly strong. Tokenism sometimes leads to exclusion from group activities or informal networks. Tokenism is not just a given, passed on to the minority group by the majority group. Rather, it is a sometimes subtle interaction game in which the eagerness to comply with the role expectations of the majority group is crucial. “Visibility, contrast, and assimilation are each associated with particular forces and dynamics that, in turn, generate typical token responses. (…) Visibility tends to create performance pressures on the token. Contrast leads to heightening of dominant culture boundaries, including isolation of the token. And assimilation results in the token’s role encapsulation.”17 Consequently, women run the risk of falling into the trap of such stereotypical expectations. Some, for example, adopt a mother role and turn out to be ‘emotional experts’, the sympathetic ear for colleagues who want to discuss their private problems. Others play the seductress, thus creating competition and jealousy among their male colleagues. Another possible role is that of the favourite child, who is especially expected to provide humour and sometimes even acquires mascot status. At the highest policy level, the executive level, there is again the alluring trap of the ‘Iron Maiden’, as Kanter observes.18 In a Dutch study published in 1999,19 the thickness of the glass ceiling was calculated for a number of industry sectors on the basis of a specially developed formula. An analysis was made of the relationship between the number of women in so-called ‘growth positions’, meaning all higher and scientific professions, and the actual number of women in higher management positions.20 This method, a disadvantage of which is that it is difficult to apply to organizations with small numbers of employees, leads to the following results:

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 70

Table 1 Women in higher management

Thickness of glass ceiling (0 = min; 100 = max)

0 0 13 16 11 30 48 20 15

100 100 74 43 42 24 22 20 18

Building industry Industry Education Public Administration Transport & Communication Culture & Service industry Health Care & Public Welfare Commercial Services Trade

What are the building blocks of the glass ceiling? Sometimes, the prejudices of male colleagues with respect to women’s leadership qualities are given as the main cause. In terms of substance, these prejudices can be very heterogeneous in nature. Some prejudices refer to the stereotypical characteristics ascribed to women, such as emotionalism or limited stress-resistance. Others argue from women’s labour market position and figure that women will change jobs more easily or leave the labour market if there is no economic necessity for female professional labour. According to this logic, each investment to enhance the professional competence of female workers is a risk investment since people are generally convinced that women will leave the business or the organization more easily than men. A third type of prejudice reasons from the specific job expectations with respect to a manager or an executive: women are said to be less willing to travel; and neither male nor female employees are said to be willing to work under a female boss.21 Other building blocks of the glass ceiling are: traditional forms of labour, with an emphasis on full-time work; the isolation of women among mostly male colleagues; a shortage of female role models; the exclusion of women from the (fraternal) networks of male colleagues; fewer educational and training opportunities at the workplace; women being regarded as threats by male colleagues; repeated references to cultural differences between male and female styles of thinking and

acting; women’s self-perception and their lack of faith in their personal capabilities; women’s vulnerability in times of economic recession.22 Some recent researchers have put the emphasis elsewhere: male workers who find it difficult to come to grips with the way their female colleagues, even those in executive positions, continue to look for a feasible combination of career and family, thus undermining the expectation of permanent availability.23 It is clear that the glass ceiling is composed of a complex of factors that reinforce and influence one another. The many explanations people offer for the difficult upward movement of women into higher management positions can be broken down into roughly three categories.24 First, there are people who hold that it is all a matter of time: since the active presence of women in public life and on the labour market is a relatively recent phenomenon, it will take some time for women really to reach the highest levels. But there is a flaw in that argument, as it ignores the fact that even in sectors with a traditionally strong female labour participation, such as education, health, and welfare, with a sizeable percentage of women in growth positions, the upward movement to higher management still does not take place proportionally. Other arguments blame the choices made by women themselves: women are said to make the road to the highest echelons impassable for themselves by self-selection and self-exclusion. Women desire a more harmonious relation between

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 71

professional work and private life and question the expectation of permanent availability on the part of an organization or a business. It is to be noted that often a harmonious combination of work and private life is immediately associated with care for a woman’s own children, but the possibility of volunteer aid for ill parents is overlooked. However, managers or executives without children can also be confronted with the request to take care of their own parents. In addition, women make it more difficult for themselves to move up to higher positions by their preference for part-time work and their critical attitude towards specific organizational cultures. According to this line of reasoning, women look for organizational cultures that make them feel good and are less inclined to apply for higher positions in organizations and businesses with a ‘masculine’ culture (at the top). Finally, women who are involved in a so-called ‘dual career partnership’ tend to proceed with more caution as regards their career planning, since they feel the pressure of this dual career partnership more strongly than their partners. A third set of arguments situates the causes of the glass ceiling in the organizational structure, the organizational culture, and the unequal opportunities women are given within them. Structural elements, such as decision-making and recruitment procedures, are often described and, consequently, can easily be charted. But even then, hidden elements may play a role. An American experiment, for example, showed the following: if women constitute less than a fourth of a group of applicants, they are assessed more negatively than if the group of applicants consists of at least one third women.25 The culture of an organization is far more difficult to portray or put into words. What, often unwritten, rules and manners determine a company’s culture? What values are considered of paramount importance, and are these values linked implicitly or explicitly to masculinity or femininity? What expectations do people have with respect to people in authority? It should be noted here that these elements influence each other. Self-selection, the prior decision not be professionally active in

certain sectors because of the prevalent male business culture, increases the chances of survival of this strongly masculine organizational culture. What is remarkable here is that women more often than men put the emphasis on elements of organizational structure and culture as an explanation for limited opportunities for upward mobility, whereas men more often refer to self-selection in women. A more balanced upward mobility of women into higher management positions can be advocated on the basis of various arguments.26 First, there is the principle of justice: on the basis of ethical arguments, equal opportunity is a necessity. A second series of arguments reasons from scarcity in the labour market: in times of demographic ageing and relatively low unemployment, it does not make sense to offer opportunities for only one segment of potentially higher educated employees. This argument is shaky: it is not difficult on the basis of this line of reasoning to argue for the option of an economically determined appeal to women. In other words: the idea of women as a labour reserve only in times of scarcity is not far off. A third line of argumentation takes as its starting point the dynamism of a complex and rapidly changing society, which requires that organizations and businesses follow this dynamism and that their operations reflect it. In a society that pretends to respect feminine values, people expect these current tendencies not to remain a dead letter. In other words: people want to see the diversity of a society reflected in dynamic organizations that accommodate this diversity. Finally, it is also possible on the basis of ideas about effective leadership to argue for a more balanced upward movement of women into higher management positions. Research has shown that effective leadership needs qualities that are stereotypically linked with masculinity (for example, ambition, stamina, businesslike attitude and decisiveness) as well as qualities that are stereotypically linked to femininity (for example, communicative ability, attention to individual employees, positive feedback). Effective leadership means knowing how to combine a diversity of communication and management abilities:

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 72

democratic behaviour with decisiveness, aiming for consensus with direct action if necessary, etc. A plea for diversity in leadership styles, therefore, is not just based on an external societal argument, but also on a strong company — or organizational — internal argument, especially the diversity among the employees themselves. What strategies can speed up the change? It is important to make a clear analytical distinction between three interrelated but distinct dimensions27: 1) Relations in terms of percentages between male and female employees in an organization or business 2) Company culture 3) Gender analysis in terms of content This last item means that, wherever possible, activities in terms of content of an organization or productive activities of a business are scrutinized from a gender perspective. Of course, such an analysis can take many forms, depending on the specific activities of the business or organization. I restrict myself to some cases in point, because this third, content-related component really falls outside the scope of this article. Companies, for instance, that manufacture electrical appliances can check whether the shape of these appliances changes radically if the producer expects a male or a female user. It turns out that both the appliances (for the kitchen, for example) and the instruction manuals for expected female users are much more simplified than the appliances and instruction manuals for which the manufacturer visualizes male users. What is the implicit presupposition behind this distinction? The pharmaceutical industry can check whether test groups for medication have a representative composition and whether the proportions of male and female test persons are justified. Another point of particular interest in terms of content is the question whether enough resources are invested in research into diseases that often affect women or into the female ‘variant’ of certain diseases. A gender analysis in terms of content in the domain of education implies a focus on the

gender dimension in aims and final attainment level, as well as on the gender dimension in the content of the available courses. Indeed, this article is also an illustration of such an analysis in terms of content, since aspects of leadership are elaborated specifically from a gender perspective. Let us turn now to actual numbers and the business culture. Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s ideas about the difficult position of the tokens underscore the importance of the old issue in the feminist movement: sufficient representation as a minimal condition for change. From their precarious position, tokens are hardly capable of making any fundamental changes in a particular business or organizational culture. On the contrary, they are rather, as described above, pressured to conform or to play certain roles. Only when minority groups (women, ethnic minorities, etc.) are present in all the echelons of an organization or company, and in sufficient percentages, can a business or organizational culture that is experienced as masculine, change in a fundamental and lasting manner, in the direction of an organizational or business culture that accommodates diversity. The one-third norm, which has now been adapted in the political world as a target in the composition of electoral lists, is a minimum norm. Those responsible in organizations and business life should also give explicit thought to the strategies they consider desirable for upward mobility into all echelons. A further possibility is to work formally within the framework of legal possibilities and regulations with respect to equality. It should be clear that this is a bare minimum, which in practice will be insufficient to guarantee the upward movement of various groups to all the policy levels. If an affirmative action policy with respect to minority groups is opted for, the reasoning starts from a deficit model and the aim is to redress the disadvantage at which certain groups of employees find themselves, while retaining the existing business or organizational culture. If a mainstream approach is opted for, this implies the willingness to critically analyze the way an organization functions in its entirety, in a search for

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 73

visible and invisible factors that block the upward mobility of certain groups of employees into all policy levels.28 In this mainstream option, one should guard against allowing the focus on an equal opportunity policy to be ‘mainstreamed away’ because, while the general feeling is that it is everybody’s concern, in practice, nobody explicitly puts the topic on the agenda anymore. In the Netherlands, this is aptly formulated in the slogan: ‘Mainstreaming: disappearance policy or not? ’ Appointing so-called mainstream co-ordinators, who maintain interest in an equal opportunity policy in the business or organization unit where they work, can be a very useful policy instrument. At the same time, mainstream co-ordinators should remain alert lest equal opportunity policy is shifted onto them, in the same way in which gender analysis is often synonymous with women’s business. Gender is a relational concept: shifts in the perception of associations linked to masculinity are not without consequences for the perception of associations linked with femininity. Changes in a particular business culture have repercussions for everybody. Portraying a business culture is no simple matter: both visible and invisible, both explicit and implicit elements influence a business culture. Recently, various instruments have been developed as tools to analyze elements of a business culture from the perspective of a gender dimension. Here, a systematic distinction can be made between the formal policy of an organization or business, an affirmative action policy (for example, both setting the target figures and checking whether they are realized), personnel policy and labour conditions (for example, guaranteeing the sufficient inflow of women with a higher education); systematically analyzing the exit interviews of employees who are leaving the company or the organization in order to find out the reason why, management styles (for example, initiating ideas about permanent availability or labour culture), career planning (for example, ensuring that women are given enough opportunity for additional schooling or route planning), and coaching and network support of women in higher positions.29

A measure of inventiveness and creativity certainly pays off here. A female company manager told me that she had formally agreed with a headhunter agency that at least two files would always be submitted to her: one of a male and the other of a female candidate. There is also increasing attention for tutoring and training programmes to support the career development of women. Making a clear distinction between elements of legislation, elements of affirmative action, and elements of a mainstream approach, Annie Hondeghem and Sarah Nelen have compiled very useful checklists to analyze the various aspects of a company or organizational culture from the perspective of equal opportunity policy.30 I give some examples from their checklists by way of illustration: • Were formal references to the importance of gender equality included in statutes, mission statements, or a management code? • Is sufficient knowledge available about the specific equal opportunity legislation? • Are male and female workers adequately informed of their rights, and what support is there for workers who want to defend their rights in court? • Does a gender perspective form a systematic part of the implementation and evaluation of the existing human resources policy? • Are realistic target figures decided on, and if so, are procedures determined to realize and check these target figures? • Are job descriptions and competence profiles checked on gender neutrality? • Do selection committees have a balanced composition? Are members of selection committees aware that stereotypes (can) influence their perception of candidates? • Do labour conditions allow a smooth combination of labour and care tasks? • Are personnel evaluations gender neutral? • Is it clear who in the company or the organization is responsible or can be addressed with respect to these issues? • Is a company’s or an organization’s concern for equal opportunity visible to the outside world?

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 74

Each of these questions can be more fully elaborated and concretized so that they can actually be implemented in the daily life of businesses and organizations. Here, I refer to available implementation instruments, since this very concrete translation into the immediate applicability of the theory falls outside the scope of this article. Concluding remarks This whole story about gender and leadership is, implicitly and explicitly, a story about value options and value preferences. By attaching a great deal of importance to certain qualities associated with femininity, such as communicative power, attention to relationality, attention to a harmonious combination of private life and professional work, etc., today’s society expresses certain value options. Managing is always managing in a particular context, with the manager’s value options related, either in team spirit or in adversarial spirit, to those of the people from the environment within which managing takes place. I am convinced that the option of the fullyfledged upward mobility of women and minority groups to all echelons of a business or an organization can ultimately be founded only on ethical

grounds: the principle of justice. In the long run, any attempt to argue for this option on the basis of characteristics peculiar to leadership styles will get bogged down in its own dynamism. If leadership characteristics, which at present are allegedly associated with femininity, are ever more strongly appreciated as necessary elements of a solid, authoritative leadership style, then it is to be expected that these characteristics will soon lose this label associated with femininity. Male managers, too, will increasingly pay attention to communicative power, horizontality, feedback, etc. Thus, it is not inconceivable that, in the long run, women will again be victims of a community culture that pretends to set much store by so-called ‘feminine values’. After all, if men also integrate so-called feminine values or attitudes into their leadership style, could we not stop worrying about an upward mobility policy? Or does diversity in leadership styles necessarily require diversity among managers, even if one individual embodies this diversity in his or her own managing style? In other words: only arguments based on ethical and fundamental grounds offer a truly human future perspective, whereas arguments on the basis of gender-stereotypical leadership styles risk getting bogged down in a culture of ‘masculinity with a feminine face’.31

Notes 1. A. Morrison, R. White, E. Van Velsor, The Center of Creative Leadership, Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women reach the Top of America? (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987). 2. L. Wirth, Breaking through the Glass Ceiling. Women in Management (Geneva: International Labour Office, 2001), 38. 3. See: D.P. Moore and E.H. Buttner, Women Entrepreneurs. Moving Beyond the Glass Ceiling (Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage, 1997). 4. A.E.M. Van Viaenen, “Barrières voor vrouwen bij selectie en doorstroming,” in Vrouwen, leiderschap en management, ed. M.I. Demenint and C.E. Disselen (Utrecht: Lemma, 1992), 68. 5. See e.g. K. Malfliet et al., Eerste Gelijke Kansenrapport. Gelijke-Kansenbeleid en Universiteit. Naar een Mainstreambenadering (Leuven: Centrum voor Gelijke Kansenbeleid, 1999), 45; I. Stevens, I. Van Lamoen, Manuel on Gender Mainstreaming at Universities (Leuven: Centrum voor Gelijke Kansenbeleid K.U.Leuven/Garant, 2001). 6. For the situation in the Netherlands, see: J. Sanders, Vrouw en beleid – belemmeringen en stimulansen voor de doorstroom van vrouwen naar beleidsbepalende functies in de kerkelijke organisatie (Nijmegen: Kaski, 2001). 7. K. Klenke, Women and Leadership. A Contextual Perspective (New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1996), 171-175. 8. E.C. Lehman, Gender and Work. The Case of the Clergy (New York: State University of New York Press, 1993), 3-6; for an overview of this debate, including bibliographical references, see e.g. B. Parker, E.A. Fagenson, “An Introductory

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 75

Overview of Women in Corporate Management,” in Women in Management. Current Research Issues, ed. M.J. Davidson and R.J. Burke (London, 1994), 11-28; M. Ferrario, “Women as Managerial Leaders,” in Women in Management. Current Research Issues, ed. M.J. Davidson and R.J. Burke (London, 1994), 110-12. 9. K. Klenke, 135-163; M.I. Demenint and C.E. Disselen, “Vrouwen, leiderschap en management: het doorbreken van vicieuze cirkels,” in Vrouwen, leiderschap en management, ed. M.I. Demenint and C.E. Disselen (Utrecht: Lemma, 1992),124-129. 10. H.S. Astin and C. Leland. Women of Influence, Women of Vision. A Cross-generational Study of Leaders and Social Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991); S. Helgesen, The Female Advantage. Women’s ways of Leadership (New York, Doubleday, 1990). 11. S. Helgesen, 41-60. 12. Ibid., 55. 13. V. Draulans, “Wetenschapsbeoefening: genderblind of genderbewust?” Onze Alma Mater – Leuvense Perspectieven 55/3 (2001): 279-305. 14. A.H. Fisher, R.M. Rodriguez Mosquera and K. Rojahn, Masculiniteit met een feminien gezicht. Onderzoek naar de rol van organisatiecultuur en de trage doorstroming van vrouwen naar managementsfuncties (Den Haag: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, 2000), 2. 15. Ibid., 88-90. 16. R. M. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1977). 17. Ibid., ed. 1993, 211-212. 18. Ibid., ed. 1993, 233-236. 19. C. De Olde and E. Slinkman, Het glazen plafond. Een inventarisatie van cijfers, literatuur en onderzoek met betrekking tot de doorstroom van vrouwen naar de top (Den Haag: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, 1999), 30; J. Sanders, 37; M. Van Haegendoren, ed. Vrouw en management (Diepenbeek: Sein, 1998). 20. For this, the criterion was, among other things, being in charge of at least ten subordinates. 21. For an overview, see L. Wirth, 103. She refers to Public Personnel Management 28/1 (1999): 88 as a source. 22. M.L. Flanders, Breakthrough. The Career Woman’s Guide to Shattering the Glass Ceiling (London, 1994), 1-14. 23. K. Rojahn, Gender in the Context of Leadership (Amsterdam: Universiteit Amsterdam, 1996), 111-112, 121-122. 24. C. De Olde and E. Slinkman, 34-36; J. Sanders, 38-43. 25. V. Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women (Cambridge/London: MIT Press, 1998), 139-142. 26. J. Sanders, 48-51. 27. A distinction inspired by L. Schiebinger, Has Feminism Changed Science? (Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press, 1999). 28. See e.g. S. Nelen and A. Hondeghem, Equality oriented Personnel Policy in the Public Sector (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2000), 12-19. 29. J. Sanders, 52-53; See also K. Seynaeve, A. Forrier, Vrouwen en Management, in Vrouw en management, ed. M. Van Haegendoren (Diepenbeek: Sein, 1998), 91-111. 30. S. Nelen and A. Hondeghem, 20-32. On December 4, 2001, a study day was organized in Utrecht, at which ‘Digma’ was introduced: the Database of instruments for gender mainstreaming. Digma can be consulted via www.amazone.be. See also www.e-quality.nl. 31. Inspired by the title of A.H.Fisher, P.M. Rodriguez Mosquera and K. Rojahn.

Bibliography Astin, H.S., and C. Leland. Women of Influence, Women of Vision. A Cross-generational Study of Leaders and Social Change. San Francisco/Oxford: Jossey-Bass, 1991. De Olde, C., and E. Slinkman. Het glazen plafond. Een inventarisatie van cijfers, literatuur en onderzoek met betrekking tot de doorstroom van vrouwen naar de top. Den Haag: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, 1999. Demenint, M.I., and C.E. Disselen. “Vrouwen, leiderschap en management: het doorbreken van vicieuze cirkels.” In Vrouwen, leiderschap en management. Edited by M.I. Demenint and C.E. Disselen. Utrecht: Lemma, 1992.

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 76

Draulans, V. “Wetenschapsbeoefening: Genderblind of genderbewust?” Onze Alma Mater-Leuvense Perspectieven 55/3 (2001): 279-305. Ferrario, M. “Women as Managerial Leaders.” In Women in Management. Current Research Issues. Edited by M.J. Davidson and R.J. Burke. London, 1994. Fisher, A.H., R.M. Rodriguez Mosquera and K. Rojahn. Masculiniteit met een feminien gezicht. Onderzoek naar de rol van organisatiecultuur en de trage doorstroming van vrouwen naar managementsfuncties. Den Haag: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, 2000. Flanders, M.L. Breakthrough. The Career Woman’s Guide to Shattering the Glass Ceiling. London, 1994. Helgesen, S. The Female Advantage. Women’s Ways of Leadership. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Kanter, R.M. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Klenke, K. Women and Leadership. A Contextual Perspective. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1996. Lehman, E.C. Gender and Work. The Case of the Clergy. New York: State University of New York Press, 1993. Malfliet, K, et al. Eerste Gelijke Kansenrapport. Gelijke Kansenbeleid en Universiteit. Naar een Mainstreambenadering. Leuven: Centrum voor Gelijke Kansenbeleid, 1999. Moore, D.P., and E.H. Buttner. Women Entrepreneurs. Moving Beyond the Glass Ceiling. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage, 1997. Morrison, A., R. White, and E. Van Velsor. Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America? Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1987. Nelen, S., and A. Hondeghem. Equality oriented Personnel Policy in the Public Sector. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2000. Parker, B., and E.A. Fagenson.”An Introductory Overview of Women in Corporate Management.” In Women in Management. Current Research Issues. Edited by M.J. Davidson and R.J. Burke. London, 1994. Rojahn, K. Gender in the Context of Leadership. Amsterdam: Universiteit Amsterdam, 1996. Sanders, J. Vrouw en beleid – belemmeringen en stimulansen voor de doorstroom van vrouwen naar beleidsbepalende functies in de kerkelijke organisaties. Nijmegen: Kaski, 2001. Schiebinger, L. Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press, 1999. Seynaeve, K., and A. Forrier. “Vrouwen en Management.” In Vrouw en management. Edited by M. Van Haegendoren. Diepenbeek: Sein, 1998. Stevens, I. and I. Van Lamoen, Manual on Gender Mainstreaming at Universities. Leuven: Centrum voor Gelijke Kansenbeleid K.U.Leuven/Garant, 2001. Valian, V. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge/London: MIT Press, 1998. Van Haegendoren, M., ed. Vrouw en management. Diepenbeek: Sein, 1998. Van Viaenen, A.E.M.. “Barrières voor vrouwen bij selectie en doorstroming.” In Vrouwen, leiderschap en management. Edited by M.I. Demenint and C.E. Disselen. Utrecht: Lemma, 1992. Wirth, L. Breaking through the Glass Ceiling. Women in Management. Geneva: International Labour Office, 2001.

Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 77