2.1 Introduction

This chapter seeks to review literature by other authors and researchers. In this chapter the researcher will look at what the glass ceiling is, the definition of gender and the reasons behind the leadership gap between men and women. The researcher will also look at three main types of barriers to advancement for women which are: organisational barriers, societal barriers and individual barriers.

Statistics published by Countrymeters (2017), show that Zimbabwe’s female population marginally exceeds the male population by 1,4%; however, in the corporate world women leaders are still minimal. This comes as no surprise to many; what is surprising is that men dominate women in leadership positions across every sector in the world, i.e., corporate, non-profit, politics, government, education, medicine, military, and religion.

Facts and figures released by UN Women (2016), reveal that as at January 2017 there were 15 women holding the office of Head of State, representing 8,4% of the total number of Heads of State in the world. Almost half (seven) of the female heads of state hold the office in European countries and three are in Africa. In 2015 nine women were heads of government and only six in the beginning of 2016, lowering the percentage to 4,3%. The significance of these statistics and the implications on leadership are cause for both concern and discussion. What is causing this gap and keeping women from advancing to the top?

2.2 Glass ceiling

The notion of the glass ceiling was first coined in 1978 and back then it was recognized as an American social issue describing the invisible and unreachable barriers that women face as they approach the top of the corporate ladder (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). The glass ceiling is not only an invisible barrier applying to an individual woman, but it applies to women as a whole. These barriers are a result of subtle, indirect obstacles due to labelling or stereotyping, thereby placing stumbling blocks in the career paths of many women. Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia, and Vanneman (2001) argue that the glass ceiling gender disparities are more dominant at the top of hierarchies than at lower levels, and that the drawbacks become more challenging as a person’s career advances.

According to Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia and Vanneman (2001), the glass ceiling constructs job disparity unexplained by a person’s past qualifications or achievements. Such disparities are not explained by job-related characteristics of the employee, but by gender differences. “The glass ceiling contradicts the nation’s ethic of individual worth and accountability, the belief that education, training, dedication and hard work will lead to a better life” (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995, p.24). Past experience, achievements and qualifications are rendered invalid when it comes to the glass ceiling. The glass ceiling is a reality for women, indicating that no matter how much education or experience a woman receives, there is a real chance she will never achieve her highest professional aspirations. Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia, and Vanneman (2001, p.258) defined four distinctive characteristics that must be met to conclude that a glass ceiling exists:

1. “A gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee.”

2. “A gender or racial difference that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome.”

3. “A gender or racial inequality in the chances of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportions of each gender or race currently at those higher levels.”

4. “A gender or racial inequality that increases over the course of a career.”

They found evidence of a glass ceiling for women; however, racial inequalities among men do not follow a similar pattern. Thus, we should not describe all systems of differential work rewards as “glass ceilings.” When applied to women, there appears to be a distinctive gender phenomenon. The popular notion of glass ceiling effects implies that gender disadvantages are stronger at the top of the hierarchy than at lower levels and that these disadvantages become worse later in a person’s career.

While the phrase glass ceiling is figurative, many women do not realise the intensity of its effect unless and until it is experienced. Carli and Eagly (2003), also note that the glass ceiling constitutes an invisible organisational or perceptual barrier for women and minority groups, preventing them from moving up the organisational ladder, particularly emphasizing the subordinate position of women. Demirdjian (2007), argues that throughout the long history of mankind, women have been employed as a second fiddle to men. Glass ceiling has remained a modern-day issue, with many surveys and reports being undertaken internationally (see Catalyst, 2007; Singh and Vinnicombe, 2004; EOWA, 2003).

According to  Pillai, Prasad, and Thomas (2011) the word ‘ceiling’ implies that there is a limitation preventing career growth and ‘glass’ meaning transparent and unseen. Many share a cultural belief that women are not “supposed” to be in most senior positions of power. The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) postulates that at the highest level of business, a barrier exists that is rarely penetrated by women. As men advance into senior management positions, obstacles do exist; however, men are not hindered by gender-based discrimination and stereotyping. “Despite identical education attainment, ambition, and commitment to a career, men still progress faster than women” (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995, p.23). Burton and Parker (2010) argue that it is more problematic for women than for men to be promoted to levels of senior management in workplaces. Women face more difficulty, compared to men, as they progress up the corporate ladder.

Ryan and Haslam (2005) point out that the invisibility of the constraint is problematic with restrictive organisational cultures and individual gender assumptions contributing to the existence of a glass ceiling. This is particularly evident in organisations predominated by men. When a corporation has more men than women (or vice versa) in influential positions, the culture tends to adopt attributes that favour the dominant gender (Pedersen and Whisenant, 2005). As a consequence, men (particularly those in female-orientated professions) are likely conveyed into management positions by a ‘glass escalator’ (Ryan and Haslam, 2005).

Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2009) insist that work and life balance challenges can impact women’s advancement and, if not dealt with, may contribute to the glass-ceiling phenomenon. For many women, in addition to the roles they hold in their companies, they remain the primary caretakers for their families. Assumptions are often made regarding women’s availability to do a job without interference from family responsibilities. As the time constraints and demands of a job become more important, promotion forces many women to choose between family and career. Further, some organisations may not offer work programmes that support outside commitments, particularly for senior management positions. Jack and Suzy Welch (2006) also subscribe to the idea that very few women CEOs and women executives have children due to the effect it would have on their career. As a possible solution, women could choose to work fewer hours than men in order to spend more time with their families. On the other hand, many women have voluntarily left their jobs due to family decisions.

The glass ceiling is a controversial subject that is constantly in hot pursuit. There are many statistics and theories that come into play; so many, in fact, that people