Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of BusinessTeacher.org.
Women in leadership roles in the workplace and politics have made a turnaround in progress over the past years. It is determined by research, however, that despite an improved existence of women in leadership and political positions across the world continue to be managed by men. A majority would agree that men and women make equally good leaders. This discrepancy between superficial equality and ongoing statistical inequality creates misperception; in spite of positive views of women breaking down barriers to top positions, they are, in fact, still underrepresented in governance and executive leadership roles. My research paper should offer a better insight of the barriers women encounter in business and political roles, why women are necessary for these roles, and what companies, government, and voters can do to help women overcome gender barriers and bias.
Women face many barriers to landing top roles in organizational leadership. A most common and well- known obstacles to career progression is the selection process in which most companies use. The applicant pool for women that are qualified for promotion to top positions is small and therefore no room for advancement. According to Burke and Nelson (2000), 82% of firms declared that the absence of comprehensive supervision abilities and line knowledge was a significant supporting factor in the decisions not to promote women. However, another study finds that firms have a large application pool of women that are qualified and do not consider them for the position (Burke, et al., 2000). Another reason is that current top positions are held by men who tend to promote other men (Van Vianen & Fisher, 2002).
Another barrier that women face in the organization is the affiliation many women have with their female associates. A large number of employees have a preference to unite by related interest. Because there are a few women in top leadership roles; there are few female advisors. Laff (2006) observes that women more reserved in the organization because of their inadequate access to competent mentors. It is natural for people to seek the same class of mentors because they understand ordinarily encountered difficulties. Men do not fight the same challenges, have the same issues, and many times do not want to teach a woman. Men needs also differ from the requirements of women from their teachers. Male mentors are mostly reluctant to mentor women because they see them as more sensitive, not as skillful at solving problems, and because of the risk of sexual harassment in the workplace concerns (Hanson, 2008).
Businesses are going international, and that introduces new obstacles for women. More responsibility and higher expectations come along with senior level and top executives. Time demands and transfers of many businesses, require top management to move internationally as well. Moving appears as a well-known barrier for many women with children and an employed husband or significant other (Wellington, Kropg, & Gerkovich, 2003). Family issues have not been the most significant problem; it has been the acceptance of different practices and cultural standards. It is common for women to accept higher than that of men, a substantial number of women are unsuccessful because they are unable to take the agriculture shock and abandon in new surroundings. Women also encounter opposition in other societies to women in leadership. Many nations will merely avoid hiring or promoting a woman top leader because of their faiths and consciousness that women are incompetent of doing business in an organization effectively (Strout, 2001).
It is said by many top executives and management that women do not wish to exceed in their current roles. However, a recent study indicated that 55% of women not in supervision positions aspire to be in the highest position of their businesses (Annis 2008). Many women lose ambition to do exceptionally well because of the many barriers faced along the way of becoming a supervisor. The barriers include bias, labeling, demands of the family, and shortage of possibilities (Emory, 2008).
Many women are the predominant caretakers in addition to the positions they hold in companies (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2009). When duration restrictions and duties of a job become more crucial, promotions force them to decide between children and the profession. According to Jack and Suzy Welch (2007), there are few women CEOs, and executives who start a family due to the effect it would have on their career. On the other hand, many women have voluntarily resigned because of family decisions (Baxter, 2000; Wallace, 2008). When women have children, they are much more reluctant to journey far and work extended hours due to their household responsibilities additionally hindering her promotion possibility (Woodard, 2007; Hewlett, 2002; Lyons & McArthur, 2005).
Lastly, prior judgments of leadership skills, proficiency, and confidence may prevent women from succeeding in top leadership roles. Many organizations compare male attributes with achievement and accomplishment. These include confidence, determination, and goal-oriented leadership abilities (Jogulu & Wood 2006; Envick, 2008). Other stereotypes of women include the assumption of being meek, modest, loving, and nurturing (Eagly & Carl, 2003). These passive components are not- managerial material. People want a leader who will perform, take critique, and do what is best for the company at all expense (Nelson & Levesque 2007). Common perceptions and stereotypes of women leaders leadership styles are intimately connected (Goff, 2005; Henderson, 2004). Research in 1990 found that men appeared as goal-oriented leaders more commonly than women who look as friendly leaders more commonly than men (Marrujo & Kliender, 1992). The requirements of leadership roles have become a culturally accepted trend for men to take leadership roles because their goal-oriented style was more universally accepted (Ryan & Haslam, 2007). Because times have changed, the friendly leadership style of women has been allowed and appreciated in some situations (Jogulu &Wood, 2006).
Women’s valuable participation in the electoral office is crucial to ensuring the representative role of our government. Marginalized women are at the introductory level of office, and process to obtaining balance has nearly stopped. In a recent article, Shifting Gears: How Women Navigate the Road to Higher Office (Hunt Alternatives Fund 2014), Political Parity, a program of the Hunt Alternatives Fund, has named the obstacles women face in the running for political office, particularly in striving to advance to higher political office (such as governorships and positions in the U.S. Congress). The report uses the similarity of the “operator” and “the highway” to describe the discussion in the political science field about whether women are holding themselves back because they have less will (Lawless and Fox 2012) or whether women are held back by various dips and obstructions along the road (Baer and Hartmann 2014; Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013). It suggests that both the motorist and the highway are vital to any travel. Women are often surveyed to do as well as men when they campaign for office with comparable fund-raising sums and electoral victory, but fewer women decide to pursue a candidacy.
One study on the “motorist” side blames the discrimination of women in political office to a gender gap in the legislative goal (Lawless and Fox 2012). A study examined data from a questionnaire of 4,000 male and female possible candidates those who are well established to pursue candidacy and found that 62 percent of men, compared with 46 percent of women had ever contemplated running for political office, and 22 percent of men and 14 percent of women were inspired to run for office eventuality. On the “highway” side, a dependent study of 60 women candidates who have run for the U.S. Congress or state and local offices recognized barriers women encounter to running for higher office, and performance items for improving the number of women in elected positions. Among the most mentioned barriers were fundraising, which must become larger when running for Congress or a state-wide appointment. Improving relations with contributors so that when asked, contributors reply, and possessing contact to good call lists as well as campaigning while female, maintaining family responsibilities and office holding with campaigning, and the governance of private, male political networks that frequently eliminate women (Baer and Hartmann 2014).
A current, revised corporate structure is developing, and it will take women with knowledge joined with men with the knowledge to make it the most significant and lucrative business. Women executives are needed because on average they are great communicators and are more inclined to be better at it than men. The Global Leadership Forecast 2014–2015 settled that gender variety in leadership means a wider variety of knowledge, which, in turn, leads to enhanced brainstorming and more massive business perks. Researchers asked leaders what would help improve their performance, and they answered: “my organization needs to start producing more clarity, more thought to developing women in leadership positions, and an environment in which everyone has an opportunity to be a leader.” By employing and developing women from different societies into an organization, it provides an excellent foundation from which to grow on.
More American workers acknowledge women managers as being far more trustworthy than they do men managers. Pew’s “Women and Leadership” surveyed Americans in 2015 and found that 34% say women are better at managing employees, while only 3% say men are better at it. These figures do not mean women are more truthful than men; it’s a good suggestion of how substantially neutral some business settlements can be. Businesses entrust managers with deciding among choices that are not black and white, lawfully supporting, and the opportunity to lead genuinely is essential to the whole company’s accomplishment and job fulfillment. The US government needs capable and qualified women to help run America. Women politicians are more efficient at raising unison and elevating proposals than men politicians. When our legislature shut down for weeks, the women both Democrats and Republics together reached across party lines to format solutions.
Often, we are disappointed with governments because we feel as though lawmakers do not consider our perspectives. It may be because we continue voting for the same type of people affluent men, continuously to be a voice for the people. In reality, 65% of politicians are men they are only 31 percent of the community (Rattigan 2014). We must vote for more women to have a possibility for political balance and have a house that is a representation of the society. Women in politics, do not have the ego and the motive of men to focus on power and are more aimed at getting things done.
Moreover, women in such positions are likely to bring positive outcomes for any country with the condition to have been previously deeply involved in politics and to have substantial external political connections. The more firmly house serves the law of the nation as a whole; the more balanced its policies are inclined to be. It is not only imperative to elect women in the government, but also to ensure comprehensive representation. Gender equity has a high possibility to enhance a business, government, and the overall well-being of a population. Regardless of what many people believe, gender equity is not restricted to building support for women. “Gender equity” suggests that all have a connection to similar benefits. It fits for men and women to remove clichéd opinions about gender roles.
Gender equity in the workplace, can increase interests and improve a company’s standing. And it is also the point that it is just. Companies led by females publish more encouraged employees and higher production than companies led by men. The reasons why are argued, a Gallup poll found that people with female managers were more committed than those who have male leaders. Comparable research has discovered that women may be more encouraging, and check up on their employees more often than male managers do, which leads to ambition, engagement, and higher production rates.
Commonly, men and women observe a circumstance or dilemma from different perspectives and reach solutions accordingly. The organization can profit from multiple approaches and in-careful vision that can eventually achieve excellent production. With a gender-diverse workforce, a business can grow its client support and give better assistance. A gender-balanced team leads with surpassing business education and assist the company to obtain more sources, as well as various carriers of data. By sustaining gender equity in the workplace, the business can generate a pool of loyal, skillful, and capable women employees who play an important role in taking the company ahead. In a gender diverse workplace, good assurance forever points wholesome work practices where employees drive each other to operate at an elevated height. It is a good company practice to retain women in top leadership positions.
A diverse cabinet or government should be equal, discuss more of the matters that implement individually or extremely to women. Female politicians do not continuously address issues that are relevant to women, and male politicians do not continually dismiss these issues. Gender-equality promotes government, and the whole purpose of Government is that the people govern the ultimate control in a society. It is obvious why not including half of the human race from equal sharing in governing society by need fails democracy, comparable to allowing all genders participate equally. The countries that have the most gender equality score highest on the happiness scales and are usually more economically successful.
Women advocate for more laws intended to assist women, children, human health, and national protection. Women in Congress fought to get health insurance for women included when the Affordable Care Act was being passed, advocated for the implementation of sexual harassment prohibition and adjudication practices in the military, fought to get women involved in medical experiments, and fought for the addition of child-care vouchers in aid reform.
Women advocate and co-advocate more bills. Women get laws declared at the equal rate as men, except for when the laws affect women, fitness, schooling, and public assistance issues. In these circumstances, bills advocated by women are likely to fall in the panel because Congressional representatives have limited women seats and lesser women’s voices. Women bring a more significant percent more federal funds home to their communities than men. Women are more likely to advocate bills in areas of civil rights, health, and education. Women bring different abilities and preferences to political practice.
We maintain the need for more women to run for public office. There happen to be several strides that can be taken as people and companies to generate an important shift in the gender gap. Before there is a change, we must be aware. It is hard to notice all the ways gender impacts work if you are not the one experiencing them. Male business administrators and supervisors should advocate for gender equity within the companies. It is in the best interest of the employers’ to encourage the female employees. According to Bentley University’s Women in Business survey, 57 percent of company scouts say that women are better job applicants than men.
Executives can assist women to learn management skills and make in-house changes in business settings concerning willingness. Mainly, they need to support colleges in understanding what they are looking for when it comes to internship experiences, job records, and how to interview. Some of the present circumstances to the gender gap are the internal operations of companies, who have not kept pace with the new ages. Many companies run the same way they did years before catering to men like they are the only primary caregivers of families. Conventional office-leave policies and promotion courses offer minimal room for development or variety to those ascending the corporate scale. These procedures need revision and progress. Male leaders must be willingly involved to help women advance. They should have a more committed position in mentoring and developing women to be prosperous in the company. The economy is most balanced when every person has the same opportunity to participate. It is in the interest of all company managers whether it be men or women to end overlooking this problem and assist women to succeed.
After women start families, they often quit employment or move into lower positions that pay less. There is a logically easy solution; companies can offer a flexible schedule for women with children. Having the flexibility to work and care for a family is a sacred, and necessary, benefit. If companies do not provide and encourage flexibility, they will force women to opt-out or push them off the leadership path. Companies should also establish a nondiscriminatory appraisal policy. An equal appraisal policy is part of an appropriate woman-centered capability approach. It is essential to be gender-blind in both employment opportunities, and performance appraisals to stay conscious of prevailing prejudices. Leaders should be responsible for their employing choices and assessments; this is an excellent way to promote rational judgment.
Companies should invest in their top executives of the future. Women in their mid-career are starting to believe that they are a stepchild. Managers of tomorrow are seeking to move up the corporate ladder. Businesses can assist more women in climbing the ladder and expand their channel by offering sponsoring programs, gender-bias education, employing senior executives, and networking with businesses that practice returning to work. Companies should give women access to external networks. One of the most effective things we can do to close the gender gap is to ensure that women have the tools they need to move forward. In 2013, the Harvard Business Review found that the shortage of access to confidential associates, particularly those associates that can provide valuable information, is one of the main obstacles to the progression of women. A recent poll exposed that almost half of business leaders or members are not familiar with women’s groups (Matejczk). Granting women an association they can acquire knowledge from, and depend on, gives them the chance to step outside of the box which raises possibilities of risk taking and increases work commitment.
Businesses should incorporate diversity into their foundation beliefs. Workplace diversity is not courteous but it is fair. 39% of Ellevate constituents acknowledge that participating leaders are beneficial in improving diversity. (Matejczk). It is in the powers of top leaders to incorporate variety into their organization’s foundation. A competing company, need to know that difference is an advantage to build an organization that adopts all workers, accepts uniqueness and promotes making contacts and continuing education.
Lastly, companies should create an unbiased workplace, be attentive, but before anything else, educate themselves and train current and future employees regarding biases. Closure of the gender gap will not occur rapidly. There must be a combined attempt from businesses and nations to get rid of biases and allow more female leaders to be successful. The reward is well deserving of the effort when the outcome is an equal work environment and a more productive business.
There is a need for women role models if we desire to have more women running for political offices. According to a recent study, girls aspire to be in political roles, but they need mentors. Therefore, it is not that girls do not want to compete for legislative seats, it is that only a small percent believe society encourages women to be politicians. Women also find that if they run for political offices, they would have to work extra harder than men and risk the chance of not being taken seriously.
Recommended procedures expanding the representation of female politicians are as follows: selecting women that want to run; developing and improving their campaign preparation, and continuous training that features seeking politics as a profession. Provide women with political mentors and the support of other women candidates and women elected officials. Women should network with supporters who may hold a seat in the office or may elect them because they feel that they will be a successful politician. They should also strengthen networks with women’s organizations. Campaigning and office holding should be family friendly (Political Parity 2014). Several of these procedures request that external associations, such as a strengthened network of women’s organizations, become engaged in advocating women who campaign for office (Baer and Hartmann 2014; Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013). Adhering to these proposals can potentially make a difference in promoting more women to run for political office and assisting them to exceed once they are elected. Then our institutions of government raise women’s views and policy priorities sufficiently, and the government will benefit from women’s political roles. Do not vote for women just because, vote for women so that we can make a difference in this country.
Governments, more than any other sector, are accountable for setting community requirements and for paving the way on behalf of the citizens they speak represent. In addition to aiding more women into senior roles, governments need to do more to foster diversity, including enacting and meaningfully implementing legislation, countercultural bias, and leading by example. Governments must be supportive of common equity and minority representation to knock down remaining barriers. Senseless prejudice, in both men and women, is powerful and pervasive and leaders need to recognize that unconscious bias plays a role in recruitment and promotion. It is no one’s fault that it exists, but we have an opportunity to address it and oppose its effects to achieve greater equality at senior levels. Departmental secretaries/CEOs of government agencies need to encourage diversity vocally and action. Women with the right experience and potential are everywhere, let’s support them, provide opportunities and appoint them.
In conclusion, I have highlighted several significant findings throughout my research paper. It is possible, from these findings to settle on several results. First, it is essential to understand that women are perceived to have made numerous signs of progress towards equality, but this is not true. Certain inequality obstacles appear in the form of barriers, the bias that women face. It will take a lot of effort for balance to be achieved, but businesses, Governments, men, and women have to play their role. Training should be proposed by leaders, along with role models, flexible schedules, and recognized steps to overcome barriers and bias. The Government must recruit women to run in political races, train, and mentor them. Women should know the potential obstacles caused by gender bias. Women should continue their education, training, and experience because these few barriers they can control. The barriers women cannot control within businesses and politics are prejudice, stereotyping, and negative assumptions. My research paper should have provided a greater understanding of how men and women differ, especially in top positions and political roles, the importance of having women in these roles, and what companies, government, and voters can do to help women overcome gender barriers and bias.
Annis, B. (2008). Men and women in leadership. Canadian Manager, 20(4), 23.
Baer, Denise L. and Heidi I. Hartmann. 2014. Building Women’s Political Careers:
Strengthening the Pipeline to Higher Office. Report #I926. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
Baxter, J., & Nelson, D. (2000). Women executives: Health, stress, and success.
Academy of Management Executive,14(2), 107-121. Burke, R., & Wright, E. O. (2000). The glass ceiling hypothesis: A reply to critics.
Gender and Society, 14(6), 814-821.
Carroll, Susan J. and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Presss.
Eagly, A. H., & Carl, L. L. (2003) The female leadership advantage: An
evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807-834. Emory (2008). Is this the year “equal pay for equal work” is addressed?
Knowledge @ Emory, 11 September. Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania. 16 Nov 2008, retrieved from
Envick, B. R. (2008). The Big Five Peronality Model. Business Network. 16
Hansen, K. (2008). The value of a mentor. QuintCareers.com, Nov 13, retrieved
Hewlett, S. A. (2002). Executive women and the myth of having it all. April 2002.
Harvard Business Review. 15 Nov. 34-41.
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2009). Leadership enhancing the
lessons of experience. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jogulu, U., & Wood, G. (2006). The role of leadership theory in raising the profile
of women in management. Equal Opportunities International, 25(4), 236-250
Laff, M. (2006). The invisible wall. T+D. (61), 32-38.
Lawless, J. & Fox, R. (2014). Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in
PoliticalAmbition, American Political Science Review, 108, 03, (499), (2014).
Lyons, D., & McArthur, C. (2005). Gendre’s unspoken role in leadership
evaluations. Human Resource Planning, 30(3), 25-32.
Marrujo, R. E., & Kliender, B. H. (1992). Why women fail to get to the top.
Equal Opportunities International, 11(4), 105.
Matejczyk, A. Ellevate. Five Ways Top Companies Are Closing the Gender Gap
Ryan, M. K., & Haslan, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics
surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions.
Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 549-572.
Strout, E. (2001). Confronting the glass border. Sales & Marketing Management,
Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2006). What’s holding women back. Business Week. February, 3971, 100.
Wellington, S., Kropf, M., & Gerkovich, P. (2003). What’s holding women back. Harvard Business Review, (81), 18-19.
Women in Leadership. (2015). Retriever from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/
Woodard, T. (2007). Developing women leaders: It’s now a bottom line issue.
Competence Women, 10-11.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this assignment and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: