Year 2018, Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages 226 - 253 2018-09-30

Classification of Organizations’ Level Of Glass Ceiling Within The Frame of Contingencies: A Comparative Example From Education and Health Sectors

Numan AKSOY [1]

26 159

Gender inequality encountered worldwide, also visibly exists in organizations as a problem. The entire global workforce bears signs of gender discrimination. Women occupy much fewer managerial positions when compared with men. Women work in organizations in low hierarchy and less responsible jobs, and are paid lower wages. The situation of women who are not given a chance for promotion in organizations, is depicted figuratively by a transparent barrier. The barriers, which invisibly hinder women from rising in the organizational levels are mentioned as glass ceiling in the literature.

This study is an investigation into the way several chosen contingencies affect the perception of glass ceiling in women. The industry which the organization belongs, socialization provided by the family, whether the organization is in the public or private sector, women’s marital status, number of children, and the establishment date of the organization are the selected micro and macro contingencies. These contingencies show in which situations women’s perception of glass ceiling increase or decrease and thus provide a way for classification. In this research a comparative analysis of women’s perception of glass ceiling in the health and education sectors has been carried out. The above cited sectors have been chosen to make a comparison between a sector which can be traditionally accepted as women’s field and a sector which can be regarded as outside of this field. A glass ceiling questionnaire was answered by women in these sectors and the results supported the previous arguments of the literature.

Gender Inequality, Glass Ceiling, Chosen Contingencies
  • Adler, N. J., ve Israeli, D. N. (1994). Where in the World are the Women’s Executives?.Business Quarterly, 59(1): 89-94.
  • Apperson, M., Schmidt H., Moore, S., Grunberg, L., ve Greenberg E. (2002). Women Managers and the Experience of Work-Family Conflict. American Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1(3): 9-16.
  • Aytaç, S. (2008). Çalışma Yaşamında Kadının Kariyer Sorunu. Ankara: TUHİS.
  • Baxter, J., ve Wright, E. O. (2000). The Glass Ceiling Hypothesis: a Comparative Study of the United States, Sweden and Australia. Gender & Society, 14(2): 275-294.
  • Blum, T. C., Fields, D. L., ve Goodman, J. S. (1994). Organization Level Determinants of Women in Management. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2): 241-268.
  • Brass, D. J. (1985). Men’s and Women’s Networks: a Study of Interaction Patterns and Influence in an Organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28 (2): 327-343.
  • Cannings, K. (1988). Managerial Promotion: the Effects of Socialization, Specialization and Gender. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 42(1): 77-88.
  • Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender Differences in Interaction Style and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4): 565-576.
  • Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, Language and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5): 941-981.
  • Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and Social Influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4): 725-741.
  • Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The Influence of Parent Education and Family Income on Child Achievement: the Indirect Role of Parental Expectations and the Home Environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2): 294-304.
  • Dryler, H. (1998). Parental Role Models, Gender and Educational Choice. British Journal of Sociology, 49(3): 375-398.
  • Ergöl, Ş., Koç, G., Eroğlu, K., ve Taşkın, L. (2012). Türkiye’de Kadın Araştırma Görevlilerinin Ev ve İş Yaşamında Karşılaştıkları Güçlükler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2(1): 43-49.
  • Goodman, J. S., Fields D. L., ve Blum T. C. (2003). Cracks in the Glass Ceiling: in What Kinds of Organizations do Women Make it to the Top. Group & Organization Management, 28(4): 475-501.
  • Hannan M. T., ve Freeman, J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929-964.
  • Higgins, M. C., ve Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing Mentoring at Work: a Developmental Network Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2): 264-288.
  • Holst, E., ve Busch, A. (2009). Glass Ceiling Effect and Earnings: the Gender Pay Gap in Managerial Positions in Germany. SOE Papers, June Issue: 1-34.
  • Jackson, J. F. L., ve Callaghan, E. M. (2009). What do we Know About Glass Ceiling Effects? a Taxonomy and Critical Review to Inform Higher Education Research. High Education Journal, 50: 460-482.
  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
  • Kelly, R. M., ve Guy, M. E. (1991). Public Managers in the States: a Comparison of Career Advancement by Sex. Public Administration Review, 51(5): 402-412.
  • Kline, P. (1994). An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. New York: Routledge.
  • Linehan, M., ve Walsh, J. S. (1999). Senior Female International Managers: Breaking the Glass Border. Women in Management Review, 14(7):261-272.
  • McGraht, R. G. (2006). Beyond Contingency: From Structure to Structuring in the Design of the Contemporary Organization. S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, ve W. Nord (Der.) The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies Second Edition: 577-597. London: Sage.
  • Meyer, J. W., ve Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-63.
  • Morrison, A. M., ve Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and Minorities in Management. American Psychologist, 45: 200-208.
  • Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and Mentoring: a Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13(1): 65-78.
  • Powell, G. N., ve Butterfield, D. A. (1994). Investigating the Glass Ceiling Phenomenon: an Empirical Study of Actual Promotions to Top Management. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1): 68-86.
  • Ragins, B. R., ve Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and Power in Organization: a Longitudinal Perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 108(1): 51-58.
  • Ragins, B. R., ve Cotton, J.L. (1991). Easier Said Than Done: Gender Differences in Perceived Barriers to Gaining a Mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4): 939-951.
  • Roberts, A. (2000). Mentoring Revisited: a Phenomenological Reading of the Literature. Mentoring & Tutoring, 8(2): 145-170.
  • Schor, S. M. (1997). Seperate and Unequal. Business Horizons, 40:51-58.
  • Scott-Jones, D., ve Wilkins, W. (1986). Sex Equity in Parenting and Parent Education. Theory Into Practice, 25(4): 235-247.
  • Singh, V., Vinnicombe, S., ve Kumra, S. (2006). Women in Formal Corporate Networks: an Organizational Citizenship Perspective. Women in Management Review, 21(6): 458-482.
  • Simonetti, J. L., Ariss, S., ve Martinez, J. (1999). Through the Top with Mentoring. Business Horizons, November-December Issue: 56-62.
  • Smith, S. (2002). Family and Work: How the Balancing Act Disadvantages Women in the Workplace . 31 Mayıs 2010. http://www.socwomen.org/socactivism/factlabor.pdf.
  • Tharenou, P., Latiner, S., ve Conroy, D. (1994). How Do You Make it to the Top? an Examination of Influences on Women’s and Men’s Managerial Advancement. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4): 899-931.
  • Van Vianen, A. E. M., ve Fischer, A. H. (2002). Illuminating the Glass Ceiling: The Role of Organizational Culture Preferences. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(3): 315-337.
  • Wood, W., ve Eagly, A. H. (2002). A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Behavior of Women and Men: Implications for the Origins of Sex Differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (5): 699-727.
  • Zafarullah, H. (2000). Through the Brick Wall and the Glass Ceiling: Women in the Civil Service in Bangladesh. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(3): 197-209.
Primary Language en
Subjects Management
Published Date September
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0001-7698-4753
Author: Numan AKSOY (Primary Author)
Institution: ATILIM ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


Bibtex @research article { fsecon448109, journal = {Fiscaoeconomia}, issn = {}, eissn = {2564-7504}, address = {Ahmet Arif EREN}, year = {2018}, volume = {2}, pages = {226 - 253}, doi = {10.25295/fsecon.2018.03.010}, title = {Classification of Organizations’ Level Of Glass Ceiling Within The Frame of Contingencies: A Comparative Example From Education and Health Sectors}, key = {cite}, author = {AKSOY, Numan} }
APA AKSOY, N . (2018). Classification of Organizations’ Level Of Glass Ceiling Within The Frame of Contingencies: A Comparative Example From Education and Health Sectors. Fiscaoeconomia, 2 (3), 226-253. DOI: 10.25295/fsecon.2018.03.010
MLA AKSOY, N . "Classification of Organizations’ Level Of Glass Ceiling Within The Frame of Contingencies: A Comparative Example From Education and Health Sectors". Fiscaoeconomia 2 (2018): 226-253 <http://dergipark.org.tr/fsecon/issue/39490/448109>
Chicago AKSOY, N . "Classification of Organizations’ Level Of Glass Ceiling Within The Frame of Contingencies: A Comparative Example From Education and Health Sectors". Fiscaoeconomia 2 (2018): 226-253
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Classification of Organizations’ Level Of Glass Ceiling Within The Frame of Contingencies: A Comparative Example From Education and Health Sectors AU - Numan AKSOY Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.25295/fsecon.2018.03.010 DO - 10.25295/fsecon.2018.03.010 T2 - Fiscaoeconomia JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 226 EP - 253 VL - 2 IS - 3 SN - -2564-7504 M3 - doi: 10.25295/fsecon.2018.03.010 UR - https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.2018.03.010 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 Fiscaoeconomia Classification of Organizations’ Level Of Glass Ceiling Within The Frame of Contingencies: A Comparative Example From Education and Health Sectors %A Numan AKSOY %T Classification of Organizations’ Level Of Glass Ceiling Within The Frame of Contingencies: A Comparative Example From Education and Health Sectors %D 2018 %J Fiscaoeconomia %P -2564-7504 %V 2 %N 3 %R doi: 10.25295/fsecon.2018.03.010 %U 10.25295/fsecon.2018.03.010
ISNAD AKSOY, Numan . "Classification of Organizations’ Level Of Glass Ceiling Within The Frame of Contingencies: A Comparative Example From Education and Health Sectors". Fiscaoeconomia 2 / 3 (September 2018): 226-253. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.2018.03.010