The Working Girls

Women are entering the patience market in greater numbers and are staying in it longer and for a larger proportion of their operate lives (Looking 1996). When asked what they want, women respond in survey after survey pay equity, break up proceeds, or more money (Looking 1996). In other words, women believe they are not being paid what they are worth (Looking 1996). This is a common result up-and down the income spectrum, women from the executive suite to the factory floor, from the office to the washroom, all feel that they are underpaid (Looking 1996).During the 1970s, women giveed 59 pct of what men earned, and today they generally earn approximately 72 percent of what men earn (Looking 1996). However, although womens earnings get hold of risen, about 3/5 of the narrowing of the gap is due to the fall in mens real earnings (Looking 1996). Moreover, the wage gap grows as women and men age, the gap is relatively small for young women and men, but thereafter mens wages increas e sharply while womens do not (Looking 1996). In fact, the average woman in her working prime, in her early forties, makes only about the aforesaid(prenominal) as a man in his late twenties (Looking 1996).About fifteen years ago, it all seemed possible, to bring shell the bacon, fry it up in a pan, split the second shift with some sensitive New Age man, however slowly the upbeat work-life rhythm has changed for professional women (Wallis 2004). Although many countries have given women the right to maternity leave and, sometimes, generous subsidies for child care, and some have even initiated a 35-hour workweek, however, the norm for most executives is withal 50 hours a week for women (Wallis 2004). harmonize to Catalyst, a U. S. esearch and consulting group, the average number for executives in the U. S. is roughly 70 hours a week (Wallis 2004).And for dual-career couples with children, the combined work hours have grown from 81 hours a week in 1977 to 91 hours per week in 2002, according to the Families and Work Institute (Wallis 2004). The U. S. Census data reveal an increase in homebody moms who hold graduate or professional degrees, these are the very women who seemed destined to blast through the glass ceiling, yet 22 percent of them are home with their children (Wallis 2004).A study by Catalyst found that one in three women with M. B. A. s are not working full-time, compared to one in twenty dollar bill of their male peers (Wallis 2004). Sylvia Ann Hewlett, economist and author at Columbia University in New York City, who sees a brain drain throughout the top 10 percent of Americas labor force, says What we have go baded in looking at this group over the last five years is that many women who have any kind of excerption are opting out (Wallis 2004).According to a new study released in March 2006 by Accenture, a global focus consulting company, women executives around the world still appear an uphill battle in piece of work equality, despite signi ficant gains during the past ten years (Most 2006). The study, entitled The Anatomy of the Glass Ceiling Barriers to Womens professional person Advancement, is based on a survey of 1,200 male and female executives in eight countries (Most 2006).The respondents were asked to score factors they believed influenced their career success across three dimension person (career planning, competence, assertiveness, etc. , company (supportive supervisors, transparent promotion processes, etc. ), and society (equal rights, government support of parental leave, etc. ) (Most 2006). The differences between male and female respondents answers were sued to calculate the menses thickness of the glass ceiling, a term used to describe an unacknowledged barrier that prevents women and other minorities from achieving positions of power or responsibility in their professions (Most 2006).According to the study, 30 percent of women executives and 43 percent of male executives believe that women have the same opportunities as men do in the workplace, thus supporting the existence of a glass ceiling (Most 2006). Although there has been some progress in shattering the glass ceiling over the past twenty years, disposals and societies need to understand how primary(prenominal) it is to capitalize and build upon the skills of women (Most 2006).In the Bem Sex Role Inventory, researcher Pamela Butler focused questions on real problems women face in changing stereotypical perceptions (Merrick 2000). According to Butler, there is intense pressure for professional women to conform to stereotypical roles such as cheerfulness, tenderness, and even gullibility (Merrick 2000). As women move into management in change magnitude numbers, it has become more apparent that these stereotypical beliefs ten to limit their advancement (Merrick 2000).The Catch 22 is that when women try strategies of gender-reversal and adopt the so-called male characteristics, they often find that they face another set o f problems, that of alienation and hostility, because as Butler points out, becoming one of the boys is harder than it looks (Merrick 2000). According to Butler, it takes cooperation from peers on the job to make strategies work, because research shows that attitudes held by those around a woman, even herself, hinder working relationships between women and men, and these attitudes ultimately are realized in losses of productivity and of real dollars to organizations (Merrick 2000).The purpose of Butlers research was to explore the morals of perpetuating gender stereotypes in management, and to investigate how the woman manager operates under the system with feminine traits that are perpetuated by socialization and, vice versa, as well as how she operates under the system when she adopts masculine traits that break gender roles (Merrick 2000).The choices of leadership styles pose ethical dilemmas for women, because to get along, the new-age woman manager often finds that she has to act one modal value on the outside while being driven by a very much different psyche on the inside (Merrick 2000). Moreover, she may discover that in the same way, her male colleagues act toward her one way on the outside yet feel very much differently about her on the job (Merrick 2000).The new-age woman manager also might find herself playing a cruel double game in which she is utilized to show the organization has non-discriminatory hiring practices, and at the same time she find she has to handle covert hostility from her colleagues in the workplace, who feel they have been forced to work with her to avoid trouble with the powers that be (Merrick 2000). Data collected by L. K. Brown reveals that 5 percent of the total worldwide managers in 1947 were women, while only 6 percent of all managers in 1978 were women (Merrick 2000).In the United States, the figures were 14 percent in 1947, compared to 22 percent thirty years later (Merrick 2000). However, most of the managerial posit ions held by women are in the fields of health administration, building supervision and restaurant management, meaning there are more women managers in fields that have traditionally been perceived womens work (Merrick 2000). A survey carried out by Fortune, found that only ten of 6,400 people who worked at managerial positions in 1,300 of the nations largest companies were women (Merrick 2000).Moreover, according to Brown, only 3 percent of women managers in the United States earn more than $25,000 annually (Merrick 2000). Brown concludes that larger companies are not promoting women on a large scale, and that women seeking top management posts may prefer smaller companies instead of large male-dominated companies (Merrick 2000). According to a Canadian survey, 55 percent believe that it is easier for men to advance in the workplace than women, and 42 percent of female executives who were surveyed believe that gender-based discrimination will never completely disappear from the wor kplace (Pollara 2000).