Who Leads Female-Dominated Fields? Oh Yes, of Course It’s Men.
Let’s talk about the glass elevator and the pervasive myth of women’s choices
The Noösphere is an entirely reader-supported publication that brings the latest social sciences research into frequently overlooked topics. If you read it every week and value the labour that goes into it, consider becoming a paid subscriber! You can also buy me a coffee instead.
There are two main types of gender segregation in the workplace: horizontal and vertical.
Horizontal segregation refers to the clustering of genders in different career fields — such as women in nursing, teaching and social work and men in construction and engineering. Vertical segregation, on the other hand, refers to the concentration of men at the top levels across all fields.
This division, which some claim is simply the result of our biological hardwiring or factors beyond human control (or both), largely persists to this day, including in countries closest to achieving full gender parity. But even people who aren’t mentally stuck somewhere in the 1950s often fail to grasp why it continues to exist.
The common argument is that it all comes down to women’s choices. If women only chose better, higher-paying opportunities in fields like STEM, for instance, or if women just chose to emulate successful men, there would eventually be a more balanced gender distribution across different professions and leadership positions.
But the crux of the issue doesn’t lie in women’s choices.
It lies in the invisible and sometimes unconscious gender biases.
And the case of vertical integration, especially in female-dominated fields, is a pretty good, though often overlooked, example of how they operate.
Many professions considered ‘feminine’ or ‘pink-collar’ weren’t always dominated by women. Teaching, for instance, was historically male-dominated until around the mid-1800s. Before this switch, it was also a highly respected and fairly paid field.
The tendency for median wages to drop as women take over a previously male-dominated field — known as occupational feminisation — is actually a well-documented phenomenon. And, as one of the most comprehensive studies on this topic co-authored by sociologist Paula England demonstrated, it took place in dozens of fields and was tied primarily to the perception that women’s work just isn’t ‘worth’ as much as men’s.
Today, female-dominated industries continue to be among the most underappreciated and underpaid. Last year’s report by the National Women’s Law Center found that women in the US represent nearly two-thirds of the workforce in low-paid jobs. In the UK, six in ten low-paid jobs are now held by women.
Still, more and more men are willing (or forced) to enter female-dominated fields. And as one would expect, research shows that wages tend to increase when they do and that previously unemployed men experience, on average, a 4% wage boost relative to their former job. However, something else also happens when men join these professions: they often find themselves being ‘kicked upstairs’ into better-paying, higher-status positions.
Sociologist Christine Williams called this seemingly invisible force a ‘glass escalator’ in her 1992 paper. And although she first observed this trend almost three decades ago, it still exists.
A recent study by an American non-profit data organisation, Candid, and led by social scientist Cathleen Clerkin, collected data from other non-profits to investigate whether a glass escalator exists in their largely female-dominated sector, too. Unsurprisingly, the data, comprising information from roughly one million non-profit workers in the US, made it clear that it does. While 69% of the non-profit workers were women, female representation started to diminish as researchers looked at higher levels of leadership and power.
Overall, only 38% of non-profit CEOs and executive directors were women, and a staggering 62% were men. Larger non-profits, which tend to be associated with more power and prestige, were also much more likely to have a male CEO and to hire through a job search rather than as a founder. Even in terms of CEO pay, men enjoyed an advantage over their female counterparts, with their salaries being, on average, higher by 27%.
Well, despite their underrepresentation in the non-profit sector, it’s men who end up occupying most of the higher-ranking positions, which leaves equally — or more — qualified women in lower-paying and lower-ranked ones. But, there’s a but. Candid’s analysis also found that the glass escalator primarily benefits white men.
Another recent study focused on the nursing profession confirms that, too. Although men represent just 10% of the nursing workforce, they hold nearly half of the sector’s top leadership positions. However, the glass escalator’s impact similarly applies mainly just to white men.
Several studies have also demonstrated that a glass elevator exists in other female-dominated professions, such as social work, teaching and librarianship, and that it’s exclusive to white, heterosexual men.
None of this is particularly surprising, though, is it?
Organisational culture and the labour market simply mirror our society, reflecting its biases, stereotypes and power dynamics.
Because it’s not that leadership, dominance, or competence required for top-level positions are traits exclusive to men. In fact, some recent studies show women outperform men on most leadership skills. Still, we continue to associate these traits with ‘masculinity,’ and hence, men — that’s a phenomenon dubbed ‘think manager — think male’ — and they are still considered as more valuable than those associated with ‘femininity,’ such as care, empathy, or kindness.
Interestingly, according to a recent report by the International Labour Organization, which surveyed employees from nearly 13,000 companies worldwide, 91% of women agreed or strongly agreed that women lead as effectively as men. In contrast, only 77% of men agreed with this statement.
Of course, these stereotypes then mean that men can face gender-specific pressures and discrimination if they do ‘women’s work,’ which is seen as ‘below’ them. Perhaps this backlash or feelings of dissonance might also play a role in fast-tracking men into higher-ranked, more ‘masculine’ positions, and even if they’d rather stay where they are.
Meanwhile, it’s not only in female-dominated fields where women frequently find themselves stuck in lower-level positions due to gender bias. It’s practically every other field, including male-dominated ones.
That’s the phenomenon known as the ‘glass ceiling.’
Just a few days ago, two former female Apple employees filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging, among other things, that it systematically punishes women for the very same behaviour that men are rewarded and promoted for. Even if a woman works as hard — if not harder — than her male peers, there’s sadly no guarantee this will lead to the same compensation, opportunities or treatment they receive.
Other forms of discrimination, such as sexual harassment, reinforce the glass ceiling effect, too, and might even prevent women from entering male-dominated sectors where it’s particularly widespread and severe. Actually, studies show that women who act assertively and dominantly — which is often expected for career growth — are statistically more likely to be victims of sexual harassment. One study by psychologist Jennifer Berdahl found that ‘masculine’ acting women experience, on average, twice as much harassment as more ‘feminine’ acting ones and eight times as much as men.
On the bright side, at least women get more opportunities to… fail than men. This is another element of the glass workplace — the glass cliff, coined by researchers Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam to illustrate a situation where women are promoted to higher positions during times of crisis, when the risk of failure is highest. Ryan and Haslam’s study on the topic looked at the performance of the top 100 companies in the UK, both before and after the appointment of male and female board members. In the months before a man was appointed, company performance was stable. However, women tended to be appointed after periods of consistently low performance.
The pair’s follow-up research supports these findings as well. Who do people choose to become the financial director of a company with declining share prices, the lead lawyer for a case destined to fail, or the candidate for an unwinnable political seat? Women.
The study also found that, despite its unfairness, this is often perceived as ‘providing women with good leadership opportunities.’
Insisting that women now have equal opportunities at work as men is like saying you can grow lettuce equally well in a shaded area with a heavy slug problem and in a well-lit area with little to no slugs. (Not to brag, but I successfully grew my first lettuce this year, so I might know a thing or two about it.)
Sure, there will be some slow growth even in the shade, and if you’re lucky, no slug will feel tempted to munch on it. But then, one day, you’ll run out of luck and have to deal with a slug invasion.
We can’t keep pretending that women can just ‘choose’ to do better financially or career-wise when they face discrimination and challenges that men rarely, if ever, do. Women don’t choose to enter lower-paying professions. Professions become lower-paying when women enter them. Women don’t choose to act in ways that make them seem less competent or as poor leaders. They are perceived as less competent and worse leaders even if they act exactly like their male peers who aren’t. Even when it comes to asking for raises or promotions, recent studies show women do it as often or slightly more often than men.
And let’s not forget that in addition to all the gender biases, there’s also the burden of unpaid domestic and care labour that still sits primarily on our shoulders and can stall our career progress or contribute to lower pay in the form of the so-called ‘motherhood penalty.’
Women ‘only’ need to work like they have no families, raise their kids like they have no jobs, and act like men to seem competent — but not too much, because acting too ‘masculine’ might get you harassed or make you seem like a bitch. And, oh, also restrain themselves from pursuing their passion if it’s in a field overwhelmingly populated by other women because if you do and then don’t get paid enough to survive, it’s definitely all your fault.
Just choose better, all right?
Even some of the seemingly well-meaning advice for women looking for ways to advance their careers — including that given by other women — is often painfully unhelpful, like all the ‘girlboss’ and ‘lean in’ type of messaging.
Actually, a recent study shows that it’s not only unhelpful but could hinder gender equality progress. Published in Psychology of Women Quarterly, the study involved four experiments among more than 1,100 women in the UK who read about gender inequality, and then some either read about individual resilience as key to promoting advancement (in line with ‘lean in’ messages) or participated in activities to build their resilience.
Participants who were exposed to the ‘lean in’ solutions were less likely to take action over gender discrimination, as they were less likely to believe it would affect them personally. Some also felt less angry over said discrimination.
While building individual resilience can feel empowering, it’s hardly a cure-all for gender inequality in the workplace.
Besides, as history — even recent history — shows, the most progress happens when women challenge discriminatory practices collectively.
The glass escalator, ceiling and cliff, as well as all the other examples of gender bias and discrimination in the workplace, clearly demonstrate that the problem isn’t women, how we act or don’t act, or what we choose.
The main problem is society’s view of women and the broader devaluation of ‘femininity’ and ‘women’s work.’
And to change that, it’s not enough to try to girlboss ourselves individually out of this mess and hope we will only encounter a few slugs on the way.
I'm thinking about how successful I've found beer traps for dealing with slug invasions in my garden, and wondering how these might be applied to the larger issues explored in this article...
I’d like to double down on the assertion that collective action is the most effective action possible, and widen its scope.
Until we make economic justice and universal fair treatment an issue that every gender, sex, creed, and heritage are prepared to strike over as one labor force, there is no chance that we will ever stop competing against each other for the crumbs of the loaves we bake.
Utterly at awe of the lettuce success, as a self-described gardener who continues to produce only lettuce fail.