<• Academy ol Management Executive, 1998, Vol. 12, No. 1

Gender gap in the executivesuite: CEOs and female

executives report on breakingthe glass ceiling

Beile Rose Ragins, Bickley Townsend, and Mary Mattis

Executive OverviewWhile business organizations are struggling to hold on to their best and brightest

women, the persistence of the glass ceiling makes this diiiicult. Dismantling the glassceiling requires an accurate understanding of the overt and subtle barriers toadvancement faced by women, and the strategies used to overcome these barriers. Alarge-scale, national survey of Fortune 1000 CEOs and the highest-ranking, mostsuccessful women in their companies identified key career strategies used by the womenin their rise to the top, and the barriers to advancement they faced in their firms. Astartling finding of the study was the disparity in the perceptions of chief executiveofficers and the high-ranking women in their firms. The Fortune 1000 CEOs had vastlydifferent perceptions of the organizational and environmental barriers faced by theirfemale employees, and in their companies' progress towards equality in the workplace.

Women currently constitute nearly half of theU.S. labor force, and occupy a significant andgrowing proportion of entry and mid-level mana-gerial positions. In 1972 women held 17 percent ofmanagerial positions, and this proportion swelledto 42.7 percent in 1995.' Although women are flood-ing the managerial pipeline, they have been sty-mied in their entrance to top-level positions; cur-rently, less than five percent of executive positionsare held by women.^ Of greater concern is the lackof progress on this front. The proportion of top levelpositions in Fortune 1000 companies held bywomen increased from .5 percent in 1979 to only 2.9percent in 1989,̂ and only four of the Fortune 1000CEO positions are held by women. A 1995 censusrevealed that while women accounted for 10 per-cent of corporate officers, they represented just 2.4percent of the highest ranks of corporate leader-ship, and held 1.9 percent of the most highly com-pensated officer positions in Fortune 500 compa-nies.''

This lack of progress has been attributed to theglass ceiling, an invisible barrier to advancementbased on attitudinal or organizational bias.^ The

glass ceiling appears to be pervasive in corporateAmerica; over 92 percent of executive women re-port its existence.^ The glass ceiling is costly, notonly in terms of lost productivity among workerswho feel blocked in their careers, but also in termsof turnover costs, which are estimated to average150 percent of managers' annual salaries/ Eightypercent of female middle-level managers in onestudy reported leaving their last organization be-cause of the glass ceiling,^ and other studies indi-cate that many leave to start their own competingbusiness.^

Increasingly, individuals in many organizationsare recognizing the importance of shattering theglass ceiling and removing barriers that preventwomen from utilizing their full potential.'" How-ever, the fact that the glass ceiling has remainedvirtually intact over the last ten years indicatesthat these efforts have been largely ineffectual.Dismantling the glass ceiling requires three keypieces of information. First, it is critical to under-stand the barriers women face in their advance-ment. Second, it is instructive to understand thecareer strategies used by women who successfully

28

1998 Ragins, Townsend, and Mattis 29

overcame the barriers to advancement. Finally, itis vital that corporate leaders have an accurateand complete understanding of the barriers andorganizational climate faced by their female em-ployees. Commitment to breaking the glass ceil-ing, while important, is not sufficient; for change tooccur, CEOs must also have a clear understandingof the subtle and overt barriers women face in theiradvancement.

Commitment to breaking the glassceiling, while important, is not sufficient;for change to occur, CEOs must also havea clear understanding of the subtle andovert barriers women face in theiradvancement.

To obtain information about these issues. Cata-lyst undertook the first large-scale, national studyof women executives and CEOs of Torfune 1000companies. We surveyed 1,251 executive womenwho hold titles of vice president or above in For-tune 1000 companies and all of the Foitune 1000CEOs. Surveys were returned by 461 female exec-utives and 325 CEOs." We also conducted in-depth, follow-up telephone interviews with 20 fe-male executives and 20 CEOs.'^'

Our study addressed women's advancementfrom the perspective of women who have actuallyadvanced to senior levels of leadership in the na-tion's largest companies. These trailblazers are inthe best position to provide inside information onthe types of obstacles encountered on the road tosenior management. By sharing the personal andcareer strategies used for effectively navigatingthrough those obstacles, this breakthrough gener-ation of female executives can provide criticalinformation for future generations of female man-agers coming up through the ranks. Of equal sig-nificance, by juxtaposing CEOs' perspectives onbarriers to advancement with the perspective offemale executives, we can assess for the first timewhether CEOs understand the subtle and complexorganizational barriers faced by their female em-ployees.

Strategies For Breaking The Glass Ceiling: HowWomen Do II

The female executives in this large national studywere presented with a list of 13 possible careerstrategies that may contribute to the advancementof women to senior management and were askedto rate the importance of each strategy to their own

career advancement.'^ As shown in Table 1, ninecareer strategies emerged as central to the ad-vancement of these successful female executives.In particular, four of these strategies stand out askey to their career success. These are consistentlyexceeding performance expectations (rated criticalby 77 percent); developing a style with which malemanagers are comfortable (61 percent); seeking outdifficult or challenging assignments (50 percent),and having influential mentors (37 percent).''' Weinterviewed female executives from this nationalsample to learn more about career strategies usedby these female pioneers.

Performance is the Bottom Line

Superior performance is expected of all executives,but it may be particularly important for women.Consistently exceeding performance expectationswas the top-ranking strategy used by these suc-cessful female executives, and an overwhelming99 percent of the respondents reported that thisstrategy was critical or fairly important. Thesewomen reported that they had to prove their abilityrepeatedly, and needed to over-perform in order tocounter negative assumptions in a predominantlymale business environment. These successful fe-male executives reported that they were often not

Table 1Women's Career Advancement Strategies

Strategy

FairlyImpor-

Critical tant

NotImpor-

tantDid Not

Use

Consistently exceedperformance expectations

Develop style that men arecomlortable with

Seek ditficull or highvisibility assignments

Have an inlluential mentorNetwork with inlluential

colleaguesGain line management

experienceMove {rom one functional

area to anotherInitiate discussion regarding

career aspirationsBe able to relocateUpgrade educational

credentialsChange companiesDevelop leadership out-side

officeGain international

experience

77%

61%

50%

37%28%

25%

23%

15%

14%12%

12%11%

22%

35%

44%

44%56%

29%

34%

47%

22%33%

24%41%

1%

3%

2%

9%9%

11%

20%

25%

17%24%

23%29%

D%

1%

4%

9%6%

33%

22%

12%

45%29%

39%18%

5% 19% 24% 51%

30 Academy of Management Executive February

viewed as credible, and that they had to provethemselves and reestablish their credibility ineach new work situation. One survey respondentadvised:

Do the best you possibly can at every assign-ment no matter how trivial. Always go theextra mile. It is not enough to be willing, youhave to do it, even if no one is looking.

How do successful corporate women demon-strate superior performance? Follow-up interviewsrevealed two particular strategies: work harderthan your peers; and develop unique skills andexpertise.

In describing their high-performance trackrecords, successful female executives emphasizedthe importance of sheer hard work and stamina. Ininterviews, executive women described workdaysthat begin at 4:00 a.m. with several hours of pre-dawn reading before the children awake, late-night business calls and faxes to homes fully tele-connected to the office, and travel schedules andafter-hours business obligations that keep themaway from home several evenings a week.

But the interviews indicated that while hardwork was important, the performance bar may beplaced higher for women than for men. One surveyrespondent advised: "Be willing to work muchharder than male peers."

Besides sheer hard work, developing specializedexpertise is another effective means for women tobecome known as high performers. Some success-ful women executives made a point of developingunique skills so as to become indispensable; oth-ers built their expertise by gaining external recog-nition:

I think you have to have a specialty . . . andyou have to do it better than anybody else canconceivably know how to do it.

—Corporate controller, consumer productscompany.

Beyond Performance; Walking the Fine Line

For women, being a star performer, even outper-forming their male peers, is not enough to breakthrough the glass ceiling. Fully 96 percent of theexecutive women in our study identify a secondfactor, unrelated to performance, as critical orfairly important to their career success. That keyfactor involves developing a professional stylewith which male managers are comfortable. Thesesuccessful executives had to adapt to a predomi-nantly male culture and environment, and deal

with the phenomenon often referred to as the malemanagerial model, in which models for successfulmanagers incorporate masculine styles and char-acteristics.'^ This male managerial model placeswomen in a double bind: if their managerial stylesare feminine, they run the risk of not being viewedas effective managers, but if they adopt masculinestyles viewed as appropriate for managerial roles,they may be criticized for not being feminine.

One successful woman executive points out thedouble-behavioral standard:

. . . the guys can yell at each other all the time,shake hands and walk out the door, and it'sperfectly comfortable for them—but on therare occasion that I raise my voice, it's notaccepted in the same way.

—Personnel director, retail organization.

Another interviewee reported that she had tolearn;

how to interact with men who had never dealtwith women before, and how to be heard, andhow to get past what you looked like, andwhat sex you were, and into what kind ofbrain you had . . . . I had to learn how to offeropinions in a way that they could be heardbecause I wasn't necessarily given the rightto have an opinion.

—Vice president, consumer productscompany

These restrictions on behaviors were listed bytwo other survey respondents in an ironic litany ofdon'ts for female executives:

Don't be attractive. Don't be too smart. Don'tbe assertive. Pretend you're not a woman.Don't be single. Don't be a mom. Don't be adivorcee.

Do not make waves. Do not disagree and becorrect (kiss of death!). [Working] longer,harder, smarter means nothing if you have amind of your own and express your own ideasand opinions.

Women in managerial positions are forced todevelop managerial styles that are not masculineor feminine, but are acceptable to male colleagues,supervisors and subordinates. This is a dauntingchallenge that is not faced by their male counter-parts.

1998 Ragins, Townsend. and Mattis 31

Not only must women walk a fine line, they mustalso be concerned with making their male col-leagues comfortable with their very presence:

With 13 men on the management committee,and I'm the only woman . . . it was very awk-ward at first. But it's been over two years now,and what I have found is that they are nevertruly comfortable because it's not a hundredpercent men. And that's not because theydon't like me, or they don't like the fact that awoman's there. It's that there's always thatcertain guard that what they might say in aroomful of men will be taken wrong when awoman is there.

—Senior Vice President, health careorganization.

In short, not only must women exceed perfor-mance expectations, they must also find the appro-priate way to perform that will not threaten theirmale peers or make them uncomfortable.

Women in managerial positions areforced to develop managerial styles thatare not masculine or feminine, but areacceptable to male colleagues,supervisors and subordinates.

Some CEOs acknowledge the challenges womenface in fitting into the corporate culture and creat-ing a comfort level with male managers. As oneCEO notes:

I don't think it has anything to do with com-petency. I think it's just that our society hascertain norms that have been built in—wivesbeing uncomfortable with women working inthe same office as their husbands, things ofthat nature . . . . The men might not articulateit that way. But I believe that sociologically,we are where we are through no deliberateintent.

Although the intention may not be deliberate,the spillover of cultural expectations of women'sroles into the corporate boardroom creates aunique set of challenges for women seeking lead-ership positions.

The Importance of Stretch Assignments

Seeking out difficult or highly visible assignmentswas the third critical success factor identified by

the women executives in our study. Half of thosesurveyed deemed it critical, and fully 94 percentregarded it as important to their career progres-sion. Key assignments have been found to be re-lated to differential career tracking for men andwomen and are pivotal for three reasons.'^ First,stretch assignments provide professional growthand learning challenges. Second, they serve asgrooming exercises for career tracks leading toexecutive positions. Finally, highly visible assign-ments provide critical access to key decision-mak-ers and influential mentors in the company. As oneinterviewee points out:

When I first came to the company, I was as-signed certain very specific, very importanthigh-profile projects, which gave me the op-portunity to work on matters that were veryimportant to the company . . . . They involvedcontact with the handful of senior people andgave me the opportunity, as a relative new-comer with good credentials but not a lot ofprior exposure, to develop their trust and theirconfidence and their sense that when givenan assignment I could get it done.

—General counsel, media company.

While undertaking these assignments is an im-portant prerequisite for gaining access to high-power career tracks, women encounter gender-re-lated barriers to gaining this career milestone.Many of the women in our study reported that theyoften had to explicitly signal their willingness totake on unusual or challenging assignments, sinceotherwise managers may assume they are not in-terested. Several CEOs underscored the impor-tance of this point:

There's been an assumption on the part ofmen that opportunities everywhere are opento them, whereas there might be a perceptionthat a woman might not want to move, be-cause of personal interests of one kind or an-other . . . Managers are reluctant to talk aboutthese things today, for whatever reason . . . Ithink it's more incumbent on a woman tocome forward and say how free she is to dothings.

This suggests that the burden of obtaining thesekey assignments falls largely on the woman. Un-like their male counterparts, who may be ap-proached by senior management and offered keyassignments, women must first independently rec-ognize the importance of these assignments andthen convince others that they are both motivated

32 Academy ol Management Executive February

and able to fill these assignments. The womenwho successfully reached the executive suite inour study did not wait for potentially career-en-hancing opportunities to come to them; they ac-tively took charge of their own careers by overcom-ing gender-related expectations and seekingvisible assignments that promoted their mobility.

Mentoring is Mandatory

A full 91 percent of the female executives surveyedreported having a mentor sometime in the courseof their careers, and 81 percent saw their mentor asbeing either critical or fairly important in theircareer advancement. Additionally, nearly all of the20 female executives who were personally inter-viewed identified at least one senior man who wasinstrumental in their development and advance-ment.

I think it's the single most critical piece towomen advancing career-wise. In my experi-ence you need somebody to help guide youand . . . go to bat for you. And I'm not sayingsomeone to take care of you because you're awoman. I'm saying, because you are awoman, you need somebody to fight some ofyour battles in the male environment.

^Vice president/corporate secretary, utilitycompany

The importance of mentoring has been docu-mented in other studies. Individuals with mentorsreceive more promotions, have more career mobil-ity, and advance at a faster rate than those lackingmentors.'' Additionally, both male and female ex-ecutives in other studies overwhelmingly reportthe presence of a mentor sometime during thecourse of their careers.'^

Individuals with mentors receive morepromotions, have more career mobility,and advance at a faster rate than thoselacking mentors.

While mentors are important for everyone, theyare particularly critical for women seeking tobreak through the glass ceiling. Influential malementors, with preestablished networks and credi-bility, can sponsor their female proteges into se-nior management circles, and provide inside infor-mation usually obtained in the old boy networks.Mentors also can buffer women from adverseforces in the organization, and help them navigate

through the challenging and changing politicalterrain. These buffering functions were pointed outby one interviewee:

I think mentoring is very important for careeradvancement because you have somebodywho is there for you, will defend you, willreinforce the decisions that you make withothers . . . . (Mentors) help you understand theorganization, to understand the players, tounderstand the personalities. And they didthat for me, but more importantly, whenever Ihad a problem, they'd stand up for me be-cause they believed in me, and that's invalu-able. It's something I could not have done formyself, and if I hadn't had that, I don't thinkthat I could have made it because I do thinkwomen have different issues in that regard, atleast women who were starting their careers20 years ago.

—Executive vice president, insurancecompany

While a few women executives had female men-tors, the scarcity of women in senior managementlimited their supply. Yet those who were fortunateenough to have both male and female mentorspoint out the differential strengths associated with ••each of these key relationships. While male men-tors are more influential in organizations and canprovide greater access to inner power circles,female mentors were better able to identify andempathize with the barriers faced by women inorganizations.

Many of the interviewees recounted that exclu-sionary corporate environments and performancepressures led to erosion of self-esteem and self-confidence during the early career years. Mentorswere viewed as instrumental for counteractingchilly corporate climates and building self-esteem.In particular, female mentors were identified asbetter able than male mentors to identify and ad-dress self-esteem issues and concerns.

One interviewee pointed out that some malementors

don't understand what you're up against. Orwhat you may be confronting, or the attitudesthat some people, some men, may have, par-ticularly a young woman coming into a meet-ing with a responsible job . . . . But I thinkthat's overcome if they really are a good men-tor, helping you understand the male per-spective and the male world.

—Executive vice president, insurancecompany

1998 Ragins, Townsend. and Matlis 33

A key function of mentors is that they build theirprotege's self-confidence and professional identi-ty.'^ These functions are critical for women; manyof the women in our study reported that lack ofsupport and isolation depleted their self-esteemand self-confidence.

Because of the important role mentoring playedin their own careers, many of the senior womeninterviewed felt an obligation to mentor others,especially women. Over half of the women inter-viewed reported being mentors, and nearly all ofthem reported mentoring other women in their or-ganizations. These female mentors recognize theneed for mentoring as a benefit both to promisingyoung managers and to the company. They alsofeel a need to give back to younger generations ofwomen.

The most important lesson for women . . . is tolearn that they're not in competition for eachother for a short list of jobs . . . it changed inmy head back in the early 198O's, when I re-alized that was just a sexist attitude in theenvironment to begin with, and so (I) beganmentoring in the sense of networking withother women and building a team environ-ment with other women .. ..

—Vice president, chemical company

This comment mirrors the finding of other empir-ical research, which has found no support for theidea that women become inaccessible "queenbees" once they obtain high-ranking positions inorganizations.^"^

In sum, these pioneering women relied on careerstrategies that were adaptive, proactive, and char-acterized by hard work. They attributed their suc-cess to consistently exceeding performance expec-tations, developing a style with which malemanagers feel comfortable, seeking out challeng-ing and visible assignments, and obtaining thesupport of an influential mentor.

These career strategies are not independent,and may in fact build upon one another. For exam-ple, exceptional and visible job performance in-creases the likelihood of being selected by a men-tor.2' Mentors, in turn, provide their proteges withcoaching and visible assignments, which im-proves their job performance and places their pro-teges on the fast track to advancement.^^ By devel-oping a managerial style with which malemanagers feel comfortable, these women may alsohave improved their chances of getting selected bya male mentor. Existing research indicates thatwhile women are as likely as men to obtain amentor, women need to overcome greater barriers

to getting a mentor than men, and that key bar-riers involve the mentor's reluctance to assume amentoring role for fear that the relationshipwould be misconstrued as romantic in nature.^^These women may have developed the politicalsavvy to not only recognize this barrier, but alsoovercome it by managing their image and theperception of others. Finally, mentors providefeedback that shapes their proteges' manage-ment style. This is particularly critical forwomen, who need to develop a managerial stylethat is not only effective, but effective for theirgender.2^ While male mentors may help femaleproteges develop acceptable styles, female men-tors may be better suited for this task. Althoughmost of the female executives interviewedlacked access to a female mentor, they recog-nized that women may be better able to sharetried and true strategies for walking the fine line,and reported making it a point to share theirhard-earned strategies with their female prote-ges.

White Noise In The Executive Suite: DivergentPerspectives On Barriers To Advancement

The executive women in these Fortune 1000 com-panies overcame gender-related barriers In orderto break through the glass ceiling. An importantquestion is whether their CEOs understood thebarriers these women faced in their advancement.CEOs need accurate perceptions to develop effec-tive solutions. We presented the female executivesand CEOs in our survey with ten possible barriersto advancement, and asked them to select thethree factors they considered to be the most signif-icant in preventing women from advancing to thehighest level of corporate leadership. What wefound was both startling and revealing. Surveyresponses, as well as the follow-up interviews, re-vealed a marked gender gap in perspectives. Al-though the women and men in our study were allsuccessful executives and were describing essen-tially the same corporate environment, theyviewed this environment in different ways.

What's Holding Women Bade? CEOs Blame Lack0/ Experience

An interesting finding in this study is the degree ofconsensus among male CEOs as to the key factorspreventing women from advancing to corporate

34 Academy of Management Executive February

leadership. As shown in Figure 1, a decisive 82percent point to lack of general management orline experience as the most crucial barrier holdingwomen back.^^ A second critical barrier, according

Although the women and men in ourstudy were all successful executives andwere describing essentially the samecorporate environment, they viewed thisenvironment in different ways.

to almost two-thirds of CEOs (64 percent), is thatwomen have not been in the pipeline longenough—that is, the executive talent pool has in-cluded few women until recently.

In an interview, one CEO explained:

My class from business school had sevenwomen in it, out of 650. So, there is a pipelineissue. And it'll take another five to eight yearsbefore the number of 45-year-old womenready for senior management jobs is bal-anced with the number of men.

However, some CEO's contend that time alonewill not solve the problem. As one CEO points out:

It's not that women haven't been in the pipe-line long enough; it's what they have donewhile they are in the pipeline.

Some CEOs attributed women's lack of experi-ence in line management functions to women'sself-selection or lack of understanding of the im-portance of these experiences; others see companypractices as in part responsible:

I think that, without question, some womenhave chosen not to pursue certain tracks that,for one reason or another, might be more at-tractive to men. I think that the larger reasonis probably that we, the men of the organiza-tion, have built in credentials that we mea-sure people against and, for one reason oranother, that probably are biased againstwomen.

I think many women have been held backbecause they haven't been prepared to makethe same sacrifices as perhaps mena r e . . . they're not apt to move or relocate.Their families are all there.

One CEO recognized the more subtle dynamicsthat prevent women from obtaining key job assign-ments:

In the case of women, we use the lack ofspecific training for a job as a reason not toopen the jobs to them, when we are moreready to bring men into jobs for which theyare not specifically trained. That kind ofdiscrimination or stereotyping is much sub-tler and more difficult to get at.

Our study also revealed a profound disparitybetween the kinds of experience CEOs identify ascritical to advancement and the experience of mostcorporate women today. The majority (82 percent)of CEOs pointed to women's lack of general man-agement/line experience with profit and loss re-sponsibility as a key deterrent to their advance-ment. Only 47 percent of the female executives saw

Lack ai significanl geneial managementor line expeiience

Women not in pipeline long enough

Male atereotyping and preconceptions

Exclusion from inloimal networks

Inliospitable corporate culture

0 iO 20 3g 40 50 60 70

nGURE 1What Prevents Women from Advancing to Corporate Leadership?

90 100

1998 Bagins, Townsend. and Matiis 35

this as a critical barrier to women's advancement.Moreover, the executive women were far less likelythan the male CEOs to believe that women have notbeen in the pipeline long enough; only 29 percent oithe women reported this as a key barrier, comparedto 64 percent of the CEOs. Clearly, most of the womenin our study would disagree with the argument thatit is simply a matter oi time until iemale executivescatch up with their male counterparts.

Women Point to Corporate Culture

The women executives surveyed had a pro-foundly difierent view of the barriers women facein breaking the glass ceiling. The women weremore than twice as likely as the CEOs to considerinhospitable work environments as a barrier towomen's advancement: 52 percent of the womenexecutives cited "male stereotyping and precon-ceptions oi women" as a top iactor holding womenback, compared with 25 percent of CEOs; 49 per-cent of women identified "exclusion irom iniormalnetworks," compared with 15 percent of CEOs; andinhospitable corporate culture was identified by 35percent of women, but only 18 percent of CEOs.

The majority (82 percent) of CEOs pointedto women's lack oi general management/line experience with profit and lossresponsibility as a key deterrent to theiradvancement.

One interviewee pointed to the tenacious natureof stereotypes by describing a situation where, de-spite her impressive credentials and achieve-ments, she was still assumed to be a secretary in abusiness meeting:

I was 43 years old and I was the highestranking woman on the . . . stafi, and this guythinks I'm somebody's secretary. I mean I wasat Harvard. I was a fellow at Harvard . . . .

—Executive vice president, transportationcompany

Another emphasized the exclusionary climate byher comment:

You'd want ior once in your life to walk into aroom where people are talking that they con-tinue to talk and you don't feel that you'relistening in on something you're not supposedto be listening in on.

—Vice president, high technology company

Male manage] B are oftenintimidated by or havadlUiculty managing women

Men hove ditliculty beingsupetviB»d by women

Many while men in mycompany lsai i aversediacrlmlnntion

10 20 30 * 0 SO 6C 70

FIGURE 2Men's Attitudes Toward Women in the

Workplace: Female Executives' and CEOs' Views

These successful female executives describe cor-porate cultures that are inhospitable and exclusion-ary, environments with white noise—constant back-ground static that is distracting, debilitating, and aconstant reality for many of these iemale executives,but that is often not heard by their male bosses.

In order to probe these environmental issues inmore depth, our survey also included items assess-ing male managers' attitudes and behaviors.Again, the CEOs and executive women in ourstudy sharply differed in their perceptions. Asshown in Figure 2, executive women were signifi-cantly more likely than CEOs to agree or stronglyagree that men have difficulty either supervisingor being supervised by women.

Twice as many women executives as CEOs (40percent versus 20 percent) believe that white menin their companies are concerned with reverse dis-crimination, presumably because oi workforce di-versity initiatives. To the extent that these con-cerns are significant, they iuel iears oi a quotasystem and can undermine corporate eiiorts toachieve greater diversity in leadership.

Another striking difference in the opinions oimale CEOs and female executives is the impor-tance ascribed to politics and style. Women weremore apt than men to identify women's lack oiawareness oi organizational politics and ineffec-tive leadership style as factors holding womenback. While these factors ranked iairly low in bothexecutive women's and CEO's ratings, the fact thatsubstantially more women singled them out asobstacles suggests that female executives regardthe issue of cultural fit and acceptance as a greaterchallenge for women than do top male executives.As one iemale executive noted:

To understand what was going on political-ly—for lack oi a better word—was irreplace-

36 Academy of Management Executive February

able in making career progress and every bitas important as the actual assignments that Ihad.

—Vice president, consumer productscompany.

One reason that male CEOs may not perceivestyle as being an important impediment to wom-en's advancement is that It was not an issue iorthem in their own advancement. As discussed ear-lier, a key career strategy used by these successfulfemale executives was the development oi a man-agerial style that made male coworkers comiort-able. It is unlikely that the CEOs in this study hadto develop an adaptive style in order to make theiriemale coworkers comfortable. This is illustratedby one CEO's comment: "I'm 56 years old and it'snever happened in my career that I have reportedto a woman."

Implications Oi Dual Perspectives

Why would such a dramatic diiierence be ioundbetween the men's and women's perception oi theenvironment they share? One interpretation of thedata is that there are dual environments—one formen that is designed to foster their advancement,one for women that presents subtle, but significantobstacles to their advancement.

The CEOs in this study were logical in theirapproach, and viewed the problem of women's ad-vancement in terms oi what they can see and whatthey can count: the number of women in the pipe-line and their years of experience. They have noway oi understanding the corporate environmentfaced by their female employees because it is anenvironment that they do not currently experience,nor did they face in their rise to the top. As mem-bers oi the majority, they were in environmentsdesigned by and for men, and presumably gearedto being responsive to their needs and advance-ment. The problem is that CEOs are the criticalchange agent in most organizations, and if they donot understand the nature of the problem, it isnearly impossible for them to develop effectivesolutions.

The Problem Defines the Solution

The divergence in perceptions of the cause oi theproblem conceivably may lead to a marked diver-gence in proposed solutions. The CEOs viewed themajor impediment to women's advancement aslack of experience and time in the pipeline. Thelogical solution to this barrier may be to fill thepipeline with women and then passively wait ior

their advancement. This pipeline approach as-sumes that time will take care oi the problem, andthat ii women do not advance it is because they areunwilling or unable to do so. The burden iorchange therefore lies with the individual woman.The underlying assumption in the pipeline ap-proach is that the playing field is level all the wayup to the corporate suite, and it is therefore up tothe individual women to perform eifectively andmake the right choices to obtain corporate leader-ship positions. The organization's role in address-ing this problem is passive once there are enoughwomen in the pipeline. Proponents oi this ap-proach are perplexed that while women are ilood-ing into the managerial pipeline, and advancingas quickly as their male counterparts, few breakthrough to the top leadership positions in organi-zation s.̂ ^

The iemale executives in our study present avery different assessment oi the problem. Thesewomen sharply disagreed with the CEOs, andpointed to an exclusionary corporate culture as theprimary barrier for women's advancement. In con-trast to the CEOs, these women identiiied a play-ing field that was not level, but represented moreof an obstacle course ior women. Under this cultureperspective, the problem does not lie with the in-dividual women, but with attitudes and subtle bar- «riers in the organization which foster an inhospi-table corporate culture.

This culture perception may call for one oi twosolutions. The first solution is to change the corpo-rate culture. This requires an active, planned in-tervention, which is clearly at odds with the pipe-line approach oi passively letting time handle theproblem. The second solution is ior the individualwoman to adapt to the culture. Indeed, this is theapproach that was consistently reported by theseiemale executives. As discussed earlier, thesewomen used career strategies that involved out-periorming their male peers and developing adap-tive management styles that made their malepeers comfortable. While this solution may workior a select group of women who are both willingand able to adapt to an inhospitable corporateclimate, it may not be an effective solution for thenext generation of talented iemale employees as-piring to corporate leadership positions.

While this group oi successful iemale executivesadapted to inhospitable corporate cultures, thisapproach is definitely at odds with current per-spectives on diversity in organizations and doesnot represent an effective, long-term solution to theproblem. Diversity experts observe that organiza-tions are most effective when active measures aretaken to adapt corporate cultures to the needs of an

1998 Ragins. Townsend, and Mattis 37

increasingly diverse workforce, rather than plac-ing the entire burden of change on the minorityemployee.^' Increasingly, it is recognized that byexpecting minorities to adapt to the dominant cul-ture, organizations fail to capitalize on the innova-tive and creative outcomes of a diverse workforce.

The view as to who is responsible for change, theindividual woman or the organization, yieldedcontradictory results in our study. While both theCEOs (80 percent) and female executives (76 per-cent) strongly agreed or agreed with the statementthat it is the company's responsibility to change tomeet the needs of management women, 73 percentof the female executives and 61 percent of theCEOs in our study also strongly agreed or agreedwith the statement that it is up to women to changeto fit the corporate culture. These conflicting re-sponses may reflect recent and incomplete shiftsin attitudes regarding diversity and responsibilityfor organizational change.

Is the Solution Working? It Depends On WhomYou Ask

It is reasonable to ask whether any of the solutionsdescribed above are working. Are these Fortune1000 organizations making headway in removingpromotional roadblocks and providing more oppor-tunities for women? The answer depends on who isasked. As displayed in Figure 3, the CEOs weremore than twice as likely as the executive womento say that opportunities for women in their com-panies improved greatly over the past five years.The female executives were more pessimisticabout the change; fifteen percent of the womenreported no change in opportunities, compared

60-1

50-

40-

30-

20-

1 0 •

n .

23%

49%

11_

44%

37% 1

1•

• FemaleExecutives

DCEOs

24%

15%>!!'" JI

4% ^ ^ B

GreatlyImproved

SomewhatImproved

SlighUyImproved

UoChange

FIGURE 3Opportunities for Women to Advance to Senior

Leadership in Your Company Compared to FiveYears Ago

with only two percent of the CEOs. Once again, wefound a sharp divergence in the perception of thesame organizational environment.

Are these female executives accurate in theirperceptions, or are they being overly-pessimisticin their appraisal of women's opportunities in theirorganizations? While it can be argued that womenwho break through the glass ceiling are probablybest equipped to assess its density, no definitiveanswer to this question can be found. Existingstudies reveal limited progress in women achiev-ing corporate leadership positions.^8 Whatever thereality, the perception that there are limited oppor-tunities for advancement is sufficient for turnoverdecisions and reduced career aspirations amongtalented female employees. The barriers do nothave to be real to be effective.

Whatever the reality, the perception thatthere are limited opportunities foradvancement is sufficient for turnoverdecisions and reduced career aspirationsamong talented female employees.

A salient finding of our study is that the majorityof CEOs surveyed apparently are unaware of thecorporate environment faced by their female em-ployees. As pointed out earlier, women werenearly twice as likely as CEOs to point to inhospi-table corporate cultures as a barrier to women'sadvancement. CEOs, on the other hand, are morethan twice as likely as women to report great im-provement in the opportunities for women to ad-vance in their corporations. How can these CEOsbe so out of touch with the workplace experiencesof nearly half of their workforce?

Voices from The Top: Some CEOs Get It. OthersNeed Work

We explored these issues further in our interviewswith 20 male CEOs and found four themes under-lying their perceptions of the corporate climatefaced by the women in their organizations. Eachtheme represents a continuum on which CEOs var-ied, and the themes illuminated underlying as-sumptions that may have contributed to the differ-ing perceptions of the CEO's and the femaleexecutives who worked for them.

Gender-Blind Treatment Results in Gender-BlindOutcomes. The first theme is the view that organi-zations need to treat men and women exactly thesame. This perspective assumes a level playingfield in the organization. Gender-blind treatment

38 Academy of Management Executive February

is therefore expected to result in gender-blind out-comes. One CEO explains:

I think companies have to be gender-blind.Period. Whatever they do for men, they do forwomen. We're gender blind and that's theonly thing that's going to work.

The assumption that the same career strategy isequally effective for men and women is not sup-ported by the findings of our study; the femaleexecutives in our study attributed their success todeveloping a managerial style appropriate fortheir gender, which is clearly a gender-typed ca-reer strategy. CEOs who hold a gender-blind per-spective may be reluctant to develop special ca-reer development programs aimed at helpingwomen and other minorities navigate through thepotentially non-level playing field in their organi-zations.

Some CEOs did not share the gender-blind per-spective. These CEOs recognized that organiza-tional climates are not always supportive towomen and minorities, and that gender-blind pol-icies do not necessarily result in gender-blind out-comes. Some of these CEOs acknowledged the po-tential resistance and stereotyping women mayencounter from male managers. Some recognizedthe subtle, exclusionary nature of many organiza-tional cultures, and applied this perspective totheir view of diversity and corporate culture. Incontrast, other CEOs maintained that since orga-nizations treat everyone the same, individualsshould therefore adapt to the organization.

Gender Generalizations: All women are alikeand they are all very different from men. The sec-ond theme that emerged from the CEO interviewswas that CEOs varied on the extent to which theyused group stereotypes to view individual women.Some saw men and women as being very different,whereas others saw them as nearly the same.

Some generalizations about gender differenceshad negative connotations:

Everyone has (career) slumps. I think that agreater percentage of women, when theyhave a slump, will look at the option of drop-ping out of the work force. Most men wouldn'tsee it as an option.

If a woman wants to be as assertive as men,she can get just as much air time. In manycases she can do better than a man. But some-times mentally their knees buckle in an areawhere they are toe to toe . . . . If they want tobe forceful, they are just as good.

I'd say there is a gender bias that there's lesstough, aggressive women than men.

Some CEOs rejected the notion of group gener-alizations, and focused instead on individual dif-ferences within groups:

I find that the women in our company havethe same range of ambition as the men, rang-ing from people who are fiercely ambitiousand want to rise high and go far, to peoplewho want to lead balanced lives and arepretty happy with what they're doing.

You can make a lot of generalizations aboutmen and women, but when you get down to it,you've got to deal with specific people.Whether they're male or female, they don'tnecessarily fit the stereotype . . . . Some wo-men we have around here aren't collabora-tive at all. They're extremely competitivepeople.

Other CEOs not only recognize individual differ-ences, but also recognize that any gender differ-ences in behaviors are often overshadowed bygender-neutral behaviors that emerge in responseto position and responsibility:

Whether you're male or female, by the timeyou get to a senior management position,you've learned a different style of leadershipanyway.

How do group generalizations relate to CEO per-ceptions of corporate climate? Existing researchindicates a reciprocal relationship between groupstereotyping and exclusionary corporate climatesfor women.29 Group stereotyping leads to the dualperception that all women are alike, and they areall very different from men. This perception is am-plified when women are in the numerical minori-ty.̂ ° This results in a situation where men aretreated on the basis of their individual character-istics, whereas women are automatically shuntedinto group categories, and are treated on the basisof those categories. This creates dual environ-ments in organizations: one for women, and one formen, a distinction that is further fueled by groupstereotypes. So male CEOs may assume thatwomen do not want stretch assignments becauseof lack of aggressiveness or family demands, orthey may place women in team leadership posi-tions because of gender stereotypes that womenare less competitive and more nurturing than men,and are therefore more likely to put their own

1998 Ragins. Townsend, and Mattis 39

needs aside for the good of the group. In eithercase, the challenge that is faced by women, but nottheir male counterparts, is to prove to their malecolleagues that they are individuals and that theyshould be evaluated on the basis of their individ-ual characteristics, rather than their group mem-bership. In order to meet this challenge, womenmay expend considerable energy developing im-pression management strategies to project an im-age that runs counter to gender-role expectations.

Consciousness Raising in the Executive Suite:The Impact of Personal Experience. The thirdtheme that emerged from the CEO interviews wasthe degree to which the CEOs were conscious ofthe exclusionary climate faced by their female em-ployees. Many of the CEOs recognized that theirown personal experiences influenced their aware-ness of gender issues, as well as issues faced byother minorities in their organizations. While mostof the CEOs were white males, one CEO reflectedon his own experience of being targeted for stereo-typing and discrimination:

I'm Jewish. There weren't any Jewish peoplegoing into banking and there were no Jewishofficers of banks. I was asked a lot, "Why areyou doing this? There aren't any examples ofJews having succeeded in banking." I an-swered that it was because nobody had tried.

This CEO went on to relate how his backgroundinfluenced his views of diversity in organizations:

People would ask, what is it like to go toschool with blacks? I would think about how Iwould sit in class and not know the answersto questions and a black person would. So Iwould look at people as individuals. If yougive them the same chances to perform anddevelopment experiences, you see race andreligion and gender don't have much to dowith success. This leads me to the conclusionthat you can succeed by doing things differ-ently.

Some CEOs observed that their early experi-ences interacting with competent women resultedin their casting aside gender-role stereotypes andgeneralizations:

Let me just say that I have been around verycapable women all my working life. I cer-tainly have never doubted the competencyand capabilities of women in decision-mak-ing roles . . . So I have seen women all my lifebe very effective in very difficult situations.

I have women friends who got MBAs and havegone on to run major companies.

Other CEOs reported that they become cognizantof gender issues through direct experiences withfamily members, most notably, their daughters.These direct, personal experiences were instru-mental in raising the CEOs' consciousness andawareness of gender issues in organizations:

I have five girls, no sons One interestingissue is my two youngest daughters, one ofwhom is in grad school, the other's going tostart this year—they're both into women's is-sues. That's what they want to do as a career,work on women's issues . . . . You talk aboutpolitics. I catch it if I don't think the way theydo on those issues. Those things have cer-tainly had an impact.

I have a couple of career-minded daughters. Iwould like them to have the opportunity to goas far as their abilities will take them.

. . . I would stand my three daughters againstmost males I know and they would competevery well.

Some of the CEOs interviewed recognized thatthey do not automatically become sensitive tothese environmental issues because it is not partof their daily experience in their organizations.These CEOs sought to increase their awareness ofgender issues through experiential training. It isimportant for CEOs to recognize that while feed-back from female employees may increase theirsensitivity to gender issues, it is often quite diffi-cult for women to give this feedback without invi-tation. Personal experiences allow CEOs to under-stand the corporate climate faced by their femaleand minority employees. Whether the experienceis directly aimed at the CEO or vicariously ob-served through others, it generally shatters theassumption that discrimination does not exist intheir organization.

The Mantle for Change. The final theme re-vealed from the CEO interviews was the CEOs'responsibility for making change occur in theirorganizations. The CEOs' role in the change pro-cess may involve a range of actions from activelymentoring and grooming women for high-rankingpositions to providing a more flexible workplaceand a corporate culture that relishes diversity.Whatever the nature of the change, for change tobe effective, it must come from the top.

While many of the CEOs interviewed recognized

40 Academy of Management Executive February

their responsibility for taking the mantle ofchange, some also recognized the potential risksinvolved with making change happen. One CEOelaborated:

I really had to . . . take some chances in pro-moting women into roles that exposed them tohigh risk—and me as well. I had to run thoserisks to demonstrate that women could, infact, handle these particular high-sensitivity,high-visibility jobs. So having done that,that's continued to open opportunities forwomen because there's no longer an artificialbarrier to such promotions.

Other CEOs were reluctant to take the mantleof change, partly because of fears that the inter-vention would be viewed as an affirmative actiongesture:

. . . holding managers accountable for devel-oping women. I really dislike that. I think thatcould really backfire on you. I feel about thatlike I feel about affirmative action. Peoplewho weren't qualified were force-fed into it tomatch some sort of artificial goal.

Some CEOs did not take on the mantle of changebecause they believed that change did not need tooccur. However, while these CEOs maintained thattheir organizations were gender-blind, they stillexpected women to help other women, thereby in-ferring that their corporate culture may not be asblind as they would like it to be.

Still other CEOs take the more benign approachthat change needs to occur from a grass-rootslevel. Instead of active intervention, these CEOshope that change will be initiated by women andother minorities in their organizations. Their rolein the change process would therefore be to sup-port the change, but not initiate it. However, oneproblem with giving the mantle for change towomen and minorities is that these employees arevulnerable to backlash, and typically lack thepower to sustain the change over time.

The themes that emerged from these interviewswere connected. CEOs who were sensitized to thedual environments in their organizations did notassume a level playing field between the genders;they understood the exclusionary climate womenface and they therefore did not advocate gender-blind policies and programs. CEOs who were sen-sitized to women's experiences were also morelikely to emphasize individual differences be-tween women, rather than using broad-basedgroup generalizations to categorize their female

employees. These CEOs also recognized their rolein changing the inhospitable corporate climatesfaced by their female employees. In short, theyattempted to hear the white noise in their organi-zations.

Bridging The Gender Gap

How do we bridge the gender gap and sensitizeCEOs to the corporate climate faced by their fe-male employees? Most CEOs do not understandthe experience of being a minority in their organi-zation since they themselves are in the majority.However, some recognize this disparity, and thatthe playing field is not perceived as being level bytheir female employees. This understanding is of-ten obtained by direct, personal experiences withfemale colleagues and family members, most no-tably daughters. In the business world, it may beobtained by working with women as fellow mem-bers of corporate boards.^^ Other interventions thatmay raise CEO awareness include diversity train-ing, focus groups featuring women, cross-gendermentoring, discussions with other CEOs, inclusionof gender and diversity issues in executive educa-tion, and other educational approaches using avariety of media.

Many organizational interventions aimed atbreaking the glass ceiling that have been identi-fied elsewhere are also supported by our study.^^For example, organizations need to track womeninto direct line experience positions with profit andloss responsibility, minimize gender bias by usingobjective performance appraisal systems, facili-tate effective mentoring relationships, promotework/life balance by implementing flexible work-place policies, and make managers responsible forthe career development and tracking of their fe-male employees. As pointed out by the Gordon andWhelan article in this issue, organizations alsoneed to address the specific career needs ofmidlife women by offering flexible job designs andspecialized career path programs.

Our study adds one more intervention to this list:raising the consciousness of chief executive offic-ers and other senior officers slated for those toppositions. In fact, this intervention may be the keyunderlying factor behind effective implementationof all of the other interventions listed above; effec-tive implementation requires top managementcommitment. Organizations need the support andguidance of top management if women are tobreak through the glass ceiling. For this to occur,the gender gap must be bridged.

1998 Ragins, Townsend, and Mattis 41

Endnotes

' U.S. Department of Labor. January, 1996. Employed personsby occupation, race and sex. Employment and Earnings: 171.Washington, DC: Department of Labor.

^ Korn/Ferry International. 1993. Decade ot the executivewoman. New York: Korn/Ferry International Federal Glass Ceil-ing Commission. 1995. Good /or business: Making tull use of thenation's human capital. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government.

^Korn/Ferry International, 1990. Korn/Ferry International'sexecutive piodle: A decade oi change in corporate Jeadership.New York: Korn/Ferry International and UCLA Graduate Schoolo£ Management.

'' Catalyst. 1996. Census of women corporate officers and topearners. New York, NY.: Catalyst.

^ Morrison, A.. White. R. P., & Van Velsor. E. 1988. Breaking theglass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America's largestcorpora(ions? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

^ Korn-Ferry International. 1993,' Phillips. I. D., & Reisman, B, 1992. Turnover and return on in-

vestment models tor family leave. In D. E. Friedman. E. Galinsky& V. Plowden (Eds.) Parental leave and productivity: Currentresearch.- 33-53. New York: Families and Work Institute.

^Department of Industry. Labor and Human Relations. 1993.Report oi the Governor's Task Force on the Glass Ceiling Com-mission. Madison, Wisconsin: State of Wisconsin.

^ Brush. C. G. 1992. Research on women business owners:Past trends, new perspectives and future directions. Enterpre-neuiship: Theory and Practice. 16: 5-30.

'" An alternative reason for the persistence of the glass ceil-ing is that stated intentions to break the ceiling may not reflectreal intentions; some individuals may benefit from maintainingthe status quo.

" The response rates for the female executive and CEO sam-ples were 36.8 percent and 33 percent. On average, the femaleexecutives were 45 years old, earned an annual salary of$248,000, and were highly educated: almost two-thirds havepostgraduate degrees. Seventy-two percent of the women weremarried, and almost two-thirds {64 percent) have children. Onlynine percent identify themselves as other than Caucasian, andthese women of color earned an average annual salary of$229,000, Eight-one percent of the women were within two re-porting levels of the CEO. and 44 percent report directly to theCEO or are only one level from the CEO. More than 60 percentheld staff positions. The largest number held the title of vicepresident (54 percent) or senior vice president (19 percent); sur-vey respondents also included a significant number of evenmore senior executives, such as president, executive vice pres-ident, chief financial officer and general counsel.

'̂ A sample of 40 women was randomly drawn from thesurvey mailing list, and 20 of these women participated in atelephone interview. Among the CEOs completing the survey,50 respondents noted in a separate postcard their interest inparticipating in a follow-up interview, and 22 of these wererandomly selected to participate. Complete interview data werecollected from 20 CEOs. The semi-structured interviews weretaped, transcribed, and analyzed using a variant of thematicand componential analyses.

'^We used earlier studies, based on interviews with smallgroups of hand-picked female executives, as a launching pointfor the development of this list of strategies. We refer the readerto ground-breaking studies by Morrison. White and Van Velsor1988 and Mainiero. L. 1994. Getting anointed for advancement.The case of executive women. Academy ot Management Exec-utive, 8: 53-67- Our study extends these studies by asking alarge sample of female executives to prioritize the specificstrategies used in their advancement.

'* We also asked the female executives to prioritize amongthe list of 13 strategies by selecting the top three strategies thatwere most important. The same four strategies were picked asthe most important strategies for advancement: consistentlyexceeding performance expectations (ranked in the top three by74 percfent of the sample); seeking out difficult or challengingassignments (51 percent); developing a style with which malemanagers are comfortable (48 percent); and having influentialmentors (39 percent).

'^Putnam. L, & Heinen. J. S. 1976. Women in management:The fallacy of the trait approach. MSU Business Topics, summer:47-53. Brenner, O. C Tomkiewicz, I., & Schein. V, E. 1989. Therelationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite man-agement characteristics revisited. Academy oi ManagementJournal. 32: 662-689, See also research by Fagenson (1990) andEly (1995) which suggests that women's gender identity is intlu-enced by rank and numerical representation in organizations.Fagenson, E. A. 1990. Perceived masculine and feminine at-tributes examined as a function of individuals' sex and level inthe organizational power hierarchy: A test of four theoreticalperspectives./ournal of Applied Psychology, 75: 204-211. Ely. R.1995. The power in demography: Women's social constructionsof gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal. 38:589-834.

'^Tharenou, P.. Latimer, S., & Conroy, D. 1994. How do youmake it to the top? An examination of influences on women'sand men's managerial advancement. Academy of ManagementJournal. 37: 899-931. Ohiott, P. ].. Ruderman. M. N., & McCauley.C. D. 1994. Gender differences in managers' developmental jobexperiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 46-67.Ragins, B., & Sundstrom, E. 1989. Gender and power in organ-izations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychoiogical BuJJetin, lOS:51-88.

" Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. 1990. A comparative study ofmentoring among men and women in managerial, professional,and technica! positions, journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 539-548. Fagenson. E. A. 1989. The mentor advantage: Perceivedcareer/job experiences of proteges vs. non-proteges, /ournal oiOrganizational Behavior, 10: 309-320, Scandura. T. A. 1990. Men-torship and career mobility: An empirical investigation, /ournalof Organizational Behavior, 13: 169-174.

'̂ Ragins, B. R. & Scandura, T. A. 1994. Gender differences inexpected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy ofManagement Journal. 37: 957-971. Korn/Ferry International,1993.

'̂ Kram. K. E. 1985. Mentoring a( work. Glenview, IL: Scott.Foresman and Company.

°̂ The queen bee syndrome contends that successful womenare unwilling to help others at lower ranks. This popularizedidea is tenacious, but empirically refuted. In a study of femaleand male executives. Belle Ragins and Terri Scandura foundthat women were as likely as men to be mentors, and mentoredproteges of the same gender with greater frequency. Ragins, B.R., & Scandura, T. A. 1994. Gender differences in expected out-comes oi mentoring relationships. Academy of ManagementJournal. 31: 957-971. Staines, G.. Travis, C, & Jayerante. T. E.1973. The queen bee syndrome. Psychoiogy Today. 7(8): 55-60.

^'Olian, J. D., Carroll. S. !„ & Giannantonio. C, M. 1993.Mentor reactions to proteges: An experiment with managers.Journal oi Vocational Behavior, 43: 266-278.

"Kram. 1995.^̂ Ragins. B. R.. & Cotton, J. 1991. Easier said than done:

Gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor.Academy of Management Journal. 34: 939-951.

''* Ragins, B. R. 1989. Barriers to mentoring: The female man-ager's dilemma. Human Relations. 42: 1-22. Ragins. B. R. 1997.Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power

42 Academy of Management Executive February

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22: 482-521.Kram, 1985.

^̂ Research on career paths of male executives indicates thatline positions with profit and loss responsibility were morelikely to be used than staif positions in obtaining executivepositions. Korn/Ferry International 1990 and Korn/Feiry Interna-tional, 1986. Korn/Feiry Inteinational's Executive Profile: A Sur-vey of Corporate Leaders in the Eighties. New York: Korn/FerryInternational.

^̂ Korn/Ferry International, 1993. For more discussion onpipeline issues see Stroh. L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. 1992.All the right stuff: A comparison of female and male managers'career progression. Journal of Applied Psychology. 77; 251-260,and Antal, A. B., & Izraeh, D. N. 1993. A global comparison ofwomen in management; Women managers in their homelandsand as expatriates. In E. A. Fagenson (Ed.) Women in Manage-ment: Trends, issues and challenges in managerial diversity,52-96, Newbury Park: Sage.

^̂ Cox, T. 1991. The multicultural organization. Academy ofManagement Executive, 5: 34-47.

^̂ Korn/Ferry International, 1993.^^Ely, 1995.^̂ Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the coiporation. New

York: Basic Books.^' Catalyst, 1993. Women on Corporate Boards: The Challenge

of Change. New York, NY: Catalyst. Catalyst, 1995.1995 CatalystCensus of Female Board Directors of the Fortune 500. New York,NY: Catalyst.

^̂ Mattis, M. C, 1990. Dismantling the glass ceiling, pane bypane. The Human Resources Professional. Fall: 5-8. Departmentof Industry, Labor and Human Relations. 1993. Catalyst, 1993.Catalyst, 1991. Women in Corporale Management, Model Pro-grams for Development and Mobility. New York. NY: Catalyst.

About the Authors

Dr. Belle Rose Ragins is associate professor of management atMarquette University and was awarded the first visting re-search fellowship position at Catalyst during her recent sab-batical. She teaches, consults, and conducts research on diver-sity, mentoring, and gender issues in organizations. Dr. Raginshas received three national awards for her research, and herwork has been published in such journals at the Academy ofManagement Journal, the Academy of Management Review, theJournal oi Applied Psychology, the Journal of Management, andPsychological Bulletin. Dr. Ragins received her PhD in industri-al-organizational psychology from the University of Tennesseein 1987.

Bickley Townsend is senior vice president of new ventures atCatalyst, a non-profit research and consulting firm that focuseson gender issues in business and the professions. She earned aPhD in regional planning and social demography from CornellUniversity. She was principal author of Catalyst's 1996 study,Women in Corporate Leadership: Progress and Prospects, andco-author of a similar Canadian study conducted in 1997 incollaboration with The Conference Board of Canada. She haspublished more than 60 articles in American Demographicsmagazine, where she was previously a senior editor.

Mary Mattis is vice president for research and advisory servicesat Catalyst, where she designs national research projectsbenchmarking women's career development and advancement;advises corporations and firms on barriers to the women's ad-vancement and corporate best practices; and writes extensivelyon glass ceiling issues. She has a PhD from Washington Uni-versity.

For permission (o reproduce this article, contact; Academy of Management, P.O. Box 3020, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020