Sharon P. Smith, Dean, College of Business Administration, Fordham University

The anniversary of the founding of CSWEP offers an appropriate occasion to consider how women have fared in business during the past twenty-five years. This question has often been addressed through an analysis of the size and sources of wage differentials between the sexes and how they may have changed over time. I will not address that dimension of the issue here. Instead I will consider whether women have prospered in terms of their access to positions of power and influence in business. To do so requires looking not only at what progress women have made in business but also at what changes have occurred in business that have affected both men and women. It is helpful to begin by viewing women's position in business from a cultural perspective at the time CSWEP was founded and then reflecting on how and why that position has changed over the intervening years.

Some twenty years ago, Rosabeth Moss Kanter characterized the corporate world of that time as a culture in which "Women populate organizations, but they practically never run them, especially the large business and public establishments.."1 The segmentation of office work into male managerial jobs and female clerical jobs both contribute to and was, in part, a consequence of the idealization of what Kanter termed the "masculine ethic" (that is, being tough-minded and analytical, setting aside emotional and personal considerations in making analyses and decisions) as "necessities for effective management." [p. 22] Such occupational segregation reflected both individual choice in career and discriminatory practices in hiring and promotion. It also reflected a pipeline problem: although women's labor participation was increasing dramatically, women were not yet moving in great numbers into the sorts of educational programs that were attractive to corporate employers and thus were not eligible for many of the entry level positions. In 1972, for example, only 9.1 percent of the undergraduate degrees in business and 3.9 percent of the master's degrees in business were awarded to women. Whatever the original source of the segmentation, it was clear, as Kanter observed [pp. 264-287], that correcting it by moving women into positions of influence and authority would not only heighten their commitment to the organization but would also signal the more effective use of a major untapped resource. The quality of worklife would improve throughout the organization, as the hostility that often accompanies blocked opportunities would be eliminated and the talents of all the human resources would be used more effectively.

The business world has changed dramatically in the ensuing twenty-five years. Faced with the challenge of global competition, American business has restructured and re-engineered itself totally. These changes have transformed what constitutes a career path and have shifted the responsibility for movement along that path. Career paths are no longer clearly defined: they may be vertical, horizontal, diagonal. They may move across functional boundaries as well as across companies and industries, according to larger needs and opportunities. They may move among corporations, entrepreneurial operations, and non-profit organizations. Thus the career path is now the responsibility of the employee to manage rather than in the control of the employer. Indeed most individuals can anticipate having multiple careers over a lifetime. Networks and alliance are of paramount importance, not only for individuals as they manage their careers but also for firms as they retain the loyalty of their customers.

Women's labor force participation rates continue to rise. Women have dramatically altered their chosen areas of study. In 1995 (the latest figure available), 47.6 percent of baccalaureate business degrees and 39.4 percent of master's degrees in business were awarded to women. Women are now moving into very different occupations and industries than they did twenty-five years ago, though they continue to shoulder a disproportionate share of household responsibilities. In the corporate world, their increased movement into accounting has been particularly remarkable. However, these changes do not mean the segmentation and powerlessness that Kanter observed have been eliminated. A glass ceiling persists. Catalyst, a nonprofit research group, reports that women hold only 2.4 percent of the highest-ranking corporate office positions in the 500 largest corporations. Not surprisingly, predictions in the business press of individuals who will form the next generation of CEO's identify a scant handful of women at most. The ceiling has been raised but not eliminated.

Judy B. Rosener's study of leadership style has confirmed that there are innate differences between men and women and that these differences have special implications for the changing business climate. In particular, men generally display a "command-and- control" style whereas women tend toward an interactive manner that is "particularly effective in flexible, nonhierarchical organizations of the kind that perform best in a climate of rapid change."2 At present, these abilities "remain undervalued and underutilized" [p. 199]. This undervaluation, coupled with an anticipated increase in flexibility for managing other household responsibilities, are most likely principal reasons for women's choosing a career path in which they leave the corporate world to start their own entrepreneurial operations. Will the corporate world recognize and value women's abilities at all levels? Despite the growing numbers of women in the pipeline, I do not believe the glass ceiling will disappear quickly. Talented women will gravitate to those corporations that recognize women as a resource innately qualified to add value to a business world challenged by rapid change. The strategic advantage those corporations gain may provide the incentive for other corporations to act similarly. Then, perhaps, the ceiling will eventually be eliminated and men and women will have equal opportunity for their talents to be recognized and rewarded accordingly.

References:

1Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1977), p. 16.

2Judy B. Rosener, American's Competitive Secret Utilizing Women as a Management Strategy (New York: Oxford University, 1955), p. 11.