Glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway

Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Name: Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Module: Managing Diversity Date: 9th January 2017 Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Word Count: 3100 excluding references. Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 1 Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Women on boards and theoretical frameworks ........................................................................ 4 3.0 Glass ceiling ................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Barriers of reaching the top ...................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Evidence of glass ceiling .......................................................................................................... 8 4.0 Suggestions and Limitations ...................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Limitations of the study ........................................................................................................... 11 5.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 12 6.0 References ................................................................................................................................... 13 ‘To all little girls watching, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful’ – Hillary Clinton, 2016 Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 2 1.0 Introduction As economies became industrialised, the growth of the public, service and non-for profit sectors exposed numerous working opportunities especially for women (Burke et al, 2011). Despite the significant progress of women on boards over the last decades the pace of advancement for women as managers or CEO continues to be slow (Mattis, 2007; Barreto et al, 2009; Whelan, 2009). Women are paid less than men even when having identical job positions and similar or greater educational background or experience (Blau & Kahn, 2007). In the UK the prime minister stated ‘If you are a woman, you will earn less than a man’ (Theresa May, 2016). Studies indicated that not only women earn lower wages but they also face glass ceiling. For example women account for 10.4% of the board seats of FTSE 100 companies in the UK (Dunn, 2010). To overcome gender pay gaps and achieve gender equality, Norway was the first country that passed quota requiring companies to have at least 40% of their board members to be women. This study aims to examine whether a glass ceiling exists among countries or whether is an issue from the past. The study is organised as follows: Firstly, will examine the increased number of women in management exploring the cases of the UK, USA and Norway. The purpose is to identify how the UK and USA can be influenced by Norway after its successful implementation of quotas. Secondly, the existence of glass ceiling will be explored by identifying evidence, to construct our recommendations to minimise the negative effects. The decision on the selected countries was based on different factors: UK and Norway are European countries, is therefore interesting to identify similarities or differences. On the other hand, investigating the case of a non-European member such as the USA should help us identify differences or correlations so as to bring our argument in life. Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 3 2.0 Women on boards and theoretical frameworks After the Second World War one of the significant changes across countries was the increased number of women at workplaces (Chapman, 2004). For that reason the concept of women serving on board of directors attracted the interest of academics (Huse & Solberg, 2006; Sierstad & Opsahl, 2011; Gabaldon, 2014; Post & Byron, 2015). To generalise the findings of the literature: having diverse skills at the boardroom has positive outcomes Brown et al, (2002), having women on board provides positive signals for internal as well as external constituents (Bernandi et al, 2006). Other authors acknowledged that women contribute to corporate philanthropy (Williams, 2003), positive work environment (Bernandi et al, 2006), better organisational reputation (Brammer et al, 2009) and positive relationship among members that provides trust (Carter et al, 2003; Francoeur et al, 2008). Despite the advantages that women can bring remain under-represented on corporate boards. Terjesen et al, (2009) through their study identified that a significant amount of published literature focuses on readily empirical data. This study seeks to investigate: 1. If glass ceiling is evident across UK, USA and Norway; 2. What are the actions taken by these countries to promote equality? 3. The importance of women quotas as per Norway’s laws; 4. How to break the glass ceiling. United Kingdom: In the UK during 2013 67% of women aged 16 to 64 were in work, a significant increase from the 53% recorded in 1971 (UK National Statistics, 2013). While the percent of working men fell from 92% during 1971 to 80% in 2013, fewer women than men were at workplaces. Even though female work participation has progressed, the majority of working women are considered as unskilled being paid discriminatory rates compared to men (Summerfield, 1989) raising significant questions as the employment rate is made up approximately 70% of female workers (Greene & Kirton, 2016). The managerial top levels are mainly male dominated (Vinnicombe & Singh, 2004) a study of companies in the FTSE 100 index revealed that women hold 21% of senior executive positions and 23.5% of board seats (FTSE, 2015). With respect to executive roles that women occupied, six were CEOs and ten CFOs, with the balance covering a variety of roles ranging from HR and sales Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 4 marketing. England is ranked 18th as the most gender-equal country in the world (World Economic Forum, 2013). Grenee & Kirton (2016) argued that increased participation of women does not necessarily lead to equality as women across the EU are more likely to be found in part-time low paid jobs accounting for 32% in contrast to 8% for men (EOC, 2013). Despite the massive movement of women in management, statistics represent the transparency of glass ceiling as the majority of women are employed in low paid part time jobs. The average hourly earnings of women were only 60% of those of full-time men EOC (2004). USA: The increased female working population characterised as ‘female nation’ Shriver (2009). The enlarged female participation increased the earnings of the country by 27% (Chao & Utgoff, 2004). Women are able to support their families financially but there is space for improvement. For example, vertical and horizontal segregation must be eliminated as it exhibits negative impact on women’s careers (i.e. construction) where the mere presence of women is minimal to non-existent. The US federal women propaganda made enormous demands regarding ‘womanpower’, stating “if women used an electric mixer they are in position of operating a drill press” (Woloch, 1996; Hepler, 2000). However, women account for only 16% of top-executive positions of large corporations (Arfken et al, 2004). Despite the increased female workforce, the number of women in managerial positions is progressing extremely slow Gomez (2002). It is worth mentioning the gap for coloured women is even worse as they account for only 4% of board seats (EEOC’s, 2013). Norway: Prior introducing the 40% quota, the picture was similar to that of the UK and USA. During 2000, women accounted for only 5% of board members and received annual earnings 20% lower than their male counterparts (Bertand et al, 2014). The 40% quota was passed into legislation in December 2003, enacted in 2006, and full compliance achieved in 2009 (Davies, 2011). According to Sierstad (2015) after the implementation of quota there are equal opportunities between genders. Norway is ranked as the most gender-equal country (World Economic Forum, 2016). To encourage women to grow in organisations, Norway implemented different initiatives such as mentoring programs and further educational opportunities Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 5 Macdol et al, (2013). Furthermore, Heidenreich, 2010; Huse, 2011 examined the characteristics of women on the board of directors (a) how they were recruited and (b) their competencies. The authors identified post the quota implementation period that those women were better educated than men. UNESCO reports (2011) found that, women outnumber men in Bachelor’s degrees and that women are likely to pursue Master’s degrees, representing 57% of graduates. Moreover, they are recruited in the same way, through professional networks. This section examined the representation of women on boards across UK, USA and Norway. The UK and USA have proved to have low women representation. What is disappointing is that talented women are not appointed on high levels (Catalyst, 2005) and that female appointees are often more talented and qualified than their counterparts males (Signh et al, 2008). The case of Norway provides insights that quota system is a powerful tool for increasing the number of women on boards. However, the proposed voluntary approach of 2003 did not lead to significant changes and the government forced the regulation of the quota. As a result, the quota within the private sector was controversially debated (Sierstad et al, 2015). Nowadays, numerous countries benchmark themselves against Norway. For example, Spain legislated during 2007 requiring publicly traded companies to attain a 40% of female participation on board of directors by 2014; France recommended the same law (Milne, 2009; Davies, 2011). The European parliament introduced the same quota obliging EU members to comply with the law by 2018. It is reasonable to argue, women who are appointed to corporate boards might not entirely voluntaryappointed by the companies, but because the quotas must be complied with. Implementing quotas is easy in theory; for example in the UK is difficult to implement quotas (Mallin, 2011), as the country has a liberal welfare approach having a little tradition of using quotas (Seirstad et al, 2015). Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 6 3.0 Glass ceiling The term “glass ceiling” is one of the most compelling metaphors introduced in mid1980s (Coleman, 1998). The concept heavily adopted in examining inequalities of genders across workplaces. The concept is viewed as a set of impediments or barriers to career advancement for women (Morrison et al, 1990; Bexter & Wright, 2000). The Glass Ceiling Commission defined the concept: Artificial organisational barriers that prevent qualified women reaching top level managerial positions. Furthermore, glass ceiling indicates that women are very limited on corporate boards (Arfken et al, 2004). Hence, Ferree and Purkayaastha (2000) reported, that women must twice as good as males to achieve higher levels. Heilman (2001) took the argument further suggesting that women perform valuable work, but often goes unacknowledged because of stereotypes against women. To gain maximum appreciation of the concept it is necessary: (a) to examine percentages of women and men getting promoted each year; (b) to compare women and men in respect to managerial hierarchies; (c) to examine gender diversity in organisations. In the USA, a report from Ernst & Young across 1,500 S&P-listed companies indicated a steady increase in women as a percentage of new board members increase from 14% in 2009 to 23% in 2014, while males accounted for 84% directors and women 16% (EY, 2015). Only 54% of the 1,500 companies, each with a board size of at least seven directors had one female director. While gender diversity is rising, it is still relatively low, increasing from 11% in 2006 to 16% in 2014. The EY report left a largely unexplored gap whether women progressed in smaller size organisations as public authorities tend to show less interest. A report from MSCI (2015) estimated increase in gender diversity; that improved decision making especially in teamwork. Companies in the MSCI World Index had a strong leadership representation generated a higher return on equity with an increase approximately 2.7% (from 7.4% to 10.1%). Companies with low gender diversification tend to be negatively perceived by global investors. Both of the studies propose valuable outcomes regarding the importance of women on boards. Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 7 This study argues that quotas seem to be effective tool in increasing equality (Beaman et al, 2009; Rao, 2013), while quotas minimise negative stereotypes and allow increase in women board members (Coate & Loury, 1993) as diversity in gender is advantageous i.e. new ideas (Arfken et al, 2004). However, there is a controversy as some studies provide a positive link (Mahadeo et al, 2012), others negative (Adams & Ferreira, 2009; Ahern & Dittmar, 2012), whereas other authors did not indicate a link (Miller et al, 2009; Rose, 2007). However, McKinsey (2007) report identified that companies with more women in management teams had 17% higher stocks price growth, with an average operating profit doubled the industry wage. 3.1 Barriers of reaching the top The literature specified that women propose the required competencies and knowledge. This study identified additional barriers: hidden senior promotions (Metcalfe, 1995), lack of appropriate career development (Ragins et al, 1998) gender communications and male ‘organisational cultures.’ Furthermore, ‘mommy problem’ Tannen (1994), appearance, tone of voice, too young too old Murray (2010) 3.2 Evidence of glass ceiling This section will examine reasons that constitute for the low representation of women in managerial positions: 1. Low promotion rates and performance: Organisations do not promote women as they believe at some point will leave for maternity or family reasons and is extremely expensive to recruit or invest in training (Novak, 2011). In the UK women have the right to take 52 weeks of maternity leave (ILO, 2014). Women who prioritise family over work experience significant salary reductions Mescher & Laurie (2013), approximately 13% per child (Ziefle & Gangl, 2013). Moreover, Kanazawa (2005) uses social survey data arguing that it is not merely maternity reasons but men rank financial rewards and power positions much higher in their preferences than women. Furthermore, Park & Sonderegger, (2007) concluded that men have strong desire to achieve success in organisations in contrast to women that care more about family, friendships and work-life balance. Organisations might be reluctant to promote women due to low performances as their study identified that, women were at bottom performances Gnezzy et al (2003). For that reason, Kanter (1987) used the critical Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 8 mass theory to advise that women do not interact as men because interaction is depended upon the diversification size among organisation and teams. As women are a minority they don’t contribute, because they feel unsecure and untrusted resulting to low performance levels. 2. Male dominated organisations: The majority of organisations are made up by males Fletcher and Meyerson (2000); because of male experiences tend to hire mainly males ‘similar to them’ often known as male, pale, stale organisations. According to social role theory, the differences between genders into social roles state that men are more likely than women to be employed especially in authority positions (Eagly & wood, 2012). A survey published in Harvard Business Review (Silverstein & Sayre, 2009) concluded that of 500 companies’ male candidates for senior executives termed successful after being conducted only one out of five interviews. Even though women contribute significantly towards organisational success, organisational descriptions are still associated on male stereotypes: aggressive, powerful and tough concluding that women cannot be 100% inherent in organisational ideologies. Women prefer to work in harmony avoiding conflicts (McClelland et al, 1976; Levy, 1988). In contrast men are more likely to ‘lead and control’ leading us to the findings of ILO (2015) that women lack of female role models that inspire followers to follow their path. Based on what has been examined, this study made it clear that the low number on women on board of directors is a result of glass ceiling. Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 9 4.0 Suggestions and Limitations This section suggests techniques to break glass ceiling: 1. Recruit on talent: Organisations must recruit on talent and not based on networking and ‘similar to me factors’. Blind reviews of CV’s are suggested, studies indicated that identical CV’s with white names get higher response rates than those with black names or women names (Betrand & Mullainathan, 2003). Furthermore, the increased amount of women entrepreneurs indicates that women have the right traits in performing demanding tasks (Minniti & Langowitz, 2007). 2. Initiate work life and family-friendly policies: The method must be adopted by both genders. For women, it will significantly decrease part-time low paid jobs and provide additional opportunities for full time placement. It is also important for men, as a study at Warwick University indicated that one in nine full-time employees work more than 60 hours per week, while 80% of employees work more than their standard agreed hours (Price, 2011) whereas 10% work more than 80 hours per week (Sylvia & Luce, 2006). 3. Training and mentoring: Organisations must implement additional training methods to help women become better risk takers. Adopting this strategy will significantly increase women at top levels, as there is an alarming need to increase women representation at top levels that is below 15% across countries (Catalyst, 2015). Women who found mentors through formal programs were 50% more likely to get promoted (Ibarra & Silva, 2010). Deloitte established leadership programs to support females. 4. Speak openly: Women must speak openly without having the sense of doubt or fear. For example, Sandberg (2015) in her book Lean In reports while she was a pregnant employee at Google, she suggested that Google needs parking spaces for pregnant employees, as it is difficult them to walk long distances. Her manager happily agreed. Thus, without asking you will never know the answer. Women who don’t speak and demand lose managerial promotions. Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 10 Breaking the glass ceiling: (a) is an economic priority that governments can no longer afford to ignore; (b) is an economic imperative driven by recent dramatic shifts that are fundamental to business success: (i) changes in the demographics (ii) changes in the demographics of consumer markets; and (iii) companies adopting global mind-sets. For nations and organisations to be competitive in this volatile environment, must retain talented and qualified individuals regardless, gender, race, ethnicity at the highest corporate levels. The goal is to develop systems that welcomes diversification and attracts a pool of talented employees to rise to the top based on their own talents and skills without limiting women abilities. 4.1 Limitations of the study Inability of examining resource dependency and human capital theories; according to Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) resource dependency covers factors where directors are appointed to boards for organisations to acquire resources. Whereas, human capital cover factors such as experience, expertise and reputation of individuals (Becker, 1993) is important to be identified to provide evidence that women who enter corporate boards are of high quality and are not appointed for the sake of compliance with quotas. Another limitation is the classifications set to perform the argument of this study are simplistic as people have multiple skills and competencies. Someone could argue that some country samples cannot be compared, as the US is not member of the European Union. Another limitation is that this study only compared the UK, USA and Norway without looking at countries such as Jamaica, Colombia and Philippines that progressed extremely over recent years and have had more women fill middle senior and management levels ILO (2012). Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 11 5.0 Conclusion To conclude, the study identified increasing numbers of women on boards. Despite this positive trend, women still face the glass ceiling in that in many occasions women have resigned their regular work and take up part-time low-paid jobs. Moreover, to maximise our understanding of women’s progress on boards, we compared the UK, USA and Norway using data and conclusions from numerous reports including from EY, MSCI, and FTSE. The legislative quota introduced by Norway increased significantly women on boards, and as a result, as identified in our report, other countries are following the same path. Hence, it is suggested that the UK still needs to make some major adaptations to increase the number of women on boards from its current around 25% compared to Norway’s more than 40%. Quoting Hatman, women still face on daily basis competition from males and inequality continues to be within the daily battles that are given beyond the closed office doors, where for women it is a daily battlefield to manage to move up the hierarchy. Lastly our suggestions can be a benchmark to break glass ceiling and achieve gender equality. ‘Many women have been successful at breaking the glass ceiling only to find a layer of men.’ - Jane Hatman Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 12 6.0 References 1. Adams, R.B. and Ferreira, D. (2009), “Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance”, Journal of Financial Economics , Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 291-309 2. Ahern, K.R. and Dittmar, A.K. (2012), “The changing of the boards: the impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, President & Fellows of Harvard University , Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 137-197 3. Arfken, D., Bellar, S., Helms, M. (2004). The ultimate glass ceiling revisited: The presence of women on corporate boards [Online] available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000022125.95758.98 [accessed 10th November] 4. Bareto, M, Ryan, M and Schmitt, M. T. (2009). The Glass Ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding Barriers to Gender Equality 5. Beaman, Lori, Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, Esther Duflo, Rohini Pande, and Petia Topalova, 2009. “Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124: 1497–1540. 6. Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (3rd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press 7. Bernardi, R. A., Bosco, S. M., & Vassill, K. M. (2006). Does female representation on boards of directors associate with Fortune’s ‘‘100 best companies to work for’’ list? Business and Society, 45(2), 235–248 8. Bertrand, M. and Mullainathan, S. (2003) Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination [online]. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/ [Accessed 8th November] 9. Bertrand, M., Black, S., Jensen, S. (2014) Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of board quotas on female labor market outcomes in Norway [Online] available at http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/marianne.bertrand/research/papers/Paper_an d%20Tables_5_29_2014.pdf [Accessed 30th December] Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 13 10. Blau, F. D. and Kahn, L. M. (2007). The gender pay gap: Have women gone as far as they can? Academy of Management perspectives, 21, 7-23. 11. Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Pavelin, S. (2009). Corporate reputation and women on the board. British Journal of Management, 20, 17–29 12. Brown, D. A. H., Brown, D. L., & Anastasopoulos, V. (2002). Women on boards: Not just the right thing but the ‘‘bright’’ thing. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada 13. Brown, L. (2012)9 Great Quotes from the women in the world conference [online] available at http://www.businessinsider.com/best-quotes-aboutwomen-2012-3 [Accessed on 8th January] 14. Burke, R. J. (2011). Women in management worldwide progress and prospects (2nd ed) Farnham, England: Gower Publishing 15. Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38, 33–53 16. Catalyst. (2005) Catalysts Canada Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners of Canada.[Online] available at www.catalystmomen.org/pressroom/press_releases/4-2705%202004%20COTE%20news.pdf [Accessed on 1st January] 17. Catalyst. (2015). Quick take: Women on boards. [Online] available at: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-boards [accessed 13th November] 18. Chao, E. L., & Utgoff, K. P. (2004). Women in the labor force: A databook (Report No. 973). Washington, DC: Department of Labor. 19. Coate, S., and G. Loury, 1993. “Antidiscrimination Enforcement and the Problem of Patronization.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 83(2): 92-98. 20. Coleman, J. E. (1998.). Barriers to career mobility/advancement by AfricanAmerican and Caucasian female administrators in Minnesota organizations: A perception or reality? 21. Davies., L., (2011), Women on boards (2011), UK Government Equalities Online] available at: http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3 1480/11-745-women-on-boards.pdf [accessed 12th November 2016] Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 14 22. Deloitte (2017) Deloitte women’s leadership launch own it. Lead it. Leave it. [online] available at https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/careers/articles/join-deloitte-womensleadership-launch.html [Accessed 9th January] 23. Dunn., P. (2010) Breaking the boardroom gender barrier: the human capital of female corporate directors [online] available at http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2013/week48/Wednesday/W omen%20-%20J%20of%20Mgmt%20Govern.pdf [Accessed on 1st January] 24. Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458-476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 25. EEOC’s (2013) Equal employment opportunity commission Job Patterns for minorities and women in private industry. 26. EOC (2014). Ethnic minority women and men. Manchester: EOC 27. EOC (2013). Report on Progress on Equality between Women and Men Brussels: European Commission. 28. EY (2015) Women on US boards: what are we seeing? [online] available at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY__Women_on_US_boards:_what_are_we_seeing/$FILE/EY-women-on-usboards-what-are-we-seeing.pdf [Accessed 31st December] 29. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor. 30. Ferree, M. M. and Purkayaastha, B. (2000), Equality and Cumulative Disadvantage: Response to Baxter and Wright, Gender and Society, 14, 809813. 31. Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., & Sinclair-Desgagne´, B. (2008). Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 83–95 32. FTSE Board Report (2015) Cranfield International Centre for Women [Online] available at file:///C:/Users/Jason/Downloads/WOB_FTSE_2016_Sealy_Doldor_Vinnicom be_2016.pdf [Accessed 5th November] Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 15 33. Gneezy, U. Niederle, M. and Rustichini, A. (2003) Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1049- 1074. 34. Gomez, R. (2002) Women slowly make gains in boardrooms, Chattanoga times free press 35. Kanazawa, S. (2005). Is ‘Discrimination’ Necessary to Explain the Sex Gap in Earnings? Journal of Evolutionary Psychology.26, 269-287. 36. Heidenreich, V. (2010) Rekruittering til ASA-styrer etter innforing av Kvoteringsgregelen. Magma 7(1), 56-57 37. Hepler, A (2000). Women in Labor: Mothers, Medicine and Occupational health in the United States 1890- 1980, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press 38. Heilman, M. E. (2001) Description adn Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder, Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674. 39. Huse, M. (2011) The golden skirts: changes in board composition following gender quoatas on corporate boards. Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Academy Meeting in Wellington, NZ. 40. Ibarra, H., Carter, N., and Silva., C. (2010) Why men still get more promotions than women [Online] available at https://hbr.org/2010/09/whymen-still-get-more-promotions-than-women [Accessed 7th November] 41. ILO (2014) Women in Business and Management Gaining Momentum [Online] available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/--dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_334882.pdf [Accessed on 2nd January] 42. Kanter, R. (1987), “Men and women of the corporation revisited”, Management Review, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 14-16. 43. Kirton, G. and Greene, A. M. (2016). The dynamics of managing diversity: A critical approach. Abingdon: United Kingdom: Routledge 44. Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M., (2007). The entrepreneurial propensity of women. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(3), pp.341-364. Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 16 45. Laurie, A., Rudman and Mescher, K (2013) Penalizing Men Who Request a Family Leave: Is Flexible stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of social issues, 69, No.2 314-366 46. Lee, L., Marshall, R., Rallis, D., Moscardi, M (2015) (MSCI) Women on boards Global trends in gender diversity on corporate boards [online] available at https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/04b6f646-d638-4878-9c614eb91748a82b [Accessed, 2nd January] 47. Loden, M., Rosener, J.B., (1991). Workforce America! Managing Employee Diversity as a Vital Resource. Illinois: Business One Irwin. 48. Machold, S., Huse, M., Hansen, K., & Brogi, M. (2013) Getting women on to corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar 49. Mahadeo, J.D. , Soobaroyen, T. and Hanuman, V.O. (2012), “Board composition and financial performance: uncovering the effects of diversity in an emerging economy”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 375388 50. Mallin, A., (2011) Handbook on international corporate governance- Country analyses (2nd ed). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 51. Mattis, M. C. (2004). Women entrepreneurs: out from under the glass ceiling, Women in Management Review, 19, 154-163 52. McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W. Clark, R.A. and Lowell, E.L. (1976), The Achievement Motivation , Irvington, New York, NY. 53. McKinsey and Company (2007) Women Matter: Gender diversity a corporate performance driver. 54. Meyers-Levy, J. (1988), “Influence of sex roles in judgement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 522-530., Google Scholar [CrossRef], [ISI] 55. Meyerson, D.E. and Fletcher, J.K., (2000). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), pp.126-136 56. Miller, T. , Del Carmen Triana, M. and Triana, M.C. (2009), “Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity – firm performance relationship”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 46, pp. 755785 Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 17 57. Milne, R. (2009) Skirting the boards. Financial Times. June 15. [Online] available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6965ce58- 5944-11de-80b300144feabdc0.html. [Accessed 27th November] 58. Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 45(2), 200–208. 59. Murray, R., Norris, P. (2010) Cracking the higherst glass ceiling: A global comparison of women’s campaigns for executive office. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Pub Group. 60. National statistics GOV UK(2013)Women in the labour market [Online] available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.go v.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf [accessed, 20th November] 61. Office for national statistics (2015) Participation rates in the UK 2014 women [Online] available at http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employme ntandemployeetypes/compendium/participationratesintheuklabourmarket/201 5-03-19/participationratesintheuk20142women [Accessed 10th November] 62. Novak (2011) The glass ceiling: An International Management Consultancy under the Lens [online] available at http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Novak_Druce/Doc/The%20glass%2 0ceiling.pdf [accessed, 20th November] 63. Park, Paul., Sonderegger, S. (2007) An economic theory of the glass ceiling [Online] available at http://www.bristol.ac.uk/Depts/CMPO/workingpapers/07183v2.pdf [Accessed on 31st December] 64. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependency perspective. New York: Harper and Row 65. Price, A. (2011) Human resource management (4thed) South Western: Cengage 66. Ragins, B. R., Townsend and Mattis, M. (1998). Gender Gap in the executive report on breaking the glass of ceiling, Academy of management executive, 12, 28-42. Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 18 67. Robinson, K-S. (2002). “U.S. must focus on diversity or face decline in competitiveness.” The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). 68. Rose, C. (2007), “Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence”, Corporate Governance: An International Review , Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 404-413 69. Sandberg, S. (2015) Lean in: Women, work and the will to lea. United Kingdom: Ebury Press 70. Shriver, M. (2009). The shrive Repot: A women’s Nation Changes Everything (Washington, DC: The Centre for American Progress) 71. Sierstad, C., Torchia, M., Huse, M., Soderholm, G. (2015) Increasing the number of women on boards: The role of actors and processes 72. Silverstrein, M. J. and Sayre, T.K. (2009). The female economy, Harvard Business Review, 87, 46-53. 73. Summerfield, P. (1989). Women workers in the Second world war: Production and patriarchy in conflict. New York: Routedge, London 74. Singh, V. and Vinnicombe, S., (2004). Why so few women directors in top UK boardrooms? Evidence and theoretical explanations. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(4), pp.479-488. 75. Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2008). Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ? European Management Journal, 26(1), 48–58. 76. Sylvia, H., and Buck, L. (2006) Extreme jobs: The dangerous allure of the 70 Hour Workweek, Harvard Business Review 84: 51 77. Tarr-Whelan, L. (2009). Women Lead the Way: Your Guide to Stepping up Leadership and Changing the World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett- Koehler 78. Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: How Women’s and Men’s Convesational styles affect who gets ahead credit and what gets done. New York: William Morrow and CO 79. Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R., Lorenz, R. (2015). Legislating a woman’s seat on the bard: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 128 (2) 233-251 80. UNESCO, Women in Science, UIS Fact Sheet (2011) Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 19 81. Woloch, N. (1996). Women and the American Experience: A Concise History, New York: McGraw- Hill. 82. World Economic Forum (2013). The global gender gap report. Geneva: Switzerland 83. Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 1–10 84. Whelan K, Gordon, J., (1998) Successful professional women in midlife: how organisations can more effectively understand and respond to the challenges [Online] available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165438?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed on 1st December] Charalambos Iasonos (Jason) Women still face glass ceiling? The case of the UK, USA and Norway Page 20