Teresa Makar

June 10 2014
Pol S 335
Motivating Question: Why are there so few women on corporate boards?
When asked to describe a successful CEO, the image we conjure up is of a leader who is
passionate, driven, hardworking, and who is likely a man. In some ways, it is easier to compile a
list of female CEOs, because there are far fewer women than men heading companies. We view
powerful women like CEOs Meg Whitman (HP) and Mary Barra (GM) as anomalies for a good
reason: only 23 Fortune 500 companies have female heads. The lack of female representation
extends to other upper level corporate positions. In 2013, women held only 17% of board seats
in Fortune 500 companies. Although this figure has nearly doubled since 1995, we still have a
long way to go until we reach gender parity in the corporate world (Clayton, April 22). Women
are not well represented in corporate positions for a number of reasons, but due to the scope of
this essay I will focus on several key challenges, some social by nature and some structural.
Women have difficulty achieving leadership positions due to the persistence of the confidence
gap, the ambition gap, and the societal view that women are not suited for leadership roles, as
well as the influence of structural factors, including of the lack of paid maternity leave, inflexible
work schedules, and a general lack of support for working parents.
Amy Cuddy, a sociology professor at Harvard, argues that nonverbal behavior influences
not only how others perceive us, but also how we feel about ourselves and how we perform as a
result. Looking confident by taking up space and adopting power poses not only makes other
people think we are confident, but it makes us feel confident ourselves. Not surprisingly, women
tend to exhibit less confident body language than men. When interacting with others, we tend to
complement another person who is exhibiting powerful body language by exhibiting weaker,
more protective body language ourselves. Men tend to take up more space physically, so women
take up less. This dichotomy is most easily observed in the classroom. Men spread out their
legs; women cross theirs. Men lean back in their chairs; women crouch over their notebooks.
The effect of different posture is a noticeable difference in confidence levels. Research points to
the positive impacts of feeling and appearing confident on our actual performance. In an
interview, confident individuals are more likely to be perceived as authentic, passionate,
enthusiastic, and captivating (Cuddy, 2012). Confident people are more likely to participate in

Teresa Makar 2

group discussions, and therefore be noticed by others and acknowledged for their contributions.
Among their peers, they are more well-liked and admired (Kay and Shipman, 2014).
The confidence gap has attracted quite a bit of attention in the media recently, as
scientific research has revealed that the gap between male and female confidence exists in nearly
every mixed-sex activity, including academics, sports, social interactions, and work. Although
men and women tend to perform equally in most activities, men tend to overestimate their
abilities, while women consistently underestimate theirs. Women feel less qualified, less skilled,
and less capable of meeting others expectations of them. This has real consequences in the
workplace. Women are less likely to ask for promotions, to take on new projects, or to selfpromote in the workplace. According to Linda Babcock, economics professor at Carnegie
Mellon, men initiate salary negotiations four times as often as women do and when women
do negotiate, they ask for 30 percent less money than men do. Women apply for jobs only
when they feel 100% qualified for the position, while men apply if they meet 60% of the job
requirements (Kay and Shipman, 2014). Womens lack of confidence relative to their male peers
damages their opportunities for advancement, as they hesitate to ask for additional
responsibilities or promotions. Because confidence also affects how peers and superiors view us,
women who lack confidence may also be viewed as less competent, authentic, or enthusiastic
about their work. Their chances at moving up the career ladder are severely diminished,
contributing to the dearth of women in corporate boards.
The confidence gap and its effect on the way women behave and how we perceive them
may contribute to societys narrow definition of appropriate female behavior in the workplace,
which severely limits womens opportunities to pursue leadership positions in businesses. We
are most comfortable with the idea of a woman who is nurturing, patient, and empathetic.
Women are expected to be modest about their achievements and to seek consensus when making
decisions. However, societys definition of acceptable feminine qualities and behavior do not
match up with its definition of an effective leader in the business world. Leaders are expected to
be aggressive and assertive, which requires confidence. In order to rise in the ranks, one must
actively self-promote and take risks. The problem lies in that the qualities that both men and
women must portray in order to become successful leaders are considered exclusively masculine
(Clayton, April 22). Women who seek leadership positions challenge our definition of
appropriate female behavior by demonstrating masculine qualities. Women are penalized for

Teresa Makar 3

exhibiting traditionally masculine behavior in two clear ways: our tendency to use stricter
evaluation standards for women than for men and the problem of the double bind.
When a woman demonstrates masculine qualities, such as competitiveness and
assertiveness, or achieves a position of power, it contradicts our expectations. We tend to be
surprised that she is successful, and this cognitive dissonance causes us to examine her more
critically. Instead of praising a woman for her success, we try to find fault in her or make
excuses for her achievements. For example, instead of acknowledging that she rose through the
ranks due to her own ability, we often attribute her achievements to timing, connections, or luck
(Sandberg, 2013). Whats more, because we view women more critically, we set higher
workplace standards for them than we do for men. Women are considered less capable and must
go to extra lengths to prove that they are just as competent as their male coworkers. Stanford
Professor Shelley Correll argues that this female disadvantage perpetuates gender inequality in
the workplace. Women are given less credit for their ideas and input, are less likely to receive
promotions, and receive lower wages for comparable work. By raising the bar for women, we
make it harder from them to earn the recognition and promotions that will lead them to sit at the
corporate table (Correll, 2013).
One of the most challenging aspects of our bias against women in the workforce is that
this bias occurs primarily at an unconscious level. The vast majority of managers and business
leaders believe they are staunchly unbiased; they agree that discrimination in the workplace
occurs, but that they themselves are not committing it (Clancy, 2014). This is true for both men
and women. Yet, the results from the Harvards Implicit Association Test indicate that 76% of
the tests participants associate men with careers and associate women with families, with 24%
of respondents having strong associations supporting this traditional gendered division of labor
(Project Implicit, 2014). This makes correcting bias difficult, because the first step in reversing
workplace discrimination against women is gaining awareness of the gender bias and
acknowledging our own role in perpetuating discrimination. Managers can help reduce bias by
setting clear criteria for hiring decisions or promotions, but if they do not see the need for such
policies, then it is far more difficult to reduce discrimination against women. The lack of
recognition for our bias against women deters us from creating solutions that promote gender
equity in the workplace (Correll, 2013).

Teresa Makar 4

In addition to altering the standards with which we evaluate women in the workplace, the
discontinuity between our expectations and reality creates another problem: we tend to dislike
people who defy our expectations. Women in the workplace find it difficult to be both successful
and well-liked; they are faced with a double bind. Women who exhibit traditionally feminine
behavior are considered unsuited for leadership positions, but are more likely to be liked by their
peers for fitting into traditional gender norms. Women who exhibit leadership traits (such as
assertiveness and drive), while rated as more competent, receive less trust from their coworkers
and subordinates, who are also less likely to cooperate with them on workplace tasks (Catalyst,
2007). Female leaders are often accused of being self-serving, overly controlling, and unable to
seek the consensus of others (Clayton, April 22). According to Catalysts article The Double
Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership, not being liked can seriously threaten a womans
career because it can negatively impact womens work relationships, access to social networks,
day-to-day interactions and, ultimately, their advancement opportunities (Catalyst, 2007). The
double-bind makes it extremely challenging for women to rise in the ranks, as likability and
competence both play an important role in securing promotions, and this further contributes to
the lack of women in upper level corporate positions.
Another barrier that prevents women from rising in the corporate world is the lack of
female role models. This acts as a vicious cycle, as the lack of women on corporate boards
makes junior women feel as though they do not belong in leadership positions themselves. They
are less likely to pursue a leadership role or exhibit career ambitions, which perpetuates the
cycle. The ambition gap between men and women goes hand in hand with the confidence gap.
Women are less likely than men to describe themselves as ambitious, as leaders, or as
visionaries. A 2003 survey of business students revealed that only 67% of female students
aspired to a management position, compared to 81% of male students. Women shy away from
high-profile, demanding jobs; when jobs are described as powerful, challenging, and involving
high levels of responsibility, they appeal less to women. Women learn at a young age that
displaying ambition will not earn them praise from their teachers or peers, which may lead them
to reduce their aspirations to fit in with social expectations (Sandberg, 2013). Women cannot be
forced to pursue leadership positions, and if they do not aspire to lead, then they certainly will
not attempt to take on additional responsibilities or earn promotions. In addition to affecting a
push factor (the ambition gap), the lack of female role models affects pull factors as well.

Teresa Makar 5

The lack of female role models makes it more difficult for women to obtain a mentor or a
sponsor (the distinction is that mentors provide guidance and advice, while sponsors attempt to
use their influence to advocate on behalf of those they sponsor). Networking plays an incredibly
important role in helping aspiring leaders rise through the ranks, and acquiring a mentor or
sponsor can be crucial for advancement. Mentors encourage their mentees to ask for challenging
assignments and initiate salary negotiations, and sponsors advocate for their mentees
qualifications and competence among those with decision-making power. People who are
sponsored report more successful careers, are promoted more quickly, and are paid more. This
support system provides an important pull for aspiring leaders. Both men and women prefer to
be mentored by a person of the same sex, so the absence of women in upper management and
other leadership positions severely reduces the pool of mentors for women. Research indicates
that the power and prominence of a persons mentors and sponsors also play a significant role in
career advancement, and because men are more likely to have access to the most influential
people in a firm (successful men), they are at a clear advantage. As a result, women rise more
slowly and fewer make it to the top, contributing to another vicious cycle that perpetuates the
lack of mentors and sponsors for women (Sandberg, 2013).
Another major factor contributing to shortage of women on corporate boards is structural
in nature: a lack of support for working parents of both genders. Among OECD countries, the
United States ranks last in the number of weeks of paid maternity leave that corporations are
legally mandated to provide to their employees: zero. Although US firms are not required to
provide any paid maternity leave, they are required to grant twelve weeks of unpaid leave and
ensure that the job will still be available when the mother or father returns to work (Livingston,
2013). Firms are left to their own discretion in choosing whether or not to offer paid leave and
as such, many do not. The lack of paid leave raises the opportunity cost for women to have
children and forces many women to choose between pursuing their career and having kids. In
addition, a family with dual incomes is often reduced to one income during the first weeks after
the baby is born. For biological reasons, the mother is usually the one to stay home, with the
father acting as the sole provider. The woman develops a comparative advantage in childrearing
in those weeks she takes off to care for the newborn. Once the pattern is set in having the
woman act as the caregiver and the man as the provider, it may seem inefficient to alter the
division of labor within the home. If it becomes necessary for one spouse to stay at home with

Teresa Makar 6

the children, more often than not, it is the woman who will give up her career to raise the kids
(Sandberg, 2013).
The lack of support for working parents extends more sharply towards women than men.
Working mothers are penalized for having children, which may serve to drive mothers out of the
workforce, deterring them from working long before they earn a seat at the corporate board.
Employers consider mothers less competent and committed compared to non-mothers. Mothers
are hired less often, offered lower salaries, and are held to stricter performance standards
(Clayton, April 29). In addition, in professional, high-paying jobs, employees are often expected
to work above and beyond the forty hour workweek. If both parents are working fifty or sixty
hours a week, then likely at least one parent will cut hours or find a more accommodating job.
Due to the prevalence of social views that reinforce the role of women as mothers first and
breadwinners second, it is expected that the wife will scale back her career ambitions in order to
care for her children. By limiting their career opportunities while they raise their children,
women may pass up valuable promotions, projects, and other opportunities that would bring
them to the corporate table (Sandberg, 2013).
Working mothers often lack the social support necessary to feel capable of working and
raising a family at the same time. Time and again, working mothers must face the pointed
question, how do you balance work and family? While both mothers and fathers confront the
challenge of balancing work with parenting, women are far more likely to feel pressure from
their peers for not staying home to take care of their children. Instead of providing mothers with
additional support while they juggle a career and parenting, society often accuses them of
prioritizing work over family and of neglecting to spend time with their children for the sake of
career advancement. These social expectations cause countless working mothers to feel guilty
about working instead of staying home. The stigma society places on working women causes
many to feel that it is morally wrong to withhold their undivided attention from childrearing
(Sandberg, 2013). Not surprisingly, only 64.5% of married mothers were employed in 2013
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). The social pressure that mothers feel to drop out of the
workforce further reduces the number of working women available for leadership positions and
contributes to the underrepresentation of women in upper management.
The lack of support for working mothers also creates the tendency for women to prepare
for the challenge of balancing work and family by limiting their career ambitions. Sheryl

Teresa Makar 7

Sandberg, COO of Facebook and author of Lean In, argues that women create huge setbacks in
their careers by scaling back their career aspirations months or even years before they actually
have children. Women who are planning to have children at some point in their livesthey may
not even be married yettend to slow down years in advance. They are likely to limit
themselves by choosing jobs with fewer hours or more flexible hours, or by choosing careers that
can more easily change from full-time to part-time, instead of pursuing careers that push them
forward at full speed. Women may turn down promotions, exhibit less ambition, or decline
additional projects or opportunities because they are afraid that they will not be able to balance
motherhood with a more demanding job. Sandberg urges women to keep reaching for new
opportunities until they are forced to make a choice: ideally, shortly before the child is born.
Sandberg argues that women who adjust their careers in preparation for parenting often set
themselves behind by years. She also notes that women who take time off shortly after their
children are born are much less likely to return to work if their job is not challenging and
engaging and that this contributes to the number of women who quit their jobs after having
children (Sandberg, 2013). Women who feel that they will not be able to balance a more
demanding career with childrearing will shy away from leadership positions, siphoning more
women away from upper-level jobs. However, as firms begin to recognize the value of gender
equity and female leadership, they may be more likely to seek solutions to the social and
structural challenges that hinder womens occupational success.
Research suggests that including women in corporate leadership positions accomplishes
more than simply promoting equity between the gendersit also increases firm performance and
profitability. Firms with a higher number of female board directors and upper level managers
experience higher returns on equity, returns on sales, and returns on investment. Companies with
3 or more female board members received 26% higher return on investment capital in
comparison to firms with fewer female board members. Stock prices increase with the
appointment of female executives and firms with female heads perform 15% better than other
companies in their industry. However, the benefits from having more female board members
only occurred when women held 30% or more of board seats, which indicates that there is a
critical mass that women must attain in order for gender to have an impact on firm performance
and profitability (Catalyst, 2013).

Teresa Makar 8

Research also suggests that increasing the number of women in leadership roles
contributes to fair and supportive workplace policies. There is a correlation between having
female executives and better work-life policies, smaller gender gaps in executive compensation,
and more women in midlevel management (Sandberg, 2013). Evidence also suggests that
female managers may care more about workers at the lower end of the wage distribution and
therefore work to take care of workers at lower pay grades (Pande and Ford, 2011). Whats
more, the presence of female leaders helps change our social attitudes about appropriate female
behavior and the competency of female leaders (Clayton, June 5). We are more likely to view
women as actually belonging on corporate boards, which will help us encourage women to lean
in and reach for promotions and greater responsibility in the workplace (Sandberg, 2013).
Every day, bold women are challenging the notion that women are somehow less
competent or suited for leadership positions. Since 1970, the percentage of managers who are
female has increased from 15% to nearly 40% in 2009 (US Census Bureau). Although only 31%
of women in middle-management identify as always having desired a position in top
management, half of these women now seek a leadership position in their organization (Barsh
and Yee, 2011). This reflects a recent trend in womens rising career aspirations, and is a sign
that we are achieving progress in making leadership positions more accessible to women. With
time, the lack of women on corporate boards can be reduced.
Despite the progress we have achieved in the past several decades, societal views about
the appropriateness of women as leaders continue to negatively impact how we view women and
how they view themselves, and the absence of adequate support for working parents of both
genders continues to limit womens access to leadership positions in the workplace. The
infrequence of female leaders like Meg Whitman and Mary Barra illustrates that we have not
reached gender parity, nor are we close to reaching it. However, as the number of women in
upper level positions slowly increases (as it has in recent years), we can hope to see greater
support for working parents of both sexes and more concerned voices explaining that current
corporate policies disadvantage women. As social expectations and norms evolve over time and
support grows for working parents, we can reduce the achievement gap between men and women
and help more women earn a seat at the corporate table.
Bibliography

Teresa Makar 9

Barsh, Joanna and Lareina Yee. Unlocking the full potential of women in the US economy.
McKinsey and Company. April 2011. Web. http://www.mckinsey.com
Catalyst. The Double-Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Damned if You Do, Doomed if
You Dont. 2007. Web. http://www.catalyst.org
Catalyst. Why Diversity Matters. July 2013. Web. http://www.catalyst.org
Clancy, Susan. The Hidden Reason Women Arent Making it to the Top. Forbes. March 31,
2014. Web.
Cuddy, Amy. Your body language shapes who you are. TED Talk. TED Global 2012.
http://www.ted.com.
Clayton, Amanda. The Political Economy of Gender. April 22, 2014; April 29, 2014; May 1,
2014; June 5, 2014. The University of Washington. Lecture.
Correll, Shelley. Creating a Level Playing Field. The Clayman Institute for Gender Research,
Stanford Univesity. 2013. Web. http://gender.stanford.edu
Kay, Katty and Claire Shipman. The Confidence Gap. The Atlantic. April 14, 2014. Web.
Livingston, Gretchen . Among 38 nations, U.S. is the outlier when it comes to paid parental
leave. Pew Research Center, December 12, 2013. Web. http://www.pewresearch.org
Pande, Rohini and Deanna Ford. Gender Quotas and Female Leadership. World Bank
Development Report 2012. World Bank. April 7, 2011.
Project Implicit. Gender-Career Implicit Evaluation Test. Harvard University. 2014. Web.
http://www.implicit.harvard.edu.
Sandberg, Sheryl. Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
2013.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Characteristics of Families Summary.
United States Department of Labor, April 25, 2013. Web. http://www.bls.gov
United States Census Bureau. Women in the Workforce. Web. https://www.census.gov