Glass Ceiling or Fire Escape: Why are women not sitting in the top career positions?

by Melanie K


I have noticed some considerable attention directed to the concerns around women and their path to high power jobs, and there seems to be two schools of thought on this issue. I'm calling them the glass-ceiling group and the fire escape group.

The Glass-Ceiling Group
The glass-ceiling is a metaphor for the barriers that women encounter that prevent them from reaching high-level positions in a company. In April's issue of Conde Naste Portfolio, Harriet Rubin reports a "backslide" in women's representation on board and CEO positions. Women's pay is also declining compared to men. The April issue of More Magazine Kim Pittaway, article on the "Judy Project", a Canadian support program for current and up-and-coming women executives, reports a Catalyst study that indicates women are just as ambitious as men when it comes to business career goals, but face barriers. These barriers include lack of mentorship and gender stereotypes.

The Fire Escape Group
I made this one up, but I think it works. The fire escape is a metaphor for people who are interested in the challenges and responsibilities of a high-level corporate job, but are seeking it through an alternative route. This group says that women are choosing not to go the corporate path because it is not an attractive or fulfulling option. Suzy Welch, in the March issue of Oprah Magazine writes about women who have risked their corporate advancement by refusing to travel, work long hours or relocate their families to other cities. Victoria Colligan and Beth Shoenfeldt, who co-authored "Women Who Launch: Embracing Entrepreneurship and Creativity as a Lifestyle" write:

We have discovered that the corporate reality for many (both women and men) is bleak and restrictive. Getting to the top levels of a corporation is a daunting prospect with long hours, unstable environments, possible layoffs and a time-card-punching mentality that is not all that conducive to family, social life, or creative hobbies.

Basically, Colligan and Shoenfeldt are suggesting that the lack of women in the "corner offices" of large corporations is likely a matter of conscious choice by women themselves rather than an exclusion or a glass-ceiling. For example, one of the survey results published in their book reveals that of women entrepreneurs who have previously worked for some one else, 60% found that it was great training for entrepreneurship, yet 40% found it creatively stifling. Flexible work arrangements, stable home life, and freedom in decision-making are some of the motivating factors for choosing not to strive for a high-level corporate job.

When I started thinking about it, I realized that not all women avoid working for big business like I do, and I came to realize that the corporate barriers likely push many women, who might have enjoyed and stayed with a career in the corporate world, into self-employment. Things do need to improve for women in the corporate world so that the opportunity for advancement is there and that no one is forced into seeking career satisfaction, and a balanced life, elsewhere. What's important is that the choice is there, and to ensure this, the barriers need to be eliminated.