Gender Bias and Compensation in the Executive Suite of the Fortune 100

By Jordan, Charles E.; Clark, Stanley J. et al. | Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, January 2007 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Gender Bias and Compensation in the Executive Suite of the Fortune 100


Jordan, Charles E., Clark, Stanley J., Waldron, Marilyn A., Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict


ABSTRACT

The current study examines two gender-related phenomena, the existence of a glass ceiling and the magnitude of a gender pay gap, with respect to the upper echelons of management in the Fortune 100 companies. The results show that the glass ceiling is far from being shattered in the executive suite of the nation's largest companies as women currently hold only 5.8 percent of the top positions. However, the glass ceiling is showing signs of weakness as this represents twice the rate from just a few years ago. For women having reached the top levels of management, no gender pay gap exists as females overall are paid virtually the same as their male counterparts. These findings suggest that, when appointing and rewarding key executives, many corporate boards rightfully recognize that employee value and ability trump gender. Perhaps this gender-neutral tone at the top will serve as a beacon for the elimination of gender bias at all levels of employment.

INTRODUCTION

Three terms, the glass ceiling, comparable worth, and the gender pay gap, have commonly been used to describe some of the challenges women face in the workplace. The glass ceiling represents a "metaphorical barrier preventing women from rising to the highest organizational levels (Daily and Dalton, 1999, p. 4)." Catalyst, a New York based organization dedicated to the advancement of women in business, notes that only 61 (2.5 percent) of the 2,458 most highly paid executives in the Fortune 500 companies are women (Women's International Network News, 1998). Male executives surveyed by Catalyst noted that lack of experience is the primary reason women are advancing to top management positions in such low numbers. Although female managers responding to the same survey stated that lack of experience is a stumbling block for women, they believed it was secondary to "male stereotyping" of women as the top impediment to corporate advancement for women (Leonard, 1996).

Comparable worth is a term frequently used inappropriately to describe the general notion of equal pay for equal work. In reality, comparable worth does not deal with equal pay for equal work but rather equal pay for equivalent, yet different, work. Comparable worth implies that differential wage rates for predominantly male occupations (e.g., construction work) and female occupations (e.g., clerical work) are a subtle form of wage discrimination that undervalues traditional female occupations (Jennings and Willits, 1986). Advocates of comparable worth argue that salaries should be equal for jobs that provide equivalent value to an organization, despite differences in skills, education, working conditions, or responsibility. The problem with comparable worth is how does one determine the equivalent value to an organization?

Implementing comparable worth pay scales typically requires government intervention and the results often lead to surpluses in some fields and shortages in others. Weidenbaum (1999) notes that the most extensive use of comparable worth has been in the public school systems where teachers are paid not according to the subject areas taught but according to their seniority and level of education. Thus, science teachers are paid the same as gym teachers, which results in a shortage of science teachers and a surplus of gym teachers. Although a noble concept, opponents of comparable worth believe that market forces, not government intervention, are best suited for setting the value of occupations.

The gender pay gap refers to the notion that men on average earn more than women. Blau and Kahn (2000) note that the weekly earnings ratio of full-time female workers to male workers was constant at about 60 percent from the late 1950's to 1980. This gender pay ratio began to rise in the early 1980's and by 1995 it had climbed to about 75 percent. However, the ratio's upward progression appears to have stalled around 1995, and significant gains have not occurred since that time (Blau and Kahn, 2000).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Gender Bias and Compensation in the Executive Suite of the Fortune 100
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?