attitudes regarding female business leaders in ...

Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, vol. 8 no. 2

ATTITUDES REGARDING FEMALE BUSINESS LEADERS IN ROMANIA: EXPLAINING THE GLASS CEILING O. MOLDOVAN Babeș-Bolyai University, [email protected]

ABSTRACT National cultural values and individual attitudes are often brought up as explanations why females fail to break the glass ceiling (reach higher hierarchical levels) in the private sphere (business organizations). Using a large dataset (the 2007 Roma Inclusion Barometer developed by The Foundation for an Open Society) this hypothesis was tested by looking at attitudes regarding the perceived leadership capabilities of women in business, while also taking into account the ethnicity of respondents (Romanian and Roma). The database is representative at both the national level (as 1215 persons aged 18 and over were surveyed with a statistic error margin of ± 2,9%) and regarding the Romanian Roma population (1387 persons aged 18 and over, self-identified as Roma were surveyed, with a statistic error margin of ± 2,6%). The results corroborate previous findings as both Romanian and Roma respondents consider males to be more suitable leaders for private organizations. Furthermore, a Post Hoc Anova analysis allowed us to conduct multiple comparisons between four groups (namely: Romanian males, Romanian females, Roma males and Roma females). The statistical analysis showed that Roma males, followed by Romanian males and Roma females tend to have more negative perceptions/attitudes regarding women in leadership positions than Romanian females. As such, the Romanian society (as well as its Roma minority) is still rather conservatives and reluctant in accepting females as leaders of private organizations. Keywords: glass ceiling, cultural stereotypes, management/leadership. JEL classification: A13, J71, M12.

values,

the aforementioned forms of gender discrimination are equally important, this paper is focused on the glass ceiling (the underrepresentation of female in upper managerial/leadership positions) and the role of cultural/national values manifested through individual attitudes in explaining this phenomenon. According to the Gender and Sustainable Development Report issued by OECD (2008), the low level of representation of women in management positions, both in the public and private sectors, represents an inefficient use of human capital. Gender discrimination phenomena prevent both current and future generations from achieving their full potential, thus hindering economic development. The main aim of this paper is to provide an assessment of the general (or national) cultural stance of Romanians toward males and females in leadership positions. Furthermore, the research will also take into account gender (male and female) and ethnic criteria (Romanian and Roma), thus distinguishing between four distinct groups: Romanian males, Romanian females, Romanian Roma males and Romanian Roma females. This will allow further analysis on the effects of gender and ethnicity on more individual level attitudes regarding men and women in leadership roles. The glass ceiling, societal values and individual attitudes will be reviewed from a theoretical point of view in section 2. Section 3 of the paper will provide information on the database and the variables used, while both the national Romanian values and the attitudes of the four groups will be analyzed in section 4. The last section provides conclusions and some policy recommendations.

gender

2. The glass ceiling, societal values and individual attitudes

1. Introduction

2.1. Defining the glass ceiling

Females from both the public and private sector still face discriminatory practices once entering the labor force, resulting in (at least) two different forms of gender discrimination): vertical gender discrimination (e.g.: women and men are treated differently at the same hierarchical level, some sectors or industries tend to be predominantly male or female and so on) and horizontal gender discrimination (e.g.: the underrepresentation of women in upper management, the overrepresentation of women in precarious managerial positions, the greater opportunities for promotion enjoyed by men in female dominated professions) (Macarie and Moldovan, 2012a). Albeit all of

Being one of the most evident and well researched forms of vertical discrimination (faced by women), the literature is abundant with definitions for the glass ceiling. The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission views it as the invisible, but impenetrable barrier preventing women from reaching managerial positions irrespective of their achievements or merits (1995a, p. iii; 1995b, p. 4). Vinnicombe and Colwill (1998, p. 17) refer to the glass ceiling as an analogy describing the subtle and transparent barrier that prevents women from climbing the organizational ladder while Simpson and Altman (2000, p. 190) present it as a ‘well enshrined phenomenon, supported by conclusive evidence 129


which asserts that women managers' careers are blocked more often than men's’. The glass ceiling was also defined as: (1) the invisible barrier that blocks women’s advancement in positions of higher management (Gelfand et. al., 2005, p. 93); (2) the underrepresentation of women in the higher echelons of the organizational hierarchy (Haslam and Ryan, 2008, p. 530); (3) the situation where the vertical mobility of men in male dominated domains is higher that women’s vertical mobility in the same domains (Hultin, 2003, p. 32); (4) ‘women’s lack of advancement into leadership positions despite no visible barriers’ (Carnes, Morrissey and Geller, 2008, p. 1453); and (5) a phenomenon ‘that has kept women in lower-paid and lower status posts’ (Thompson, 2007, p. 339). The main idea is that even without the existence of objective reasons for women not to reach top managerial positions, due to discriminatory practices within both organizations and societies, most top managers/leaders in organizations tend to be men. Depending on the national or organizational culture, the glass ceiling (which prevents women from reaching the top) can be closer or further from the top within an organization. Women’s access to top-level positions is often restricted from the moment they become members of an organization due to their integration in non-strategic departments (such as human resources, public relations) that are not considered to be suitable recruitment pools for top managers (Macarie and Moldovan, 2012b). Also, women are excluded from the formal or informal networks that can provide the necessary social capital for advancement into senior managerial positions (Wirth, 2001, p. 24). Women’s interest in their career has increased considerably in the last decades but this transformation in individual psychology has not been reflected in the number of women reaching the higher echelons of organizations (Wirth, 2001, p. 26).

prevent women to reach the upper levels or organization even further, by promoting the idea of discriminatory social institutions defined as ‘formal and informal laws, social norms and practices that restrict or exclude women and consequently curtail their access to rights, justice, resources and empowerment opportunities’ (OECD, 2014, p. 6). The same report concludes that although some social institutions can lead to beneficial social transformations and empower women, ‘discriminatory social institutions have a domino effect on a woman’s whole life cycle’; thus laws and public policies should move beyond their gender neutral phase and be designed and implemented with special consideration for gender issues and equality (OECD, 2014, p. 7). Furthermore, looking into organizational life, Stoker, Van der Velde and Lammers (2012, pp. 31-42) argue that the generally accepted stereotype of a manager is masculine and that most employees prefer a man as a manager. Kolb also observes that ‘leadership continues to be described in stereotypically masculine terms’ (1999, p. 305). As such, women’s advancement into managerial positions is interrupted or limited by the discrepancies perceived between women’s characteristics and those characteristics - usually men’s characteristics - traditionally correlated with managerial success (Terborg and Ilgen, 1975, pp. 352-376; Baroudi and Truman, 1992, pp. 4-5; Latu et al., 2011). Women are generally perceived as empathic, intuitive, devoid of aggression, emotional, dependent, oriented towards group, not competitive, less ambitious, devoid of entrepreneurial spirit and as lacking the desire to be in a leadership position. By associating feminine characteristics with women and masculine characteristics with men (and successful leaders), women’s opportunities to climb the organizational ladder are limited. Eagly and Karau also provide arguments that due to differences (incongruities) between female gender roles and leadership roles, women are less favorably perceived than men as potential occupants of leadership positions (2002, p. 573). Furthermore, once females act as leaders (or assume a leadership role that entails masculine values) they tend to be evaluated in a negative way (Eagly and Karau, 2002), being often considered too aggressive or authoritarian. Power seeking behaviors (real or perceived) manifested by women in the political sphere were negatively sanctioned by potential electors (due to moral-emotional reactions), while the same behaviors manifested by males were not (Okimoto, and Brescoll, 2010). Agentic or masterful women are also frowned upon in the private sphere (Phelan, MossRacusin and Rudman, 2008), as in such cases evaluators seem to change hiring criteria away from competence (where these types of women are positively evaluated) to criteria were they are under-evaluated (such as social skills). Forsyth, Heiney and Wright also find evidence that, within groups, members favor men when selecting or evaluating leaders even if the behaviors of those selected or evaluated (males and females) are similar (1997, p. 98). According to the aforementioned authors ‘these biases result from discrepancies between individuals’ stereotypes about women and their implicit prototypes of leaders’ (1997, p. 98), but empirical evidence (N=85) proved that cognitive biases and individual expectations have an effect on the reactions and attitudes of followers (1997). On the other hand, some

2.2. The role of societal values and individual attitudes in explaining female discrimination Gender discrimination phenomena in the labor force in general and management/leadership in particular can be explained by multiple factor, but societal values and individual attitudes seem to be the recurring ones. The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (undated, pp. 7-9) offers two main explanations for the underrepresentation of women in managerial positions: the first is that women have to balance both work and family demands and the second argues that work in male dominated industries deters the advancement perspectives of females due to male prejudices. Palmer and Simon (2008, p. 221) also argue that cultural and societal attitudes (especially regarding housework and childcare) are important obstacles for women trying to break the (political) glass ceiling. Williams (2003, pp. 1-14) draws attention that the ‘maternal barrier’ (family obligations of women) is the most important barrier which stands against a more gender equal society – however, the fact that women are assumed to have more family and child related obligation than men is a societal value than can easily be considered a prejudice/stereotype. The Social Institutions and Gender Index takes the idea of societal barriers and values that 130


of these stereotypes might be based on more tangible aspects; during a meta-analysis of existing research on male and female leadership styles, Eagly and Johnson found evidence that ‘women tended to adopt a more democratic or participative style and a less autocratic or directive style than did men’ (1990, p. 223). Rudman and Kilianski found statistical evidence (N=69) for both implicit (men are usually connected with high authority and women with low authority) and explicit attitudes toward female authority; even if women manifest less explicit prejudice than men, the implicit attitudes of the two genders regarding female authority are similarly negative (2000, p. 1315). Beside gender, attitudes toward female managers can also differ according to occupational traits, previous experiences (with female leaders) and age. Arkorful, Doe and Agyemang found evidence (N=120) that employees from public organizations, employees with previous positive interactions with female managers, female employees and younger employees are more open (express positive attitudes) to female leaders than employees from private organizations, employees with previous negative interactions with female managers, male employees and older employees (2014, p. 241). Furthermore, a higher acceptance of female leaders (or more positive attitudes regarding them) was connected with general empathy toward diverse ethnic or cultural groups (Cundiff and Komarraju, 2008). Individual attitudes toward male and female leaders are deeply entrenched in the national culture and will differ from country to country and both between and within larger cultural spaces, but they tend to be stable even over long periods of time. For example, in what could be mainly considered a traditional national culture (in Pakistan), Ali, Khan and Munaf did not find any differences between the attitudes of males and females toward women managers, but rather within the male sample (men coming from families with a working mother showed a positive attitude towards female managers) (2013, p. 373). A longitudinal survey of Greek middle managers (done in 1990 and repeated in 2006) showed that attitudes toward female leaders are stable in time and difficult to change, even if more females tend to occupy managerial positions (Galanaki, Papalexandris and Halikias, 2009, p. 495-496). Hoyt and Burnette found evidence (N=142) that ‘traditional attitudes toward women in authority significantly predicted a pro-male gender bias in leader evaluations (and progressive attitudes predicted a pro-female gender bias)’ (2013, p. 1306) – as such, it would seem that traditional societies are destined to maintain the status quo (fewer women in leadership positions), while we may assume that more liberal/progressive societies will allow/nurture further improvements in this area.

regarding the Romanian Roma population (1387 persons aged 18 and over, self-identified as Roma were surveyed, with a statistic error margin of ± 2,6%). Individual attitudes toward female and male business leaders were gauged using the variable ‘In what measure do you agree with the following statement … Men run businesses better than women’ (in Romanian: În ce măsură sunteți de acord cu următoarele afirmați...Bărbații conduc mai bine afacerile decât femeile). This variable refers to the preference of respondents for male or female business leaders but it can also be considered a proxy for more general attitudes as the opinions regarding women in leadership positions will likely reflect the overall stance toward women in the labor force. The variable was designed as a closed ended question and measured at the ordinal level using a Lykert-type scale with 6 answering possibilities. However, for an easier understanding of the data, the measuring scale was transformed and recoded (Table 1). Table 1. Initial and recoded measurement scale Initial measurement scale Recoded/transformed measurement scale 1 - to a very high degree 1 - to a very low degree, 2 - to a high degree 2 - to a low degree 3 - to a low degree 3 - to a high degree 4 - to a very low degree 4 - to a very high degree 8 - Don’t know 8 - Don’t know 9 - Don’t want to answer 9 - Don’t want to answer

Initially, the respondent’s socio-demographic data was organized in two variables, namely sample (Romanian/National, Roma) and gender (male, female) but this did not allow comparisons between groups. As such, these two distinct variables were also computed/transformed into a third one: (subsamples) with four nominal categories: Romanian males, Romanian females, Romanian Roma males and Romanian Roma females.

4. Statistical analyses and discussions 4.1. Descriptive statistics Table 2 shows the attitudes toward male and female leaders of the four groups: national, Roma, all males and all females. Table 2. Attitudes toward male/female leaders Sample Mean N Std. dev Romanian 2.50 1,132 1.036 Roma 2.91 1,186 .955 All male 2.86 1,118 1.002 All female 2.57 1,200 1.009

Overall, the Romanian society seems to be biased against female leaders as, according to the means, all four groups show some degree of agreement with the statement that men run businesses better than women. If in the case of the National (Romanian) sample the mean is 2.5 (somewhere between a low degree of agreement and a high one), the values for the Roma minority and all male sample are closer to a high degree of agreement, thus signaling more pronounced biases against female leaders.

3. Methodological aspects The empirical research is based on the 2007 Roma Inclusion Barometer (developed by The Foundation for an Open Society). The database is representative at both the national level (as 1215 persons aged 18 and over were surveyed with a statistic error margin of ± 2,9%) and 131


the test of homogeneity of variances as Sig. = 0.000 (Table 4). Since the variances of the four groups are statistically different, one of the data assumptions required by Anova is violated, but this can be addressed by using a corrected test for the equality of means.

4.2. Comparisons between groups Beside the simple descriptive analysis presented in the previous section, a post-hoc analysis of variance (Anova) was conducted in order to observe the differences between the four subgroups (Romanian male, Romanian females, Roma males and Roma females). Table 3 presents the main descriptive statistics for each pf the four subgroups. According to the mean values, Romanian females (2.33) seem to be less biased against female managers, followed by Romanian males (2.67), Roma females (2.78) and Roma males (3.05). Roma males seem to believe in a high degree that men run businesses better than women, thus expressing the strongest bias against female business leaders.

Table 4. Test of homogeneity of variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 10.654 3 2314 .000

Table 5 presents two robust tests of equality of means (Welch and Brown-Forsythe), both of which are significant (Sig. = 0.000) and allow further analysis. Table 5. Robust tests of equality of means Statistica df1 df2 Sig. Welch 52.298 3 1278.247 .000 Brown-Forsythe 52.505 3 2281.567 .000 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics by subgroups

Subgroup N

Roman., male Roma. male Roman., female Roma, female Total

Mean

Std. Devi.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. Lower Upper Error Bound Bound Min. Max.

554

2.67 1.023 .043

2.59

2.76

1

4

564

3.05

.944 .040

2.98

3.13

1

4

578

2.33 1.024 .043

2.25

2.42

1

4

622

2.78

.946 .038

2.71

2.86

1

4

2318 2.71 1.016 .021

2.67

2.75

1

4

Table 6 presents the main Anova analysis which offers statistical evidence that there is a difference between the four subgroups (Sig. = 0.000) or that the subgroup has a significant effect on the attitude toward males and females in leadership positions.

BetweenGroups Within Groups Total

Table 6. ANOVA Sum of Mean Squares df Square 152.859 3 50.953 2240.325 2314 .968 2393.184 2317

F Sig. 52.629 .000

Table 7 shows the multiple comparisons between the four subgroups using the Games-Howell procedure which is better suited for data that does not meet the homogeneity of variances assumption. From all the comparisons between the four subgroups, the only one that is not statistically significant is between Romanian males and Roma females (Sig. = 0.227), which tend to share a similar opinion regarding the efficiency of male business leaders when compared to women. Romanian males are less biased toward male managers that Roma males (Sig. = 0.000) but more so than Romanian females (Sig. = 0.000). Roma males seem to be most biased toward male manages/leaders from all four subgroups; the mean difference when compared with the other three subgroups is positive (ranging between 0.721 when compared to Romanian females and 0.274 when compared to Roma females) and statistically significant (Sig. = 0.000). Romanian females on the other hand are less biased toward male leaders/managers than the other three subgroups as the mean difference is negative (the highest when compared to Roma males, followed by Roma females and Romanian males) and statistically significant (Sig. = 0.000). Roma females are more biased toward male leaders than Romanian females (with a mean difference of 0.447 and Sig. = 0.000), but less so than Roma males (with a mean difference of -0.274 and Sig. = 0.000).

Figure 1. Graphic representation of group attitudes (means) (Men run businesses better than women)

Figure 1 shows the ranking of the four subgroups according to their preference or opinion that male leaders are better for business than female ones. However, the rest of the Anova should provide further statistical evidence that these observable differences truly reflect a trend in the data and cannot be attributed to chance. Unfortunately, the data fails 132

Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, vol. 8 no. 2 Table 7. Multiple comparisons (Games-Howell) (Men run businesses better than women) 95% Confidence Interval Mean (I) Sub(J) Sub- Difference Std. Lower Upper samples samples (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound Romanian, Roma, male -.383* .059 .000 -.53 -.23 male Romanian, .338* .061 .000 .18 .49 female Roma, female -.110 .058 .227 -.26 .04 Roma, Romanian, .383* .059 .000 .23 .53 male male Romanian, .721* .058 .000 .57 .87 female Roma, female .274* .055 .000 .13 .41 Romanian, Romanian, -.338* .061 .000 -.49 -.18 female male Roma, male -.721* .058 .000 -.87 -.57 Roma, female -.447* .057 .000 -.59 -.30 Roma, Romanian, .110 .058 .227 -.04 .26 female male Roma, male -.274* .055 .000 -.41 -.13 Romanian, .447* .057 .000 .30 .59 female * - The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

toward male managers (consistent with their more traditional larger cultural framework). This general belief could easily explain the relatively small number of female managers (or leaders) in the Romanian private sector. Furthermore, significant differences can also be observed between most of the four subgroups, with Roma males expressing a clear preference for male leaders and Romanian females being the most favorable to female leaders (but some bias for male leaders persists).

5. Conclusions The paper provided both theoretical and statistical evidence for the presence of negative cultural values in Romania that hinder the efforts of women to reach the top levels of private organizations. Furthermore, the empirical analysis has proved that factors such as gender and ethnicity (among others) can also influence stereotypes and attitudes toward male and female leaders. Roma males seem to present a strong bias for male managers (as they consider them more suitable to run private organizations), while Romanian females present the weaker bias toward male leaders; Romanian males and Roma females are somewhere in between. Societal values and individual attitudes/stereotypes regarding female leaders in Romania can and should be improved only in an incremental approach, as aggressive strategies will likely determine unsurmountable social resistance. Meyerson and Fletcher (2000, pp. 127-136) argue that revolutionary measures tend to scare people and cause high amounts of resistance (from organizations and members), while small wins (via dialogue and experimentation) focused on ‘incremental changes aimed at biases so entrenched in the system that they’re not even noticed until they’re gone’ (p. 128) represent the true keys and means for surpassing the glass ceiling.

Figure 2: Graphic representation of attitudes (‘Men run businesses better than women’)

Acknowledgements This work was possible due to the financial support of the Sectorial Operational Program for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, co-financed by the European Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU/159/1.5/S/132400 with the title „Young successful researchers – professional development in an international and interdisciplinary environment”.

Figure 2 offers another perspective on the aforementioned findings: most of the data for Romanian females is concentrated between 1 and 3 (signaling a low to medium bias for male managers) while most of the data for Roma males is concentrated at the upper levels of the scale (signaling a high to very high level of bias toward male managers). The answers of Romanian males and Roma females are mostly between 2 and 3, corresponding to medium/high biases toward male managers. The Romanian society seems to be biased against female leaders as male managers are considered more suitable than female ones. The 2.5 mean obtained for the national sample suggests that Romanians are trapped somewhere between a strong belief that male managers are better than female ones and a medium one, while the 2.91 mean obtained by the Roma minority shows a clear preference

References [1] Ali, U., Khan, A., Munaf, S. (2013). Attitudes toward women in managerial position in Pakistan: A comparative study, International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(3), 373-377. [2] Arkorful, H.K., Doe, F., Agyemang, C.B. (2014). Attitude of private and public sector employees towards female managers in Ghana, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4(3), 241-253. [3] Baroudi, J.J., Truman, G.E. (1992). Gender differences in the information systems managerial ranks: An assessment of discriminatory practices, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University, Working Paper Series No. STERN IS-92-5. 133


[4] Carnes, M., Morrissey, C., Geller, S.E. (2008). Women’s health and women’s leadership in academic medicine: Hitting the same glass ceiling?, Journal of Women’s Health, 17(9), 1453-1452. [5] Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. (undated). Breaking glass: Strategies for tomorrow’s leaders, London: CIMA. [6] Cundiff, N.L., Komarraju, M. (2008). Gender differences in ethnocultural empathy and attitudes toward men and women in authority, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(1), 5-15. [7] Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders, Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. [8] Eagly, A.H., Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256. [9] Forsyth, D.R., Heiney, M.M., Wright, S.S. (1997). Biases in appraisals of women leaders, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 1(1), 98-103. [10] Galanaki, E, Papalexandris, N., Halikias, J. (2009). Revisiting leadership styles and attitudes towards women as managers in Greece 15 years later, Gender in Management: An International Journal, 24(7), 484-504. [11] Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L.H., Raver, J.L., Schneider, B. (2005) Discrimination in organizations: An organizationallevel. Systems perspective, in: Dipboye, R.L., and Colella, A. (eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases, Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 89-118. [12] Haslam, S.A., Ryan, M.K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations, The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 530-546. [13] Hoyt, C.L., Burnette, J.L. (2013). Gender bias in leader evaluations: Merging implicit theories and role congruity perspectives, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1306-1319. [14] Hultin, M. (2003). Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling? Career consequences of occupational sex segregation, Work and Occupations, 30(1), 30-61. [15] Kolb, J.A. (1999). The effect of gender role, attitude toward leadership, and self-confidence on leader emergence: Implications for leadership development, Humane Resource Development Quarterly, 10(4), 305-320. [16] Latu, I.M., Stewart, T.L., Myers, A.C., Lisco, C.G., Estes, S.B., Donahue, D.K. (2011). What we ‘‘say’’ and what we ‘‘think’’ about female managers: Explicit versus implicit associations of women with success, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 252-266. [17] Macarie, F.C., Moldovan, O. (2012a). Gender discrimination in management: Theoretical and empirical perspectives, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 35E, 153-172. [18] Macarie, F.C., Moldovan, O. (2012b). The ignored resource: Gender discrimination in the labor force,

Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, 4, 1219. [19] Meyerson, D.E., Fletcher, J.Y. (2000). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling, Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 127-136. [20] Okimoto, T.G., Brescoll, V.L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 923-936 [21] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD. (2008). Gender and sustainable development: Maximizing the economic, social and environmental role of women, OECD. [22] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD. (2014). The Social Institutions and Gender Index 2014 synthesis report, OECD. [23] Palmer, B. and Simon, D. (2008). Breaking the political glass ceiling, New York and London: Routledge. [24] Phelan, J.E., Moss-Racusin, C.A., Rudman, L.A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406-413 [25] Rudman, L.A., Kilianski, S.E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1315-1328. [26] Simpson, R., Altman, Y. (2000). The time bounded glass ceiling and young women managers: Career progress and career success – evidence from the UK, Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(2-4), 190-198. [27] Stoker, J.I., Van der Velde, M., Lammers, J. (2012). Factors relating to managerial stereotypes: The role of gender of the employee and the manager and management ratio, Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), 31-42. [28] The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995a). Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human capital, a fact-finding report, Washington, D.C. [29] The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995b). A solid investment: Making full use of the nation’s human capital, recommendations, Washington, D.C. [30] Terborg, J.R., Ilgen, D.R. (1975). A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupations, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(3), 352-376. [31] Thompson, B. (2007). Working beyond the glass ceiling: Women managers and initial teacher training in England, Gender and Education, 19(3), 339-352. [32] Vinnicombe, S., Colwill, N. (1998). Femeile în management, Bucureşti: Teora. [33] Williams, J.C. (2003). Beyond the glass ceiling: The maternal wall as a barrier to gender equality, Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 26(1), 1-14. [34] Wirth, L. (2001). Breaking through the glass ceiling. Women in management, Geneva: International Labour Office.

134

Copyright of Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society is the property of Risoprint Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.