Glass Ceiling

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH, 14(1), 27–55 Copyright © 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Glass Ceiling? What Glass Ceiling? A Qualitative Study of How Women View the Glass Ceiling in Public Relations and Communications Management
Brenda J. Wrigley
Department of Advertising Michigan State University

The glass ceiling persists for women in public relations and communications management, despite increasing feminization of these fields. This qualitative study seeks to identify factors that support and perpetuate the problem of the glass ceiling for women in public relations and corporate communications management. In-depth interviews and focus groups were used to allow 27 women to give their views on the glass ceiling. I suggest a new theoretical concept, negotiated resignation, for explaining the psychological process by which women come to terms with the glass ceiling. Study participants identified five factors contributing to the glass ceiling, as well as a number of strategies women can use to overcome the glass ceiling. I examine the findings from both a radical feminist and liberal feminist perspective. Recommendations for educators, students, and practitioners are included in this study, as are some comments from the 27 women who worked as managers in both agency and corporate environments.

In 1991 U.S. Labor Secretary Lynn Martin released the findings of a special government study entitled, “The Glass Ceiling Initiative.” This federal study examined the challenges presented by a lack of women and minorities in management. The commission was made up of 21 bipartisan members and was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Russell, 1995). The Department of Labor (1991) defined the glass ceiling as,
Requests for reprints should be sent to Brenda J. Wrigley, Department of Advertising, Michigan State University, 324 Communication Arts & Sciences, East Lansing, MI 48824–1212. E-mail: [e-mail]

28

WRIGLEY

… those artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their organization into management-level positions. (p. 1)

The Report highlighted the absence of women and minorities in management. The study looked at nine corporations, beginning in the fall of 1989, combining research and hearings featuring speakers from business, labor, and women’s groups (Women and the Workplace, 1991). Secretary Martin concluded her foreword to the report for the U.S. Department of Labor (1991) by urging that the Glass Ceiling Initiative’s Report be taken seriously:
The glass ceiling, where it exists, hinders not only individuals, but society as a whole. It effectively cuts our pool of potential corporate leaders by eliminating over one-half of our population. It deprives our economy of new leaders, new sources of creativity—the “would be” pioneers of the business world. If our end game is to compete successfully in today’s global market, then we have to unleash the full potential of the American work force. The time has come to tear down, to dismantle—the “Glass Ceiling.” (p. 1)

Since the Glass Ceiling Initiative’s findings were released, little has changed. As of March 31, 2000, women corporate officers numbered 1,622 or 12.5% (Catalyst, 2001a). According to Business Week, women in 1997 represented 11.2% of officers at large corporations, an increase from the 10.6% reported in 1996 and 8.7% in 1995. The magazine noted that those who do make it to the top are paid “substantially less than their male counterparts” with women paid 68 cents for every dollar paid to a male corporate officer (Hammonds, 1998, pp. 82–83). The upshot: “‘In the upper echelons, it’s still a White male preserve,’ says Heidi Hartmann, director of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. ‘Why are we surprised?’” (p. 83) In public relations, the news about salary inequities is no better. In the PRWeek magazine Salary Survey (March 27, 2000), women were paid 72% of the salary paid to men, on average. The average salary for men is $81,920 and for women, $59,026. The means that men make, on average, nearly $23,000 per year more than women make in public relations (p. 24). Why are women still paid substantially less than men are? Why does the glass ceiling stay in place? And why does much of the popular press do its best to paint a rosy picture of job prospects for women? Indeed, much of the current mention of women’s status in the workforce highlights positives. Women’s pay, relative to that of men, is catching up and the numbers of women serving as top executives and on boards of directors is growing each year. The recent appointment of Cynthia M. Trudell as president and chairman of the Saturn division of General Motors illustrates this trend. On January 1, 1999, she

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

29

became the first woman to head a car division for an automaker, foreign or domestic. Trudell holds a doctorate in physical chemistry and worked her way up through the ranks of General Motors, putting up with teasing male coworkers who painted her first factory office pink, “I’m very proud and secure in my gender, but I’ve never thought it to be a big deal,” she said (Bradsher, 1998, p. BU2). When asked to comment on Trudell’s nine years of service in a transmission factory prior to her announcement as president and chairman, outgoing president and chairman Donald Hudler noted, “I suspect it would be more of a challenge for a woman than for a man, but I suspect in the next nine years it will be easier” (Bradsher, 1998, p. BU2). Dwelling on these positives helps to take the spotlight away from what many women fear is really going on; women are advancing in the corporate world at a snail’s pace. For equal salaries and equal representation in top management to be a reality, women will have to wait several—even many—lifetimes. Public relations scholar L. A. Grunig (1995) referred to this phenomenon of spotlighting token women as compensatory feminism (p. 11). Those who have not made it to the boardroom just yet can take comfort from the stories of those who have. In short, such success stories should make women feel better about their status, or lack of it. L. A. Grunig contends this type of research seems largely designed to compensate for the absence of women, a phenomenon that was seldom questioned before research in gender issues came along (L. A. Grunig, p. 11). “For example, a 300% increase sounds very big, but a 300% increase in the number of women CEO’s of major companies is in fact not a very big jump—it means there would be three instead of one” (Dataline [Online], 1992). The 2000 Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners of the Fortune 500 indicates that the percent of women corporate officers is increasing. In the year 2000, 12.5% of corporate officers in the Fortune 500 were women and Catalyst projects, based on the average rate of increase over the last six years, that women will represent 16.5% in 2005; 20.1% in 2010; and 27.4% in 2020. Yet, 90 companies of the Fortune 500 had no women corporate officers in the year 2000. Those 90 companies represent 18% of the Fortune 500 (Catalyst [Online], 2001a). Women are making great strides as entrepreneurs. In 1977, there were 0.7 million firms in the United States owned by women. By 1987, that number had jumped to 4.1 million. In 1999, there were 9.1 million firms owned by women (National Foundation for Women Business Owners, 1999). Striking out on one’s own is an alternative to the corporate glass ceiling for some women. A 1998 Catalyst study of women entrepreneurs found that women cite a variety of reasons for leaving the corporate world to become entrepreneurs: women’s contributions not recognized or valued (47%); women are not taken seriously (34%); women feel isolated as one of few women or minorities (29%); and women see others being promoted ahead of them (27%; Catalyst [Online], 2001b).

30

WRIGLEY

The 1991 Glass Ceiling Initiative, subsequent government statistics and independent studies all confirm one thing: Despite some progress, the glass ceiling is still firmly in place. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH This study seeks to identify factors that support and perpetuate the glass ceiling for women in public relations and corporate communications management. Prior research has shown that people who work in public relations end up wearing many different hats (Toth & L. A. Grunig, 1993, p. 168). The function often is responsible for public relations, marketing communications, crisis management, employee communications, and more. Therefore, the combined terms of public relations and communications are used. Many researchers in management have attempted to isolate factors contributing to sex segregation and sex discrimination. Their work has contributed to the body of knowledge in two very important ways: First, it highlights the need for research about women, research frequently marginalized in both the academic and business arenas. Second, it has begun to suggest factors that create and maintain the glass ceiling in corporate public relations and communications. This study builds on this important earlier work and examines the issue with an approach informed by feminist theoretical and methodological perspectives. Using this approach, women tell their own stories regarding issues directly affecting their job and personal satisfaction. RESEARCH PROBLEM Although government reports and the work of researchers in management and public relations confirm the existence of a glass ceiling, no clear conclusions have been drawn about what causes the glass ceiling—and whether it really is a glass ceiling at all. Men interviewed in public relations research projects have denied the problem is real, even when presented with detailed and well-researched information regarding salary disparity and other inequities (Wright, L. A. Grunig, Springston, & Toth, 1991). Unwillingness to confront a glass ceiling adds to the problem of studying this phenomenon. A 1991 study at the University of Maryland found that undergraduate students in public relations were not aware of gender bias in their field. Nor did theybelievethatit would be an issue for them. In fact, they said too much time was being spent in their classes talking about such gender issues in public relations (Jones, 1991, p. 1). Still, several scholars have devoted their careers to gender issues in public relations, believing that these are issues that will have a long-term impact on the field. Among them, Toth (1989) met the issue head-on in a 1989 essay addressing the “gender balance” question. The essay examines concerns expressed

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

31

about the increasing feminization of public relations and the need to achieve gender balance. She contends that because “women face a continual devaluation in relation to men,” men worry when women appear to “take over” a particular profession (pp. 70–71). With women entering university programs in public relations in increasing numbers and with women now the majority of practitioners in public relations, Toth (1988) expressed concern about what universities are telling these young women about their prospects for a satisfying and rewarding career in public relations. She responded that bright young women have much to contribute to the field, but wondered if they might be better off in other fields where women have made greater strides toward equality. This research project, therefore, assumes the glass ceiling is an important area for further study for the following reasons. Feminization of the Field The majority of public relations practitioners are women (U.S. Department of Labor, 1998, p. 175). Women make up more than half of the U.S. population (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997, p. 14), yet their representation in management in public relations and many other fields is a much smaller percentage (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2000, p. 48). This limits opportunities for women and the organizations that could benefit from their contributions. Nature of the Field of Public Relations Public relations sees itself as a profession striving to achieve mutual understanding. Still, women in public relations have difficulty being treated equally in terms of advancement and salary (PRWeek, March 27, 2000, p. 29). Nature of Today’s Business Climate Today’s organizations are under continued pressure from a variety of publics, both internal and external. Technological advances make communication much more immediate and accessible, enabling even relatively unsophisticated publics to transmit their messages. The pressure on organizations to practice public relations as more of a two-way communication process becomes even more urgent (Witmer, 2000). Contributions to the Bottom Line Most organizations are bottom-line oriented. Conflict with key publics can be costly to organizations, pulling resources from important daily business activities,

32

WRIGLEY

diverting them to putting out fires and dealing with crisis situations (Guth & Marsh, 2000). Responsibility to Students Students want information about the current state of the industry. Female students, who make up the majority in university public relations programs, wish to know about opportunities for advancement and growth. Only then can they determine whether this is really the right career for them. Male students will enter a field where women are the majority. Some of these men may reach positions of authority and responsibility; they should know which factors have prevented women from advancing. As this review has indicated, several major studies have looked at gender issues in public relations. The glass ceiling is a recurring theme. Gender discrimination and salary disparities are the focus of several major studies conducted between the mid-1980s and the late 1990s. An underlying theme is feminization of the field, the increasing number of women in public relations resulting in women making up a majority in the field. This feminization trend is often characterized by those in the field as a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that women self-select technician roles and, therefore, participate unwittingly in their own discrimination. The link between gender and salaries is clear and has been shown in all of the studies reviewed here. Yet, another pattern emerging is the clear denial by men participating in these studies that gender inequities are as great as women have claimed (Toth & Cline, 1991). Even faced with hard numbers, both men and women deny that inequities are as pronounced as the research indicates. This study works to get at the causes of this denial. One factor that may create cracks in the so-called glass ceiling is turbulent economic times, which may force organizations to rely on public relations more than ever, thus giving women an opportunity to advance. Yet, despite this hopeful prediction, research indicates this has not happened. Women are still kept out of managerial roles in disproportionate numbers (J. E. Grunig, 1992). Playing by the male rules is another strategy some researchers have suggested. If men made the rules and women understand the rules, then women can use the rules to their advantage. Some, such as Creedon and Hon, have asked whether women really want to play by the male rules (i.e., is the “prize” of advancing to management really such a great thing after all?). Playing by male rules includes networking, finding a mentor, and redoubling efforts to have more energy to tackle the problems created by gender inequities (Creedon, 1991, 1993a; Hon, 1995). Huberlie’s 1996 study suggests that many women have already figured out that getting to the top of their organizations may not be all it is cracked up to be. They realize that salary inequity exists and that women have opportunities in public relations but men have greater opportunities.

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

33

What Huberlie (1996), Creedon (1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c), and Hon (1995) all seem to be suggesting is that we need to rid ourselves of just thinking in terms of dichotomies (technician vs. manager) and begin thinking about job satisfaction and the nature of roles in public relations work. These observations are important because this study explores how women characterize their own experiences in public relations and can provide information about the importance and relevance of these issues with regard to the glass ceiling in public relations. No major studies on the glass ceiling in public relations have been published since 1995. We are still searching for factors related to the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. The researcher believes this problem can be best approached by learning about the direct experiences of women in public relations and communications. Only they can best explain what has happened to them and what they believe to be the factors contributing to a glass ceiling in their work environments.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS RQ1: Do women in corporate public relations and communications management perceive a glass ceiling to be in place? RQ2: What factors do women think help to create or maintain the glass ceiling for women in public relations and communications? RQ3: What strategies are there for women in public relations and communications who want to work to eliminate the glass ceiling?

METHOD Qualitative methods were used for this study because the factors contributing to the glass ceiling have not yet been clearly delineated. Before solutions can be recommended to dismantle, circumvent, or redefine the glass ceiling, these factors must be exposed and explicated. The study used focus groups (one pretest and two subsequent focus groups) and depth interviews (a total of 10 interviews). Participants Because the primary goal of the research is to more clearly identify factors contributing to the glass ceiling for women in corporate public relations and communications management, we must first ask women to define the glass ceiling from their perspective and then discuss how they believe it came about. For this study, corporate public relations and communications management is defined as that function that is chiefly responsible for public relations and commu-

34

WRIGLEY

nication activities for the organization. Individual women participating in the study worked at a managerial level within the corporate communications function. Their experiences were compared with, and contrasted to, those of women working in agency public relations and communications environments. The primary purpose of the study is to seek to identify factors at work that support and perpetuate the problem of the glass ceiling for women in public relations and communications. Factors are defined as those which women self-report from their own experiences as contributing to supporting or perpetuating the glass ceiling phenomenon. The participants recruited for this study included only women because the research is informed by feminist theory and feminist methodological approaches to the topic (i.e., conducting the research from women’s standpoint). The experiences and opinions of men in corporate communications management are documented and widely cited. The experiences of women have been explored and analyzed less often (Biagi & Kern-Foxworth, 1997; Eichler, 1991; Fenton, 1995; Fine, 1993; Lay, 1994). The 27 participants for the focus groups and interviews were recruited using a snowball sample. They worked in both agency and corporate environments, with job titles ranging from CEO to entry-level management positions. Their ages ranged from 26 to 51, with the mean age being 40. Participants in the study had worked in the public relations/communications field an average of 14 years. All were college graduates; four held graduate degrees. Focus Group Procedures The researcher strove for homogeneity within each focus group. J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (1998, pp. 3, 5) have observed that focus groups should not include an individual who is too unlike the other group members in age or experience because this person’s experiences and opinions may overshadow the experience of others in the group. Focus groups were conducted in university conference or classrooms and in a leased conference room. The researcher conducted each focus group, assisted by a graduate student who helped with audiotaping. The pretest of the focus group took 2 hr 10 min; subsequent focus groups averaged 56 min. All focus group audiotapes were transcribed by the researcher. The transcriptions were content-analyzed based on the study’s research questions. In-Depth Interview Procedures Interview participants were recruited using job titles and levels of experience to fill a set of specific categories. The first category was working environment: agency or corporate. Although women working in corporate environments seem an obvious

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

35

choice for studying the glass ceiling for women in public relations and communications management (because the glass ceiling is often referenced as being present in corporations), women in agencies represent a second important perspective. Women working in agencies may have prior corporate experience. They are also likely to work with corporate clients as part of their agency job responsibilities. They therefore have an opportunity to observe what happens in corporations, as well as the ability to comment on the environment for women in agencies. Number of years of work experience was the next category. Prior research has shown that most women in public relations do not run into issues of discrimination until after the first 5 years in the field (Wright et al., 1991). The first category for number of years of experience, then, was at least 5 years. This was used for the entry-level job title categories, to ensure that interview participants were past this “honeymoon” period. Interview participants in job titles representing more management responsibility were grouped into two additional categories: less than 10 years of experience and 10 or more years of experience. Job title was the final category for interview participants. Job titles included nonmanager or first level of management; middle management ranging upward to levels just below officers, partners, or owners; and owners, CEOs, or managing partners. These three categories of titles represented the three levels commonly found in communications management in corporate and agency settings. Keeping the number of job title categories to three also kept the total number of interviews to a reasonable number. Based on these categories, 10 separate participant profiles were created: 1. Agency Owner/CEO, or top management, 10 or more years of experience, over 35 years old. 2. Corporate Owner/CEO, or top management, 10 or more years of experience, over 35 years old. 3. Agency middle to upper management, 10 or more years of experience, over 35 years old. 4. Corporate middle to upper management, 10 or more years of experience, over 35 years old. 5. Agency middle to upper management, less than 10 years of experience, under 35 years old. 6. Corporate middle to upper management, less than 10 years of experience, under 35 years old. 7. Agency nonmanager, or first level of management, over 35 years old, at least 5 years of experience. 8. Corporate nonmanager or first level of management, over 35 years old, at least 5 years of experience. 9. Agency nonmanager or first level of management, under 35 years old, at least 5 years of experience.

36

WRIGLEY

10. Corporate nonmanager or first level of management, under 35 years old, at least 5 years of experience. Using the snowball sample method, the researcher recruited women who met the criteria in these categories. In addition, the researcher attempted to recruit women from a variety of ethnic, racial, and class backgrounds, to address the issue that much of feminist scholarship continues to focus on White, middle-class, heterosexual women. Transforming feminist research requires an awareness of the limiting and restrictive nature of excluding women from diverse backgrounds (Banks, 1995). Of the resulting interview participants, one self-identified as being gay, whereas the remaining nine women were all married to men at the time of the interviews. The gay woman indicated she has been in a committed relationship for 7 years. Two of the nine married women were in second marriages. Six of the nine married women had children. Five of these six had given birth to at least some of their children; one married a man with children. Three of the nine married women had no children. Nine of the 10 women were of European-American descent. The 10th woman self-identified as Black, preferring this to African-American. She indicated her maternal great-grandparent was of Native American descent. The 10 women interviewed worked in medium and large-sized cities in the northeastern United States and the mid-Atlantic states. All in-depth interviews were conducted face-to-face by the researcher and were audio taped for later transcription, with three interviews conducted at the researcher’s university office and the remaining seven interviews conducted at the participants’ offices. The interviews averaged 53 min. The interview transcriptions were also content-analyzed based on the study’s research questions. The researcher looked for main themes and supporting evidence for each of these main themes. Direct quotations from participants were also catalogued under main themes for later use in providing examples related to the main themes. To protect participants’ confidentiality, pseudonyms are used throughout the results and discussion sections. RESULTS Definition and Presence of a Glass Ceiling as Identified Through Factors Contributing to the Glass Ceiling Although the women in this study sometimes initially disagreed that there is a glass ceiling for women in public relations and communications management, by the end of their interview or focus group, many had given examples from their own experiences or the experiences of others which suggested otherwise. This denial or rationalization will be examined in terms of the factors these women suggest contribute to the glass ceiling.

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

37

This study identified five factors as possible contributors to the glass ceiling for women in public relations and communications management. Factor 1: Denial The data suggest that one factor contributing to the glass ceiling for these women is denial. This factor was identified by piecing together the comments and contradictions heard in the interviews and focus groups. The researcher has created a concept for this denial to acknowledge discrimination and called this concept negotiated resignation, a term that will be explained in this study’s discussion section. Although the data in this study support this finding, it is interesting to note that reaction to earlier studies also supports this finding. Data analysis resulted in a list of factors that the researcher suggests may be contributing to this denial. The examples come from the women’s voices themselves.

Personal blame. “I didn’t advance, but I can’t believe it had anything to do with gender” types of comments were heard during some of the interviews and focus groups. Christine said her inability to advance was her own fault because she picked her personal priorities over her work. Helen said that women having to move from job to job to try to climb the corporate ladder did not have anything to do with their gender: “I don’t think it’s a gender thing.” Yet, in the same breath, she said, “Maybe we’re confronted with it more because we’re female.” Ripley said she always wondered if it was the organization or if she herself was responsible for her inability to be promoted. She questioned herself each time it happened. It’s in other fields, but not in public relations and communications. Helen made this comment during Focus Group 2. Sherrie said there may be a glass ceiling, but not in health care PR. Yet, Joyce said there was a glass ceiling in her experience in health care communications, although she felt that in that field, women fared somewhat better than in others. There cannot be a glass ceiling in PR! It’s all women! Seeing so many women in college public relations graduate classes caused Patricia to make this comment in Focus Group 3. Yet, men continue to hold a disproportionate number of top management positions in public relations and communications, despite the fact that men are now the minority in some of the communications-related industries. The glass ceiling will not stay in place for long, as Christine said during her interview, sheer numbers will take care of it. Younger, more liberal-thinking men will replace the misogynistic old, gray-haired men.

38

WRIGLEY

However, Emerald remarked that, as public relations’ contribution to the organization becomes more significant, organizations will want men, not women, in those top communicator roles.

If I pretend it’s not there, I can get past it. This was Louise’s answer to getting around the presumed nonexistent glass ceiling. However, how do women get around something if they do not believe it exists in the first place? Ignoring that there is a glass ceiling and pretending it is not there clearly signal some kind of denial is at work. Another factor contributing to the denial of the glass ceiling was mass media representations of singularly successful women. Ripley gave the example of Jill Barad of Mattel, as featured in Business Week magazine, who made it to the top of the company. Barad’s style and relationships with employees were highlighted in the article. Her contribution to the bottom line was not. Barad, according to Mattel’s corporate Web page, was until recently, one of just two women at the top of a Fortune 500 company (Mattel Corporation, 1999). Mass media also present the image of Superwomen, an unrealistic image of women who have fabulously successful careers, passionate personal lives, lots of money, and plenty of time to enjoy it all. This is a tough image to live up to. Lynn said advertising shows “women can have it all,” but “they can’t.”
Factor 2: Gender Role Socialization Another factor contributing to the glass ceiling for participants in this study was gender role socialization and resulting perceived gender differences. A woman who has made it to the top of corporate management reflected on how her current career accomplishments contrasted with strong gender stereotyping present in her home growing up:
I was somebody who was raised very traditionally, and looking back on my life realize that my father very much stereotyped women. My mother, you know, was very typical, you know, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. She had 10 children (laughs) … early on, you know, I had mentioned that I wanted to go to law school. And, oh, only ugly women go to, who can’t get husbands, go, I mean really stereotype stuff that now you kind of like, you know, you go, Oh, my God!

Women in the focus groups and the interviews connected their gender role socialization to their later experiences in the workplace. Women—and men—do not leave their gender role socialization at the door when coming to work. One interview participant said she believes that the assumption that women are “helpers” restricts how men view women’s capabilities to lead and to manage the bottom line for organizations.

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

39

Similarly, several women mentioned that women are socialized to accept more limited views of success; at best, they are taught that they can achieve certain career goals, but perhaps only in certain fields or only in limited job titles. Some admitted that women rather freely accept these limitations as “the way things are” for women, seldom challenging the parameters shaped during those formative years. Factor 3: Historical Precedence Women gave many examples to support the next factor, historical precedence. The run-ins with the men’s clubs for Kate and Louise were in-your-face examples of historical precedence at work. The clubs were traditionally male. If women came in, it was always and only through the “ladies door.” Kate described the history leading up to the current situation of men being in power:
It’s an historical, cultural, patriarchal system and basically the men were going out and doing the work and the women were home doing the work, and that’s just how things historically have been for so many years that I think the expectation is just there and so I think that we’ve made a lot of progress to get to where we are, but it’s not done.

This historical precedence has resulted in what the majority of women in both the focus groups and the interviews referred to as the “good old boy” network. Stephanie said she has run into the good old boy network more than once; she also said she has lost jobs to men who were “connected” through this good old boy network:
I think that for men, in some instances, there is that boy’s network out there, the old boys network, and I think that in a lot of political instances, for public affairs positions that I know that I have gone up for, um, for them being, you know, having a connection to, or being a part of that old boys network, um, was really helpful to them.

The good old boy network is something many of the women participating in this study have observed. Certainly, the variety of corporate culture manifestations that support the status quo for men to remain in power are findings of this study that support earlier work, including the original Velvet Ghetto Study (Cline et al., 1986) and the Beyond the Velvet Ghetto study (Toth & Cline, 1989). Factor 4: Women Turning Against Other Women The theme of women not helping other women in the workplace was mentioned in all three focus groups and in the interviews. The stereotype described was the “cor-

40

WRIGLEY

porate bitch” who makes it to the top and then seems determined to keep other women from advancing. Sherrie, who has made it to the top management level at her corporation, says she has done it without the help of other women: “Women are tougher on women. You know … women are not necessarily good mentors and supporters of women.” Emerald gave a very animated example during an interview of how she expected help from a woman with whom she worked, and whom she felt appreciated all Emerald had contributed to the business. She found out that, when it came time to promote someone, the appearance of having too many women at the top resulted in her being passed over for promotion. What was worse, the woman making the decision agreed that she was promoting a “knucklehead”:
But, when [the president of the agency] left [she] had to name a president of the agency. Everyone thought it would be me. And she said to me, “I’m gonna make [a man] the president. And I was shocked. And I said, “Why? I mean [he’s] a knucklehead!” (Laughs uproariously). And she said, “Yes, you’re right”…but, she said, “I, I really don’t want two women in charge again. I mean, we’re viewed as weak. I need a man there.” So, that’s how it was. And I see that in corporations. I see it here. There’s just, um, don’t surround yourself with women, because you’ll, it’ll be weak. Surround yourself with men. I have not played the game that way.

Women in the third focus group expressed discomfort over using the term corporate bitch because they said they were reluctant to create a negative stereotype for other women. Still, they said, they had each met someone who fit the stereotype.

Factor 5: Corporate Culture The women in this study made it clear they believe the cultures of corporations are very different from the cultures found in agency environments. It should be noted that the women were referring to smaller agencies in their comments; large, corporate-like agencies might have less participatory cultures than smaller agencies. They reported that, in general, corporations provide fewer opportunities for women to advance than do agencies. Emerald described corporate cultures this way:
I think corporations are just entirely ruled by the glass ceiling … If your career is your burning desire, … get out of a corporation. If you want to run something, have your own business. I also think that the agency world is probably a faster track than corporations.

Elizabeth figured out this strategy at the very beginning of her career, when she learned that corporate culture would not be a welcoming place for her to advance:

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

41

It was clear to me that women of very substantial ability were limited. It helped me, ah, it helped me determine the environments that I would choose to work in, versus not work in … some of those environments … there is no chance that I would have (a) been as successful, (b) had access to, (c) had the mobility for, um, that I had by being … in the agency role.

One manifestation of this corporate culture is the phenomenon of men feeling threatened by women and needing to protect their positions of power. This has been a recurring theme in public relations gender research, as in the case of the 1991 Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Task Force Study (Wright et al., 1991). Gender discrimination and salary disparities were reported by women participating in this study, as was resentment by men toward women regarding affirmative action issues. Women in this study also believe that corporate cultures and maintenance of men’s power results in several unwritten rules: women are OK to hire, but only for certain types of jobs in certain areas such as communications, women will work harder than men, and because women are willing to work harder, they will be given more and more work.

Strategies for Overcoming the Glass Ceiling The final research question addressed strategies for overcoming the glass ceiling. Women mentioned the following strategies: mentoring, working hard(er), changing jobs, going out on your own, demonstrating competence and efficiency, women taking control of their own futures and creating new work cultures, being a problem solver, and having patience. The overriding pattern in the strategies was one of empowerment of women. Until women feel that they have the ability to take control of their futures, their attempts to satisfy male managers by working harder and demonstrating competence will probably fall short. What the women in this study seemed to be saying is that women must go beyond basic performance guidelines to figure out the subtleties of corporate culture. Women frequently mentioned working harder as a way to get ahead in the corporate world, but some ended up acknowledging that this strategy does not work. What works is plugging into corporate politics:
If you’re gonna be in a corporation, you’d better learn how to be a highly political animal. Because, because, you know, advancement is not pure merit. Women think pure merit gets them there! Hell-oo! That ain’t it at all! That is not it at all.

These comments support a recent study published by Catalyst, which indicates women who have made it to the top in corporate America report they did it by con-

42

WRIGLEY

sistently exceeding expectations, adapting their working style to one male managers are comfortable with, asking to take on more complex assignments, and relying on an influential mentor (Catalyst [Online], 2001c). DISCUSSION Radical Feminist Analysis Factors supporting or perpetuating the glass ceiling will be examined first through a radical feminist lens, weighing the comments made by the participants in terms of a radical feminist view of society’s structures and limitations. Factor 1: Denial The researcher believes that the initial, or even steadfast, denial of the existence of a glass ceiling is the result of a rather complicated process in our culture that works to maintain the status quo, and thus denies that discrimination against women is present in the workplace or elsewhere in our culture. The researcher also believes that the denial, in part, stems from the fact that women cope with cognitive dissonance about the glass ceiling by using an inconsistency reduction strategy such as denial. The researcher would suggest that this, more than anything else, may explain what is going on. Festinger (1957) developed the theory of cognitive dissonance, a state of tension that must be reduced (West & Wicklund, 1980, p. 70). To cope with certain inconsistencies in our environment, we analyze what is going on, and bring things into balance by rationalizing our feelings toward the situation. Thus, if women face the glass ceiling at work, they may devise strategies to either justify its existence or minimize its perceived impact on their careers. Acknowledging the glass ceiling means having to deal with it in some way. The researcher suggests that denial may be one way of dealing with the glass ceiling. Some successful women may also believe that there is not a glass ceiling for them because of their hard work and abilities, when perhaps luck played a role. They could have been in the right place at the right time to advance. Women would rather attribute their success to merit than luck, perhaps. In addition, it could be easier to blame the problem on other fields than to admit that it is right under one’s own nose. The researcher is not suggesting that the women who expressed some form of denial about the glass ceiling are not telling the truth about their experiences. However, none of the women making these statements had made it to the top in terms of running the organization or by any typical male-defined standard of success. Give it time. If this argument were true, then women would have been advancing to the top in much greater numbers than they have, given that they make up the vast majority of practitioners in public relations. In fact, Creedon has shown that

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

43

feminization of the field often has been framed hegemonically as a threat rather than an opportunity (Creedon, 1991). Emerald’s comments about having “too many women at the top” support this argument. These examples form a rather elaborate set of rationalizations that the researcher believes some women make to deal with their feelings about the glass ceiling. These rationalizations may help to resolve the inconsistencies in the daily working lives of some of these women and help them to continue working in these environments without much further questioning of the status quo. This hypothesis is supported by Huberlie’s earlier work, which indicated women resolved their disappointment about not getting ahead by deciding that getting a promotion had lost its appeal (Huberlie, 1996). Denial as viewed from a radical feminist perspective acknowledges that women are refusing to confront the structure—and blame the structure—for their inability to be treated fairly in the workplace. Blame is turned back on the woman herself, on a lack of experience or credentials, or not working hard enough. The structure is not questioned. Women, instead, question themselves. The structure, the status quo, remains unchallenged. Factor 2: Gender Role Socialization and Factor 3: Historical Precedence Some current public relations scholars have suggested that women’s perceived feminine traits are actually useful in making them better suited to practice excellent public relations and communications management. These traits include things such as cooperation, consensus building, and conflict resolution (L. A. Grunig, Toth, & Hon, 1999). Women who fight the fact that men and women are perceived differently are constantly up against a losing battle. We are all products of our own gendered upbringing and we enter a highly gendered world where people see things through a gender lens, as Bem (1993) terms it. Acknowledgment of this gender lens will help us see what is being carried over into the workplace. This rigid gender role socialization strongly reinforces the structure of society and of organizations. In addition, in those organizations, men have been responsible for creating the rules. Men are in power. Men also have a self-interest in maintaining the status quo. Factor 4: Women Turning Against Other Women Women did not get the support they expected from other women and they resented it. What are women doing with that resentment? This is instructive, because it appears that they are not channeling this resentment against the structure of the organization or the larger culture. They channel their resentment at other women.

44

WRIGLEY

If women buy into the corporate bitch stereotype every bit as much as men do, they will believe the glass ceiling is partially caused by other (unhelpful) women. This will detract attention from the deeper, more endemic structural causes of the glass ceiling and will turn the spotlight away from gender role socialization, corporate culture, or societal norms and expectations. Women are blaming other women. On one hand, strategies to get ahead included “being one of the boys,” such as one participant’s suggestion that women learn how to play golf. However, if being manlike and hard and harsh and cold is not desirable in women, why then, would women want to become one of the boys? Maybe this is why this strategy never really works. Women are not men. Factor 5: Corporate Culture Women who select the type of work culture that matches their own goals, objectives, and values take advantage of the knowledge that corporate cultures can be more limiting for women who want to advance. That is not to say that some women cannot advance in corporate environments. It is just a different environment with different rules and structures in place. As Hon, L. A. Grunig, and Dozier (1992) have suggested, the subtleties of the workplace culture may contribute to discrimination against women as much as the more overt rules of the organization. In summary, the five factors (denial, gender role socialization, historical precedence, women not helping other women, and corporate culture) are seen as contributors to the glass ceiling, with the structure being the chief culprit behind these factors when viewed through a radical feminist lens. Radical feminist perspectives question whether things will ever change until women acknowledge that the structure needs to be dismantled; otherwise, women are fooling themselves into believing things will get better for them in the workplace. Another Perspective: A Liberal Feminist Analysis The majority of the women participating in the study seemed to be coming from a liberal feminist perspective. Therefore, the five factors contributing to the glass ceiling for women in public relations and communications management will be analyzed and recast from a liberal feminist perspective as well. Hon (1995) used this multiple perspective analysis, believing that strategies for overcoming glass ceiling issues would come from multiple approaches and perspectives. Factor 1: Denial Translated as Survival Strategies L. A. Grunig, Toth, and Hon (1999) have written about survival strategies employed by people of color in American culture. The concept has some applicability, perhaps, to the dilemma in which women find themselves as they struggle

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

45

to get to the top of today’s organizations. Thus, liberal feminists might characterize the rationalizations women are making about their current working environments to be more a case of negotiating survival strategies by demonstrating courage in the face of adversity (rather than denial). That is to say, what seems to a radical feminist to be futile perseverance could be, instead, determination to reach a final goal, even if the process seems too difficult. In the liberal feminist perspective, the structure can continue to exist, but more adaptive strategies are needed on the part of women wishing to navigate successfully through the workplace culture. This more hopeful interpretation may better describe the experiences of women in this study. This perspective acknowledges that some women do make it to the top. Women who hang in there sometimes do advance or take satisfaction from being part of the environment and working for change. In addition, after all, who is to say these women are not successful—whatever that word means. Success is a very personally held standard. Women in this study clearly wanted to define success for themselves. In this process, they may find alternative strategies that allow them to achieve what satisfies them. The participants in this study illustrated adaptive strategies on many occasions. Ann explained how she just forges ahead when she runs into men who want to stand in her way. She explained that these men would begin to understand her worth once she proved herself and, if they did not, then she would move on to working with others who would ultimately appreciate her worth. This certainly is a more conciliatory strategy, one that seeks to work within the current system. Many of these women have come to terms with their workplace problems by adapting to their work environments. Emerald says she “carried the wound” about not getting the top communicator’s spot for a while, but eventually, she looked at the positives she received from her current work situation and decided she could live with them instead. Although such adaptive strategies come at a price—regret—they also help women come to terms with their disappointments in the workplace. These adaptive strategies also help women to get on with it and not dwell on the negatives of a discriminatory work environment and for that they, and undoubtedly their employers, find this strategy preferable. Therefore, in a very practical sense, such adaptive strategies have merit. Factor 2: Gender Role Socialization and Perceived Gender Differences as Advantages Some participants in this study did seem to support a liberal feminist perspective. Helen remarked about gender differences, attributing them to biological origins, and saying that recognizing differences and celebrating them, rather than making

46

WRIGLEY

them points of contention, was the wiser course. Elizabeth talked about the advantage women have in being more intuitive than men. Sherrie said she did not see what men had over women; she believed that men actually envied the qualities they see in women. Clearly, some women in this study believe that gender differences are real and should be emphasized as positives. This positive emphasis on gender differences may lead to empowerment for some women. It also helps to ease the bitterness and anger that can paint women into a corner that makes them appear defensive and hostile, a deadly approach when they are trying to win favor with management. Some of these women believed that as more men share in family and home responsibilities, and more children are raised by women who have professional lives, that gender role socialization will shift to a more androgynous process where boys and girls are equally introduced to possibilities for their roles in society. This perspective sees transformation of gender roles as possible through a more gradual process of change. Hints of how this is working were mentioned by women who talked about how they are raising their own children. Helen said she was raising her two children to see an example of a working single parent who is a professional. Kim said she wants both of her children—a boy and a girl—to grow up having productive and happy lives, whatever they decide to do in their lives. This awareness of gender role socialization’s impact is no doubt a start toward change. Factor 3: Historical Precedence Seen as Future Transformation Through Attrition Women in this study realize that men have traditionally been in power and made decisions about who will assume positions of power. A liberal feminist perspective suggests that, through attrition, women will replace men in power in increasing numbers. Furthermore, they believed that younger, more enlightened men in the workplace will bring about a change in thinking. Some women are not comfortable becoming overtly angry. Some feel such anger is counterproductive. They could be right. More may be gained by building coalitions, by allowing men to become part of the solution. Women also need their jobs for economic survival. This makes a more conciliatory approach seem like a better practical solution. If Elizabeth is right, men whose daughters suffer from sex discrimination will be key in changing the prospects for women in business. In addition, once women themselves experience discrimination, they will also understand the reality of the glass ceiling. Amyrae did not believe the “bra burners” until she herself hit the glass ceiling. Carol came out of college fresh-faced and, by her own admission, naïve, about the glass ceiling, thinking the recent feminist movement of that era had “fixed” things.

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

47

Factor 4: Resentment: Translated as Competition Which Lacks a Gender Component It just may be the competitive nature of corporate environments that causes an uneasy feeling about certain women in power. In Focus Group 3, the women expressed a belief that women acted more like men once they made it to the top as more of an adaptation strategy than anything else. These women believed that it was just the competitive pressures of a corporate environment that caused certain women to turn into bitches once they made it to the top. If equal opportunities could be present, this phenomenon might fade once women no longer feel they will be hurting themselves by helping another woman make it up the corporate ladder. Therefore, it is not about gender, in this case; rather, it is about the competition everyone in a corporation feels and participates in to get to the top. Over time, women could see other women the same way that they see men—as equal, not worse, competitors for positions in management. Factor 5: Corporate Cultures As Mutable Environments Tied to the last factor is the nature of the corporate culture itself. With the introduction of feminine values, the corporation could be a different place, liberal feminists contend. Again, Focus Group 3 suggested reshaping work cultures to provide more welcoming environments for women to advance. This adaptation of the structure, rather than dismantling, is a key element of liberal feminist theory. It is a way of working within the system. In summary, the five factors (denial translated as survival strategies; gender role socialization and perceived gender differences as advantages; historical precedence, seen as future transformation through attrition; resentment, translated as competition that lacks a gender component; and corporate cultures as mutable environments) are seen as contributors to the glass ceiling, but as nonstructural factors. They are also seen as mutable. Corporate cultures should not be dismantled; they can merely be reshaped to provide a better, more welcoming environment for women. With transformed work cultures, women’s unique gender advantages would help them build cooperation and consensus. Historical precedence will be changed by attrition. Gender role socialization will become less a factor as more women work and more men become more active parents. Denial of the glass ceiling is explained not by denial of the inevitability of the structure’s oppression, but a patience that convinces women to wait for things to improve. CONCLUSIONS Women in this study used a variety of concepts to talk about the glass ceiling: sex discrimination, denial of equal pay, denial of promotion, different treatment in the

48

WRIGLEY

workplace for men and women, and men feeling threatened by women. Clearly, they connected with the concept of a glass ceiling and could readily provide examples of experiences they, or women they knew, had relative to a glass ceiling in the workplace. The researcher accepts the stories of these women and their interpretation of what the glass ceiling might be as valid in reporting what is going on in their workplaces and as a description of a glass ceiling as a concept. The researcher does not wish to limit their descriptions of their experience by definitions of the concept that she might impose. Therefore, the researcher believes the glass ceiling for the women participating in this study is a concept that is personally held by each woman, but understandable to each one and relevant, with varying degrees, to her life experience. Mention of the glass ceiling sometimes conjured up images of feminism. None of the 27 women participating in this study ever explicitly used the word feminist to describe her current political or ideological perspective. Several said their initial discomfort with feminism, caused by observing the behavior of feminists in the 1960s, had changed now that they themselves had bumped into the glass ceiling. Lived experience with discrimination could be one factor that turns latent feminists into more active ones, even if not in name. Women’s continuing reluctance to wear the feminist label could be the fault of feminists themselves, if they have allowed mass media to appropriate their agenda and ideology. The popular press has portrayed feminism today to be in disarray, with many women disavowing their ties to feminism because they believe it is too fractious or not reflective of women’s experience today. What might happen to feminism if the debate were termed healthy instead of divisive? Feminist is often a loaded, negative, and “squishy” term. As L. A. Grunig, Toth, and Hon (1999) suggest in an essay on feminist values in the field of public relations, the inability to define feminist is both a blessing and a challenge. In summary, with a structure in place that traditionally has men in power, has a history of developing organizational rules and regulations to keep them in power, and a socialization process that, early on, reinforces sex typing in jobs and gender roles, the status quo remains firmly in place. The glass ceiling remains intact. Yet, some of the women in this study believed that the glass ceiling is less firmly in place in agencies than it is in corporations.

Theoretical Implications This research provides a glimpse into the psychological processes at work in negotiating feelings about the glass ceiling. If the glass ceiling creates dissonance for women in the workplace and if they wish to continue to work in that environment, then they must deal with, and resolve, this dissonance in some way.

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

49

This study attempts to begin the formation of new theory relative to resolution of cognitive dissonance regarding the glass ceiling. The theoretical concept of negotiated resignation has been proposed as a result of this study. A conceptual definition of negotiated resignation was developed by analyzing how women described glass ceiling contributing factors as well as the strategies they mentioned as useful in overcoming the glass ceiling. These include strategies of getting along and fitting in, attempting to please by working harder and building consensus, or being a peacemaker in resolving conflicts between coworkers. These conciliatory strategies do not address the larger question of whether or not the structure is at fault; they smooth the workplace waters sufficiently to allow individuals to adapt to their workplace environment and continue to function without disruption to the status quo. Working to fuel this approach is the fear of job loss and fear of disapproval or labeling as a troublemaker, a rabble-rouser, a feminist. Indeed, participants resisted the feminist label altogether. This adaptive approach is reinforced by instances of compensatory feminism in the popular press and in everyday discourse. Men and women are led to believe that things are improving for women and minorities, that an adaptive strategy such as patience is not only preferable, but also useful. The challenge for gender researchers in public relations is to keep the glass ceiling on the research agenda. The very forces working to minimize concerns about the glass ceiling help to subsume it to other research interests and workplace concerns. The glass ceiling is still very real; public relations, a female-dominated industry, is an especially appropriate place to study this continuing phenomenon. Gender researchers in public relations must continue to work hard to develop theories that help to explain why the glass ceiling persists. Cognitive dissonance theory, balance theory, denial theory, conflict resolution theory, theories regarding interpersonal relationships, organization theories, and public relations roles theories may help explain glass ceiling causes and remedies. The next generation of public relations scholars has a special obligation to carry on gender research in the tradition of those who have paved the way. Universities, foundations, and funding sources have a special obligation to support such research to help make a profession that has promised women opportunity one that delivers on that promise. Practical Implications Young women make up the majority of students in public relations programs. The time is right for informing them of the opportunities and challenges they will face. Thus, this study has practical implications for students, educators, practitioners, and the organizations in which they work, or will work.

50

WRIGLEY

If those directing public relations efforts are not appreciative of issues of diversity and inclusion, they will not be able to handle either day-to-day or crisis situations in an effective manner. In addition, also ironically, public relations’ exclusion of women from positions of responsibility and influence can result in lawsuits and other publicly aired crises that create public relations problems for those very same organizations. Many would argue that men have been a large part of the problem, so it is only fair to offer them a chance to effect change for everyone’s benefit. Yet, why do strategies that have worked for men not work for women? One reason these strategies may not be working is that they do not address the larger issues of socialization and the resulting institutional barriers in place to prevent women from being promoted. When women improve their salary positions, they sometimes experience backlash in the form of hostility from men; some studies indicate men cry “reverse discrimination” when affirmative action policies benefitting women begin to produce equal opportunity. Researchers such as L. A. Grunig and Toth have continued their efforts to make gender research in public relations an important part of the discussions about the current state of the profession. This study indicates their efforts need to continue. One important practical implication of this study is the news that women in this study find agency environments more welcoming for women than corporate environments. This may surprise young women ready to enter public relations. Public relations educators should urge young women to start a self-assessment process early in their careers, to help them better select a workplace that matches their goals. Educators also must address gender role development and its importance in our culture, as Hon suggested in her 1995 study. Gender roles have a tremendous impact on our personal and professional lives. As Toth and L. A. Grunig (1993) have suggested, the public relations community must urge re-evaluation of society’s expectations of women and their gender roles. Public relations researchers must look for clues in industries where women have done especially well. Herein may lie some answers for improving conditions for women working in public relations and communications management. These same researchers have an obligation to report their findings to mass media to help inform people that the glass ceiling is not a dead issue. More women are working, there are more two-income families than ever before, and a few women have made it to the top. However, researchers must insist that statistics reflecting the true state of affairs for women in management are honestly and completely disclosed. For example, what does a 200% gain mean in raw numbers? The public relations community must, finally, find a way to help women renew their passion for this topic, for eradicating the glass ceiling. Rakow’s (1987; 1989) calls to dismantle the structure must be taken more seriously. This approach will not work for all women; for a variety of reasons, some women may not feel comfortable or able to confront workplace discrimination.

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

51

Working within the system, supporting nondiscrimination legislation, or mentoring younger working women may provide the means for them to effect change in a satisfying and productive way. The synergy of a more passionate approach combined with a within-the-system approach may be what ultimately brings about necessary change. Limitations of the Research The methods used are qualitative. The results may be representative of the opinions of the 27 women participating in the study, but they are not generalizable to the larger population of women working in public relations and communications management. Similarly, use of snowball sampling has inherent limitations. The technique allows for easier recruitment, but also results in finding women who are sometimes known to one another and who may hold similar views about certain issues. Other women not known to the researcher or participants may hold opinions that are different and significant, but missed because of the use of this sampling technique. Although the researcher worked very hard to find participants representative of various ethnic and social groups, only three of the 27 women were non-White. Kern-Foxworth (1989, 1993) has noted the lack of minority representation in public relations and its implications for industry. Suggested Research Questions for Future Glass Ceiling Research Projects In providing direction and suggestions for future scholarship, here are some ideas for research questions that expand on this study and attempt to identify key factors, as well as to test them: 1. What psychological processes do women go through to resign themselves to continue working in environments that have a glass ceiling? 2. Why are women not expressing anger about the glass ceiling in their work environments? 3. Why do women not question the structure of organizations to challenge assumptions that they must do such things as change jobs to get ahead, or balance work and home life without making waves about this subject at work? 4. What other factors emerge as factors contributing to the glass ceiling for women in public relations and communications management? 5. How often do women use the strategies mentioned in this study in their own lives? 6. How effective is each strategy mentioned in this study for women working in public relations and communications management as they attempt to overcome the glass ceiling?

52

WRIGLEY

7. For women who have been successful, what strategies do they have in common? 8. Do women ever perceive themselves to be corporate bitches? How do they characterize their own behavior and the behavior of others who have this label? 9. Are women strategizing about getting around the glass ceiling in other ways? What are some of the other ways women might try to get around the glass ceiling? One such strategy may be oppositional subcultures (Wieder, 1983), created by those in an environment as a way to cope with the culture by creating a subculture with its own language and behaviors. 10. How strongly does the degree of identification with work (i.e., the notion that “my work is my identity”) correlate with other factors, such as measures of salary, advancement, and work culture (a continuum from strongly participatory to strongly authoritarian)? Some Final Thoughts Women, when faced with sex discrimination in the workplace, can get mad, fight back, tolerate it, work to change things, or resign themselves to accepting discrimination. The researcher suggests this negotiated resignation, a coming to terms with one’s work situation, allows some women to continue in their current jobs and accept the discrimination at least enough to fit in and carry on. Some women have adopted some form of negotiated resignation based on their own personal set of values, their own limits. The researcher believes that those limits become negotiated over time, as women discover the realities of workplace sex discrimination. Some opt out and start up their own businesses. Others move from job to job. However, some stay on, believing that hard work and competence will get them noticed and promoted. One clear finding of this study is that hard work and competence are usually not enough to guarantee promotion within the context of the male-dominated power structure present in most corporations. Yet, many women seem to hang onto the notion that they will be promoted if they just work hard enough. As long as women do not get mad about sex discrimination, the hegemonic train rolls on. As long as mass media devote stories on this topic to women who have made it, American society will ignore the fact that most women have not. Women believe there is still hope, ignoring the fact that progress is moving at a snail’s pace. Women are placated. It is more than a little ironic that public relations and communications management have failed to see and act on inequities, when these fields are charged with building understanding and equity within organizations, as well as between organizations and key publics. As Mathews (1989) wrote after publication of the first Velvet Ghetto Study , many people were upset with the results and denied there was a

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

53

glass ceiling. It would appear from the results of this study that some of this denial continues. The next generation of feminist scholars must continue this research agenda and rekindle interest in these issues if real change is to come about. That is our challenge as scholars in gender and public relations. That is the opportunity we have to make the field better for everyone and to fulfill public relations’ promise of being an agent for social responsibility. It also allows us to create a new kind of work culture that is inviting to women—all women.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article was a Top Four paper presented to the Public Relations Division, International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico, June 1–5, 2000. I thank Elizabeth L. Toth and Linda Childers Hon for their valuable assistance with this article. I also thank the S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications for dissertation research funding, which helped with completion of this project. REFERENCES
Banks, S.P. (1995). Multicultural public relations: A social-interpretive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bem, S. L. (1993). The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Biagi, S., & Kern-Foxworth, M. (1997). Facing difference: Race, gender and mass media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Bradsher, K. (1998, December 20). From factory to the top of Saturn. The New York Times, p. BU2. Catalyst. (2001a). 2000 Census of women corporate officers and top earners. Retrieved January 15, 2001on the World Wide Web: http://www.catalystwomen.org/press/releases/release111300.html Catalyst. (2001b). The Glass Ceiling in 2000: Where are women now? Retrieved January 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.catalystwomen.org/press/factsheets/factslabor00.html Catalyst. (2001c). Women making it to the top. Retrieved January 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.catalystwomen.org/press/infobriefs/infobrief1.html Cline, C. G., Toth, E. L., Turk, J. V., Walters, L. M., Johnson, N., & Smith, H. (1986). The velvet ghetto: The impact of the increasing percentage of women in public relations and business communication. San Francisco: IABC Foundation. Creedon, P. J. (1991). Public relations and “women’s work”: Toward a feminist analysis of public relations roles. Public Relations Research Annual, 3, 67–84. Creedon, P. J. (Ed.). (1993a). The challenge of re-visioning gender values. Women in mass communication (Second Edition) (pp. 3–23). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Creedon, P. J. (Ed.). (1993b). Women in mass communication (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Creedon, P. J. (1993c). Acknowledging the infrasystem: A critical feminist analysis of systems theory. Public Relations Review, 19, 157–166. Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

54

WRIGLEY

Dataline (1992). Misleading statistics: “Women rising in management”—sort of. Retrieved July 30, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://cyberwerks.com:70/Oh/dataline/mapping/misstat.html Eichler, M. (1991). Nonsexist research methods: A practical guide. New York: Routledge. Fenton, N. (1995). Women, communication and theory: A glimpse of feminist approaches to media and communication studies. Feminism & Psychology, 5(3), 426–431. Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fine, M. G. (1993). New voices in organizational communication: A feminist commentary and critique. In S.P. Bowen & N. Wyatt (Eds.), Transforming visions: Feminist critiques in communication studies (pp. 125–166). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1998, November 16). Focus group research in public relations, Part I. PR Reporter, 2, 1–6. Grunig, L. A. (1995, July). A feminist phase analysis of research on women in postmodern public relations. Paper presented to the Second International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia. Grunig, L. A., Toth, E. L., & Hon, L. C. (1999, May). Feminist values in public relations. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, Public Relations Division. San Fransisco. Guth, D. W., & Marsh, C. (2000). Public relations: A values-driven approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hammonds, K. H. (1998, November 23). You’ve come a short way, baby: Women are making progress in Corporate America—but it’s slow going indeed. Business Week, 82–83. Hon, L. C. (1995). Toward a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 27–88. Hon, L. C., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (1992). Women in public relations: Problems and opportunities. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.). Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 419–438). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Huberlie, M. H. (1996). Women in public relations: A study of career patterns. Unpublished master’s thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Jones, C. (1991). Obstacles to integrating scholarship on women into public relations education: Strategies for curriculum transformation. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Maryland. Kern-Foxworth, M. (1989). Status and roles of minority PR practitioners. Public Relations Review, 15(3), 39–47. Kern-Foxworth, M. (1993). Minority practitioners’ perceptions of racial bias in public relations and implications for the year 2000. In Diversity in public relations education: Issues, implications and opportunities: A collection of essays (pp. 35–51). Florida International University, North Miami, and University of South Carolina, Columbia: Diversity Committee, Educators Section, Public Relations Society of America. Lay, M. M. (1994). The value of gender studies to professional communication research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8(1), 58–90. Mathews, W. (1989). Killing the messenger. In E. Toth & C. Cline (Eds.). Beyond the velvet ghetto. San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation. Mattel Corporation. (1999). Retrieved January 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mattel.com National Foundation for Women Business Owners. (1999). In Catalystwomen. Retrieved DATE from the World Wide Web: http://www.catalystwomen.org PRWeek salary survey report 2000. (2000, March 27). PRWeek, 24–35. Rakow, L. F. (1987). Looking to the future: Five questions for gender research. Women’s Studies in Communication, 10, 79–86. Rakow, L. F. (1989). Feminist studies: The next stage. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6(2), 209–215.

HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING

55

Russell, C. (1995, November). Glass ceilings can break. American Demographics, 17(11), 8. Toth, E. L. (1988). Making peace with gender issues in public relations. Public Relations Review, 14(3), 36–47. Toth, E. L. (1989). Whose freedom and equity in public relations? The gender balance argument. Mass Comm Review, 16(1&2), 70–76. Toth, E. L., & Cline, C. G. (1989). Beyond the velvet ghetto. San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation. Toth, E. L., & Cline, C. G. (1991). Public relations practitioners attitudes toward gender issues: A benchmark study. Public Relations Review, 17, 161–174. Toth, E. L., & Grunig, L. A. (1993). The missing story of women in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(3), 153–175. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1997). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1997, 117th edition, The National Data Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). A report on the glass ceiling initiative. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998, January). Employment and earnings (p. 175). Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. (1998). Employment outlook, 1996–2006: A summary of BLS projections. (Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 2502). Washington,D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. West, S. G., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). A primer of social psychological theories. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Wieder, D. L. (1983). Telling the convict code. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.). Contemporary field research: A collection of readings (pp. 78–90). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Witmer, D. F. (2000). Spinning the Web: A handbook for public relations on the Internet. New York: Longman. Women and the workplace: The glass ceiling: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 101st Cong., Sess. 1 (1991). Wright, D. K., Grunig, L. A., Springston, J. K., & Toth, E. L. (1991). Under the glass ceiling: An analysis of gender issues in American public relations. New York: PRSA Foundation.

References: Banks, S.P. (1995). Multicultural public relations: A social-interpretive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bem, S. L. (1993). The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Biagi, S., & Kern-Foxworth, M. (1997). Facing difference: Race, gender and mass media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Bradsher, K. (1998, December 20). From factory to the top of Saturn. The New York Times, p. BU2. Catalyst. (2001a). 2000 Census of women corporate officers and top earners. Retrieved January 15, 2001on the World Wide Web: http://www.catalystwomen.org/press/releases/release111300.html Catalyst. (2001b). The Glass Ceiling in 2000: Where are women now? Retrieved January 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.catalystwomen.org/press/factsheets/factslabor00.html Catalyst. (2001c). Women making it to the top. Retrieved January 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.catalystwomen.org/press/infobriefs/infobrief1.html Cline, C. G., Toth, E. L., Turk, J. V., Walters, L. M., Johnson, N., & Smith, H. (1986). The velvet ghetto: The impact of the increasing percentage of women in public relations and business communication. San Francisco: IABC Foundation. Creedon, P. J. (1991). Public relations and “women’s work”: Toward a feminist analysis of public relations roles. Public Relations Research Annual, 3, 67–84. Creedon, P. J. (Ed.). (1993a). The challenge of re-visioning gender values. Women in mass communication (Second Edition) (pp. 3–23). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Creedon, P. J. (Ed.). (1993b). Women in mass communication (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Creedon, P. J. (1993c). Acknowledging the infrasystem: A critical feminist analysis of systems theory. Public Relations Review, 19, 157–166. Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 54 WRIGLEY Dataline (1992). Misleading statistics: “Women rising in management”—sort of. Retrieved July 30, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://cyberwerks.com:70/Oh/dataline/mapping/misstat.html Eichler, M. (1991). Nonsexist research methods: A practical guide. New York: Routledge. Fenton, N. (1995). Women, communication and theory: A glimpse of feminist approaches to media and communication studies. Feminism & Psychology, 5(3), 426–431. Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fine, M. G. (1993). New voices in organizational communication: A feminist commentary and critique. In S.P. Bowen & N. Wyatt (Eds.), Transforming visions: Feminist critiques in communication studies (pp. 125–166). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1998, November 16). Focus group research in public relations, Part I. PR Reporter, 2, 1–6. Grunig, L. A. (1995, July). A feminist phase analysis of research on women in postmodern public relations. Paper presented to the Second International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia. Grunig, L. A., Toth, E. L., & Hon, L. C. (1999, May). Feminist values in public relations. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, Public Relations Division. San Fransisco. Guth, D. W., & Marsh, C. (2000). Public relations: A values-driven approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hammonds, K. H. (1998, November 23). You’ve come a short way, baby: Women are making progress in Corporate America—but it’s slow going indeed. Business Week, 82–83. Hon, L. C. (1995). Toward a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 27–88. Hon, L. C., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (1992). Women in public relations: Problems and opportunities. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.). Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 419–438). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Huberlie, M. H. (1996). Women in public relations: A study of career patterns. Unpublished master’s thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Jones, C. (1991). Obstacles to integrating scholarship on women into public relations education: Strategies for curriculum transformation. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Maryland. Kern-Foxworth, M. (1989). Status and roles of minority PR practitioners. Public Relations Review, 15(3), 39–47. Kern-Foxworth, M. (1993). Minority practitioners’ perceptions of racial bias in public relations and implications for the year 2000. In Diversity in public relations education: Issues, implications and opportunities: A collection of essays (pp. 35–51). Florida International University, North Miami, and University of South Carolina, Columbia: Diversity Committee, Educators Section, Public Relations Society of America. Lay, M. M. (1994). The value of gender studies to professional communication research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8(1), 58–90. Mathews, W. (1989). Killing the messenger. In E. Toth & C. Cline (Eds.). Beyond the velvet ghetto. San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation. Mattel Corporation. (1999). Retrieved January 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mattel.com National Foundation for Women Business Owners. (1999). In Catalystwomen. Retrieved DATE from the World Wide Web: http://www.catalystwomen.org PRWeek salary survey report 2000. (2000, March 27). PRWeek, 24–35. Rakow, L. F. (1987). Looking to the future: Five questions for gender research. Women’s Studies in Communication, 10, 79–86. Rakow, L. F. (1989). Feminist studies: The next stage. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6(2), 209–215. HOW WOMEN VIEW THE GLASS CEILING 55 Russell, C. (1995, November). Glass ceilings can break. American Demographics, 17(11), 8. Toth, E. L. (1988). Making peace with gender issues in public relations. Public Relations Review, 14(3), 36–47. Toth, E. L. (1989). Whose freedom and equity in public relations? The gender balance argument. Mass Comm Review, 16(1&2), 70–76. Toth, E. L., & Cline, C. G. (1989). Beyond the velvet ghetto. San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation. Toth, E. L., & Cline, C. G. (1991). Public relations practitioners attitudes toward gender issues: A benchmark study. Public Relations Review, 17, 161–174. Toth, E. L., & Grunig, L. A. (1993). The missing story of women in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(3), 153–175. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1997). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1997, 117th edition, The National Data Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). A report on the glass ceiling initiative. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998, January). Employment and earnings (p. 175). Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. (1998). Employment outlook, 1996–2006: A summary of BLS projections. (Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 2502). Washington,D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. West, S. G., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). A primer of social psychological theories. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Wieder, D. L. (1983). Telling the convict code. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.). Contemporary field research: A collection of readings (pp. 78–90). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Witmer, D. F. (2000). Spinning the Web: A handbook for public relations on the Internet. New York: Longman. Women and the workplace: The glass ceiling: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 101st Cong., Sess. 1 (1991). Wright, D. K., Grunig, L. A., Springston, J. K., & Toth, E. L. (1991). Under the glass ceiling: An analysis of gender issues in American public relations. New York: PRSA Foundation.