Women executives in the gaming industry: can they break through the glass ceiling?
This study investigates to what extent the glass ceiling exists for
women in the Nevada gaming industry. The results of this study show that
women in the gaming industry have less of an opportunity to demonstrate
relevant abilities, such as leadership and conceptual skills, by means
of their involvement in strategy implementation. Based on the results of
this study, the researcher concludes that if women want to break the
glass ceiling, they must begin by understanding the male-dominated
system--at least in the short run. Most importantly, women must seek out
opportunities to demonstrate the skills that are most important to
promotion into senior-level leadership positions.
Keywords: Glass ceiling, leadership, senior-level leadership, strategy implementation, gaming industry, and hospitality industry.
(Human resource management)
Glass ceiling (Evaluation)
Working women (Management)
|Author:||Schaap, James Ike|
|Publication:||Name: Journal of Social and Psychological Sciences Publisher: Oxford Mosaic Publications Limited Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Sociology and social work Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2008 Oxford Mosaic Publications Limited ISSN: 1756-7483|
|Issue:||Date: July, 2008 Source Volume: 1 Source Issue: 2|
|Topic:||Event Code: 280 Personnel administration; 200 Management dynamics Computer Subject: Company personnel management; Company business management|
|Product:||SIC Code: 7993 Coin-operated amusement devices; 7999 Amusement and recreation, not elsewhere classified|
|Geographic:||Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States|
Despite comprising almost 50% of the total U.S. labor force, and
51.3% of employees in the U.S. casino industry (Price, Waterhouse, &
Coopers, 2003), women are still underrepresented in high levels of
business management. (According to Price, Waterhouse, & Coopers,
2003, this 51.3% figure includes Indian/Alaskan Native American
employees.) It appears that the glass ceiling said to hinder
women's advancement to senior-level management positions is still
intact in the gaming industry.
"Political scientists and Nevada observers say women in Nevada may face a thicker glass ceiling because of the state's small, male-dominated political environment and a history of frontier sexism, wrote Coolican (2006)." Former Nevada Lieutenant Governor Lorraine Hunt, in the same article, noted that: "men make up the majority of senior executives in the state's dominant gaming industry" (Coolican, 2006). Clearly, the glass ceiling that hinders women's advancement to senior-level casino management is still intact.
Because little research on the glass-ceiling effect has focused specifically on the gaming industry, this researcher will explore to what extent women have the opportunity to demonstrate the skills and abilities considered necessary for promotion into senior-level leadership positions in the Nevada casinos. The findings could have significant implications for a segment of the entire United States' hospitality industry, which includes gaming industry.
Definition of Terms
The key management terms for the purposes of this paper are:
Gender and Career Success Research
The "glass ceiling" is a term coined in the 1970s in the United States to describe invisible and artificial barriers, created by attitudinal prejudices that block women from attaining senior-level leadership positions (Wirth, 2001). Are there still biased perceptions toward women today? Applebaum (2006) reported that women still face resistance in conservative business cultures, and the number of boardroom tables at which they hold seats varies widely by industry.
In 1995, the Glass Ceiling Commission, a panel sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor found that the glass ceiling was continuing to deny untold numbers of qualified people the opportunity to compete for and hold executive-level positions in the private sector (U. S. Department of Labor, 1995). Further, Weber (1998) found that women executives in the gaming industry, a segment of the hospitality industry, mentioned the old boys' network as one of the key constraints to their career progression.
According to research performed by Catalyst, an organization devoted to advancing women in the workplace, a mere 57 of 13,000 corporate officers were women, only 96 women ran business units, and only 1.9% of the highest-earning corporate officers were women (Knutson & Schmidgall, 1999). In a subsequent study of Fortune 500 companies, Catalyst found that there still was a shortage of women in the top ranks and that there had been few changes in senior-level women's attitudes and experiences within the past seven years (Catalyst, 2003).
As recently as 2004, even though some women were close enough to the top positions in firms to be considered in the recruitment pool for senior-level leadership positions, they rarely achieved such positions (Maume, Jr., 2004). In addition, according to Begley (2005) women comprised only 11% of corporate officers in the Fortune 500 companies in America.
Over the years, women have been only a small minority in the high levels of business management. Nevertheless, fast-forward now--women's lives have changed noticeably over the last fifty years. Women have found themselves in business positions, educational institutions, and public offices they never would have dreamed of filling in the 1950s. Still, after several decades of economic, political, and social changes, women are by no means equal partners with men in the highest levels of business and the professions.
Many women who have tried to climb the corporate ladder have hit the glass ceiling and been shunted off the career track (Albelda & Tilly, 1997). In most of the relevant literature, the glass ceiling tends to be conceived of as the barrier formed of qualitative factors preventing women from reaching top hierarchical positions in the labor market (Hultin, 2003).
Throughout the past ten years, several studies, in all industries, have explored the relationship of gender and career success with the purpose of shedding light on the glass ceiling. Gullason (1999) acknowledged that many women desire contingent and alternative employment arrangements because such jobs help them balance work with other, non-labor-market obligations (Polivka, 1996). Tharenou's (1999) study of the impact of family structure on managerial career advancement found men, however, are promoted because they are perceived to have to fulfill the "traditional father role." A few studies found that gender-based factors related directly to motivation, power, leadership, networking, and interpersonal skills, are relevant to the women's lack of advancement when controlled samples were used (Cutler & Jackson, 2002). Lemons (2003) indicated that because there is a lack of female role models in senior-level leadership positions, the paucity of women executives has been identified as a contributing factor to the glass ceiling or a result of it. Maser and Abrams (2004) found that sexism is associated with negative evaluation of an individual female target competing for a masculine-stereotyped organization role; to the extent that a woman poses a threat, hostile sexism will serve to reinforce the glass ceiling to keep her in her (so-called) rightful place. Snowden Publications (2005), in their industry report, acknowledged that women are at a disadvantage and that they need to network more with each other for the sake of mentoring and moral support. The American Society for Training & Development (2006) wrote, in their executive update, that the glass ceiling is believed to be more of a societal obstacle than an individual barrier.
Female executives say they are very confident of their own business capabilities and are more likely to believe that the greatest barriers to their success come not from their own capabilities or even from their own companies' cultures, but from society at large. Hakim (2006) stated that many feminist scholars insist that there are no natural differences between men and women, and that sex discrimination (direct and structural) is the primary reason for differences between men and women in labor market outcomes (i.e., women reaching senior-level leadership status). Finally, Reis and Verlag (2006) pointed out that the more senior a female manager becomes; the more likely she is to think that there are barriers such as the organizational structuring of careers and promotions, and male values dominating workplace cultures that prevent women's progression.
Stereotypes strictly based on gender have historically placed women in a nurturing, submissive role while men are seen as the dominant, aggressive gender. Women are often considered people-oriented while men are task-oriented. Book (2000) suggested stereotypes persist in that female managers who employ a so-called "feminine style" of management will have trouble succeeding in the workplace. These mostly stereotypical attitudes toward women fan the flames of gender discrimination and its result in business and professions-the glass-ceiling effect.
Glass Ceiling Research
There continues to be evidence that the glass ceiling, in all industries, remains intact in many areas. The following are just a few examples. A report from the U.S. Department of Labor asserted (1995) that the notion of a glass ceiling is a barrier due, to some extent, to institutionalized organizational characteristics and practices (Goodman et al., 2003).
Inside the hospitality industry, the American Hotel & Motel Association has had only one-woman chairperson over its 83-year history. Moreover, in spite of the increasing similarities in the background and experience of men and women in (hospitality) management, women remain poorly represented at senior-level leadership (Brownwell, 1994). In addition, although women's participation in the U.S. labor force has increased, and women occupy 44% of management jobs in American companies (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998), top management ranks remain dominated by men (Goodman, Fields, & Blum, 2003). More recently, a Congressional Report that studied ten industries employing 71 percent of U.S. women workers and 73 percent of U.S. managers showed that women managers were in fact worse off, relative to men (GAO, 2002; Chernesky, 2003).
Women are more than twice as likely as men to work part-time, that is, fewer than 35 hours per week (Monthly Labor Review, 2003). For example, in 2004, approximately 26% of employed women usually worked part-time, compared with about 11% of employed men (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). Some employers avoid hiring women due to their concerns that almost all women will take maternity leave or a leave of absence to raise children at some point, thus confronting the employer with the perennial need to fill both temporary and permanent job vacancies. The fact that women and men who work part-time are not able to build as much a history of their job achievements as can full-time employees, works to their detriment when under consideration for promotion.
The status of women in employment is also reflected in their earning capacities. In 2005, women made up only 31.0% of workers in the highest earnings category (the top fourth of workers by earnings). Moreover, women made up a slight majority of the lowest earning category (the bottom fourth or first quartile), 53.2%, compared with 46.8% for men (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006).
According to Kephart and Schumacher (2005), although women have made some strides, they have a long way to go to reach equality in senior-level management. The paucity (0.0%) of women found in executive positions in this study definitely supports this claim. None of the four following companies surveyed in Catalyst's census, Amgen, Dell, FedEx, and Whirlpool, included any women among their most highly paid corporate officers. Catalyst also found that the percentage of women in corporate officer positions fell from 15.6% to 14.6% and in director positions from 16.4% to 14.7% (Brady, 2007). Moreover, a recent report from the Centre for Excellence in Leadership stated that women leaders still confront a glass ceiling when it comes to progressing to senior positions (Adults Learning, 2007). This is in concert with research that suggests that women still have a tougher time attaining the highest ranks within their professions (Dailey, 2002).
The literature emphasizes that many women lack the support as well as the confidence necessary to advance to senior-level leadership positions (i.e., in all industries). In addition, the literature points out those women who hold lower-level management positions will not necessarily hold senior-level leadership positions. What is more, when women almost completely dominate an occupation, women's promotion opportunities may still be impaired (Maume, Jr., 1999).
In summary, women advance at a substantially lower rate than men, again, in all industries, and hold a very small proportion of senior-level leadership positions. The reasons for this may be related to "legitimate" factors used in promotion decisions, such as education, experience, length of service, and lack of performance-related job histories in lower-management positions. The rationale for their slower progression may be also related to the glass ceiling, factors related to gender rooted in the social and organizational environment, and/or gender-based characteristics related to relevant skills.
This study proposes that women encounter a glass-ceiling effect, specifically in the gaming industry, by not being able to demonstrate the skills and abilities necessary for advancement to senior-level leadership positions. Given the results of previous studies on this topic, this researcher concludes, as simplistic as it may sound, that women in management positions are less likely than men to be involved in activities that allow them to prove that they "have what it takes" to move to the top of the organizational hierarchy.
This study will identify two possible factors that may be directly related to the lack of advancement of women to senior-level positions in the gaming. The researcher proposes in Hypothesis 1 that there is a noteworthy relationship between gender and senior-level leadership positions.
One clear-cut manifestation of the labor market is that typically male occupations generally offer greater advancement opportunities than do predominately-female occupations (Felmlee, 1982; Glass, 1990, Paulin & Mellor, 1996; Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993). In addition, larger firms tend to employ more men than women. This points to the importance of accounting for establishment size in studies of gender differences in upward career processes--to senior-level leadership positions--within organizations. That lack of advancement opportunity may directly contribute to why women are not being promoted to senior-level leadership positions (Hultin, 2003). Therefore, the researcher proposes in Hypothesis 2 that women are less likely than men to be involved in strategy implementation.
Based on the feedback received from the respondents who first answered the pilot-study questionnaire, the researcher learned that 34 closed-ended questions would be easier for the participants to answer than a combination of both closed- and open-ended questions. In addition, the researcher sensed that the participants would need less time to answer a closed-ended questionnaire than that of a mixture of closed- and open-ended queries. By submitting only a closed-ended questionnaire, the researcher believed that there was a greater likelihood that the participants would be more receptive to answering most if not all the questions in the survey.
The sample for this research study included 120 senior-level leaders (i.e., 93 men and 27 women), who work on a full-time basis in various casinos within the state of Nevada. To determine possible reasons of gender differences in advancement rates (i.e., middle management to senior-level leadership positions), a self-reporting type of questionnaire was mailed to 890 individuals. All of the queries, which were closed-ended, were restricted to multiple-choice answers to facilitate data-collection. In order to promote honest and open responses, surveys were mailed from and returned directly to the researcher, instead of passing through a casino's mailroom. This study received 120 responses for an overall response rate of 13.5%.
The following procedures were followed in this study: An informed-consent form, the questionnaire, and a self-addressed stamped envelope for the return of this material were mailed to the usable data base population. The data base, which originally consisted of 3,722 names (i.e., the total population), from senior-level leaders to frontline supervisors who work in Nevada casinos, was provided by the Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.
During the data-collection period, a master codebook using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and a codebook were created. The master codebook, using MicroCase's[R] statistical software, showed selected summary information on each variable that was input into this software program.
Men comprised 77.5% of the respondents while women comprised 22.5%. The data illustrates a relatively mature senior-level leader workforce, with 76.7% of the leaders being 41 years of age or older. As for education, 58.3% had attained an associate's degree, or greater, while 41.7% had not. Of the respondents who earned a college degree, 77.1% were men, while 22.9% were women. Some 40.8% of the respondents had been in their senior-level leadership position for four years or less, while 59.2% of the respondents had been in their current position for five years or longer.
Of the respondents who had earned a college degree, 50.8% had not been trained in or studied strategic planning and implementation; 73.7% were men, and 26.3% were women. Because a high percentage of women had not been trained in or studied strategic planning and implementation, this researcher believes that the women's lack of experience in this role may be one aspect of business preventing them from achieving senior-level leadership positions. Of these senior-level leaders, 23.3% were general managers, 16.7% were owners/CEOs/presidents, 16.7% were directors, and the remaining 43.3% were from all other title categories. The demographic profile data of the 120 participants can be seen in Table 1.
The measures used were specifically developed for this study by the researcher. Table 2 presents the variables and their measures. For example, "Involvement in Strategy Implementation" was measured based on a four-point Likert scale where respondents indicated to what extent they were involved in strategy implementation (i.e., 1 = Always, 4 = Never).
In order to evaluate whether there was a relationship between gender, title, and involvement in strategy implementation, only bivariate correlations and t tests were used to analyze these two hypotheses. The means of men versus women on the relevant variables were not compared.
The levels of significance used in the various tests performed were 0.01 and 0.05. When the probability of finding a relationship in data if the two variables were not related in the population was less than 0.05 the researcher rejected the null hypothesis that the two variables were unrelated (Fox, 2003) and further determined that the data were not statistically significant.
Table 3 presents the results of the correlation analysis and the t tests. Among the independent variables used, all correlations at either the 0.01 or 0.05 levels of significance were below 0.40, or the moderate positive relationship level.
In testing the first hypothesis the correlation analyzed the relationship between gender and current titles, (r = 0.338, t = 4.054), statistically significant at the .01 level, illustrates that men significantly outnumber women in holding a senior-level leadership position. This positive correlation is, according to Fox (2003), at the moderate level. For example, 0.0% of the women the chairman/chairwoman position. The owner/CEO title is held by 18.3% of the men but only 11.1% of the women. As for general manager, 28.0% of men while only 7.4% of the women hold this position. In fact, 87 (93.5%) of the male respondents hold positions above senior-level manager, whereas only 21 (77%) of the female respondents hold such positions. Of the 106 positions above senior-level manager, men hold 80.5% and women 19.5%.
In testing the second hypothesis, which analyzed the relationship between gender and the extent that the subjects were involved with strategy implementation, the correlation (i.e., r = 0.258, t = 2.901) shows that 95.7% of the men (i.e., always and often) participated in strategy implementation process while 85.1% of the women (i.e., always and often) were involved with the same procedure. This positive correlation is, consistent with Fox's (2003) analysis, at the weak level.
Over the last 30 years, the proportion of positions in low- to mid-level management held by women has increased substantially (Dreher, 2003). In addition, once again, does the glass ceiling in the senior-level leadership position still exist for women today? Most researchers, like me, are saying yes.
So what do the findings of this study mean? First, this researcher found that there is a strong link between gender and title in that women in the Nevada gaming industry generally do not hold senior-level leadership positions--indeed, there may be a glass ceiling in the gaming industry. Second, the focus of this exploratory study was on determining whether the advancement to senior-level leadership positions by women in the Nevada gaming industry is hindered by the lack of opportunity to demonstrate the necessary knowledge and skills related to direct involvement in strategy implementation. Third, this study points out, as other research has clearly indicated, that if women want to break the glass ceiling, they must become familiar with the male-dominated system, at least in the short run. While this researcher believes that the current (male-dominated) system is designed, at least in part, to fail, women still need to adjust to the current system. More importantly, they must be prepared to compete, and do what it takes to make that happen. In addition, they must understand and accept that gender role differences will be difficult to overcome.
Tangential to this researcher's notion, social closure theorists argue that women are not excluded from all positions, only those that are essential to the business. Moreover, as women enter male-dominated arenas such as the gaming segment of the hospitality industry, they are often given opportunities in typical women's jobs, or related fields with less status, prestige, and lower salaries (Costen, Hardigree, & Testagrossa, 2003). Those positions, according to Costen et al., are in human resources, marketing, special events, conventions, or cage occupations. More importantly, these positions are typically considered "women's occupations": hence, they are where one would expect to find a large representation of women (Costen et al., 2003).
The findings presented in this study suggest that there is a glass ceiling in the Nevada casino industry. Moreover, while women continue to make tremendous strides in academia and politics--for example, Harvard announced the appointment of its first female president (i.e., Drew Gilpin Faust); the month before, Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives; and as a still more important development for women, Senator Hillary Clinton is the Democratic front-runner for the presidency.
While women are making great strides into management, the glass ceiling has been raised from the entry and staff levels but remains intact at the highest levels in organizations (Heard, 2001). These findings may also suggest the existence of a glass ceiling in the gaming segment of the hospitality industry (Costen et al., 2003). One of the explanations for the continued existence of the glass ceiling is that women have traditionally had fewer opportunities for key assignments; and women tend to be in positions that have less visibility, risk, and breadth of responsibility than men (McDonald & Hite, 1998) do. In addition, many employers continue to stereotype women as unstable workers and believe that promoting them to management is riskier than promoting men (England, 1992; Kanter, 1977; Reskin & Padavic, 2001). Moreover, barriers to women's advancement in corporations are difficult to eradicate, preventing companies from retaining valuable female talent at great cost to their current operations and the talent pool for future leadership of their organizations (Mattis, 2004). Therefore, for women to obtain senior-level leadership positions in the marketplace, even if they are making strides toward these posts, they still have to maintain a continuous presence in the labor force, work long hours, and establish a long record of service to their employers (Maume, Jr., 2004).
Unfortunately, and as the results of this study show, women, at least in the hospitality industry, have less of an opportunity to demonstrate relevant skills such as leadership and conceptual skills through being involved in strategy implementation. To support this notion, while very little research has been performed in the gaming industry, a recent Accenture study of 1,200 male and female executives found that women were about as personally satisfied with their own career opportunities and positions as men were with theirs (American Society for Training & Development, 2006). Furthermore, an article in the Economist (2006) stated that if the glass ceiling is in place, it is because women all too often accept the negative image of working mothers by shying away from top jobs. Finally, according to a study published in 2006 by Cornell University economists Blau and DeVaro, in research that covered 3,500 employers in four U.S. cities, women still face a significant gap with men in promotion opportunities (Trumbull, 2007).
In closing, this researcher feels that his work has contributed to the wider academic knowledge in this area. In fact, this researcher believes, while there have been significant gains in the past 10 years, female executives in gaming still face an uphill battle in workplace equality.
There are limitations in this study due to external validity, prediction versus causality of variables' relationships, and variables not investigated within the questionnaire. Another constraint of this study is that the answers provided by the participants are only the self-reported perceptions of the senior-level leaders. This, therefore, was a self-study or analysis. In addition, the data provided in this study does not measure certain behaviors against the outcomes themselves. Knowledge of these limitations will allow understanding of the research in the proper context.
The validity of the study is limited because it was only conducted in the casino industry within the state of Nevada. In addition, an average of only 1.3 senior-level leaders per casino (i.e., 120 respondents/93 casinos) responded from each solicited organization. While the sample size was not limiting within the pre-determined population size, the value of predicting results in this industry is limited since data is not available from other states that allow gaming in order that the researcher could analyze the effects among the target group (i.e., senior-level leaders). Nonetheless, it may be possible to replicate this study within the casino industry throughout the United States because there are now casino operations in the majority of states across the country. The sample group, based on gender, age, education, trained in/studied strategic planning and implementation, employed in current position, number of employees, current yearly revenue, and current title may be limited when considering predictability among a larger target group of people.
Recommendations for Further Studies and Research
Based on the conclusions presented in this study, the following suggestions for future research are offered. First, to the best of the researcher's knowledge, there has been only one other glass-ceiling study performed specifically in the gaming industry (i.e., "Glass ceiling or Saran Wrap[TM]? Women in gaming management," UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 2003). The researcher believes, as limiting as the results of this study are, that he has drawn new boundaries of theoretical as well as practical knowledge, even though there have been many previous studies performed on the conceptual topic of the glass ceiling in the business world in general. Second, the primary focus of this exploratory research was investigative because so little applied research has been carried out in the gaming industry.
According to Goeglein (2003), the gaming industry's sluggish response to the workforce's changing demographics could potentially affect the industry's ability to attract top talent. That was certainly confirmed in this study. As shown in Table 1, very few females in the Nevada gaming industry, as compared percentage wise to their male counterparts, hold senior-level leadership positions. On the other hand, women in the lodging industry, also part of the hospitality industry, indicated that theirs is an industry where gender has less of an impact on an individual's success (Mann & Seacord, 2003).
This study further concludes that if gaming establishments want to hire the best senior-level leaders, they will need to acknowledge that not all of the best candidates will be male, and explore why there are fewer women senior-level leaders in their organizations. Otherwise, they may be ineffectively using their available human capital (Costen et al., 2003).
In closing, further quantitative research, by expanding the sample size (i.e., United States gaming industry), might possibly confirm the work that has been performed by these researchers. Larger samples, however, should be carefully examined. In addition, response rates reaching 20% and the use of a quantitative methods approach would also be more beneficial. In addition, the research population should be kept narrow (i.e., limited to only senior-level leaders). Once the U.S. casino industry sample size has been expanded, future studies might broaden the sample with additional industries and a more balanced design to enhance the overall focus of this researcher's study. In the meantime, this study moves research, even tangentially, another step closer to better understanding the extent of the glass ceiling.
Albelda, R. & Tilly, C. (1997). Glass ceiling and bottomless pits: Women's work, women's poverty. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Adults Learning. (2007, May). Women in FE still face glass ceiling, 18(9), 6.
American Gaming Association. (2006). 2006 AGA survey of casino entertainment. American Gaming Association. Washington, DC.
American Society for Training & Development. (2006, June). Glass ceiling not cracked for executives. American Society for Training & Development. Alexandria, VI.
Applebaum, M. (2006, September 11). Beyond the glass ceiling. Brandweek, 47(33), 1-11.
Begley, M. M. (2005, April 18). Corporate America's glass ceiling--Discrimination with regard to pay and promotions affects an entire family. Business West, 18-20.
Book, E. (2000). Why the best man for the job is a woman: The unique females qualities of leadership. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Brady, D. (2007, April 15). A little shame goes a long way: Why Catalyst should go back to naming companies without women at the top. Business Week, 34-35.
Brownwell, J. (1994). Women in hospitality management: General managers' perceptions of factors related to career development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 13(2), 101-117.
Catalyst. (1996). Women in corporate leadership: Progress and prospects. New York, NY.
Coolican, P. J. (2006, July 22). Nevada's "last glass ceiling." Las Vegas Sun.
Costen, W., Hardigree, C., & Testagrossa, M. (2003). Glass ceiling or Saran Wrap ([TM])? Women in gaming management. Gaming Research & Review Journal, 7(2), 1-9.
Cutler, M. M., & Jackson, A. L. (2002, Fall). A "glass ceiling" or work/family conflicts? The Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 8(2), 73-85.
Dailey, P. B. (2002). Hitting the ceiling. Restaurants and Institutions, 112(10), 12.
Dreher, G. F. (2003, May). Breaking the glass ceiling: The effects of sex ratios and work-life? Programs on female leadership at the top. Human Relation, 56(5), 541-551.
Economist. (2005, July 23). The conundrum of the glass ceiling. Economist, 376(8436), 44-49.
Economist (2006, December 9). Still a man's world. Economist, 381(8507), 1-2.
England, R. (1992). Comparable worth: Theories and evidence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Felmlee, D. H. (1982). Women's job mobility processes within and between employers. American Sociological Review, 47, 142-151.
Fox, W. (2003). Social statistics: A text using MicroCase[R] (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Glass, J. (1990). The impact of occupation segregation on working conditions. Social Forces, 68, 779-796.
Goeglein, R. J. (2003). Electronic mail response to "Women in gaming management" inquiry. Retrieved on May 8, 2003 from the World Wide Web.
Goodman, J., Fields, D. & Blum, T. (2003). Cracks in the glass ceiling: In what kinds of organizations do women make it to the top? Group & Organization Management, 28(4), 475-502.
Gullason, E. T. (1999, Spring/Summer). The labor market status for women. CATO Journal, 19(1), 101-119.
Hakim, C. (2006, August). Women, careers, and work-life preferences. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 34(3), 279-294.
Heard, M. (2001). Is the glass ceiling breaking for women? The Practical Accountant, 34(7), 56.
Hultin, M. (2003, February). Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling? Work and Occupations, 30(1), 30-61.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kephart, P., & Schumacher, L. (2005). Has the glass ceiling cracked? An exploration of women entrepreneurship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(1), 2-16.
Knutson, B., & Schmidgall, R. (1999, December). Dimensions of the glass ceiling in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(6), 64-75.
Lampe, A. (2001). Review of the book gender in the workplace: A case study approach. Gender, Work, and Organization, 8(3) 346-351.
Lemons, M. A. (2003, September). Contextual and cognitive determinants of procedural justice perceptions in promotion barriers for women. Sex Roles, 49(5/6), 247-264.
Mann, I. S., & Seacord, S. (2003). What glass ceiling? Lodging Hospitality, 59(4), 38-40.
Maser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004, November). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51(9/10), 609-615.
Mattis, M. S. (2004). Women entrepreneurs: Out from under the glass ceiling. Women in Management Review, 19(3), 154-165.
Maume, Jr., D. (1999, November). Glass ceiling and glass escalators. Work & Occupations, 26(4), 483-510.
Maume, Jr. D. (2004, May). Is the glass ceiling a unique form of inequality? Work & Occupations, 31(2), 250-274.
McDonald, K. S., & Hite, I. M. (1998). Exploring the glass ceiling: An exploration of gender differences in management-development experiences. Journal of Management Education, 22(2), 242-254.
Monthly Labor Review. (2003, October). Women at work. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington, DC:
Nardi, P. (2003). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Patrington, C. Y., & Kleiner, B. H. (1999). Sex discrimination in hiring: The glass ceiling. Equal Opportunities International, 18(2-4), 51-56.
Paulin, E. A, & Mellor, J. M. (1996). Gender, race, and promotions in a private-sector firm. Industrial Relations, 35, 276-293.
Price, Waterhouse, & Coopers. (2003, November). 2003 Gaming industry diversity snapshot. Las Vegas, NV.
Reis, C., & Verlag, R. H. (2006, September). Book reviews. Gender, Work and Organization, 13(5), 495-497.
Reskin, B. F., & Padavic, I. (2001). Men and women at work (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Snowden Publications. (2005, December 12). Why the glass ceiling stays hard to break. Snowden Publications, 21-22, www.rjbiz.com.
Tharenou, P. (1999). Is there a link between family structures, women's, and men's managerial career advancement? Journal of Organization Behavior, 20, 837-863.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). Gender and racial inequality at work: The sources and consequences of job segregation. Ithaca, NY: ILR.
Thompson, A., Jr., Gamble, J., & Strickland, A., III. (2006). Strategy: Winning in the marketplace--core concepts, analytical tools, cases (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Trumbull, M. (2007, February 8). For women, glass ceiling still an issue. Christian Science Monitor, 99(51), 18-20.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1998). Employment and earnings. U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). A report on the glass ceiling initiative. Washington, DC. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation's human capital. Washington, DC. U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1995, November). Glass ceiling commission--A solid investment: Making full use of the nation's human capital. U. S. Department of Labor. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2005, May). Women in the labor force: A data book. U. S. Department of Labor. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
U.S. Department of Labor. (2006, March). Women still underrepresented among highest earners. U. S. Department of Labor. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Weber, K. (1998). The career development of women executives in the Las Vegas casino industry. Unpublished paper, supported by the International Gaming Institute and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Weiss, A. (1999). The glass ceiling: A look at women in the workforce. Brookfield, CT.
Wirth, L. (2001). Breaking through the glass ceiling. Geneva, Switzerland. International Labor Office.
James Ike Schaap
University of Nevada, Nevada
E-mail address: email@example.com
Table 1: Demographic Profile Gender Frequency % of the Male Female Total Male 93 77.5 Female 27 22.5 Age 21 - 30 4 3.3 4 0 31 - 40 24 20.0 20 4 41 - 50 41 34.2 29 12 51 - 60 41 34.2 30 11 61> 10 8.3 10 0 Education 12th Grade or Lower 1 0.8 1 0 High School 10 8.3 7 3 Some College 39 32.5 31 8 Associate Degree 7 5.8 5 2 Bachelor's Degree 45 37.5 34 12 Master's Degree 16 13.3 14 2 Professional Degree 1 0.8 1 0 Doctoral Degree 1 0.8 0 0 Other 0 0.0 0 0 Employed in Current Position 0 - 4 Years 49 40.8 38 11 5 - 9 Years 33 27.5 25 8 10 - 14 Years 17 14.2 13 4 15 - 19 Years 8 6.7 7 1 20> Years 13 10.8 10 3 Trained/Studied Strategic Planning and Implementation Yes 56 46.7 45 11 No 61 50.8 45 16 Not Sure 3 2.5 3 0 Current Title Chairman of the Board 2 1.7 2 0 Owner, Chief Executive Officer, 20 16.7 17 3 and/or President General Manager 28 23.3 26 2 Assistant General Manager 5 4.2 5 0 Senior or Executive Vice 9 7.5 8 1 President Vice President 8 6.7 5 3 Chief Financial Officer or 12 10.0 9 3 Controller Chief Operating Officer 1 0.8 1 0 Executive or Senior Director 3 2.5 3 0 Director 20 16.7 11 9 Senior-Level Manager 8 6.7 3 5 Other 4 3.3 3 1 N = 120 Table 2: Variables and Measures Variable Measure Gender Men (1), Women (2) Title Chairman of the Board (1), CEO and/or President (2), General Manager (3), Assistant General Manager (4), Senior or Executive Vice President (5), Vice President (6), CFO or Controller (7), COO (8), Executive Director (9), Director (10), Senior-level Manager (11), Other (12) Involvement in Strategy To what extent have you personally been Implementation involved with strategy implementation in your current job? Always (1), Often (2), Sometimes (3), Never (4) Table 3: Results of Testing the Two Hypotheses Dependent Question (D) & Independent Question (I) Correlation & t-test Results Hypothesis 1 (D): Gender - Male/Female (I): Current Title 0.338 ** (4.054 **) Hypothesis 2 (D): Gender - Male/Female (I): Extent you have been involved with strategy 0.258 * (2.901 *) implementation.
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|