Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal (ABSRJ) Volume 4 (2013), Number 2 ABSRJ 4 (2): 139 ISSN 1855-931X GENDER BIAS IN PROMOTION: IS IT REAL? Paulo Lopes Henriques* Technical University of Lisbon - ISEG Portugal lopeshen@doc.iseg.utl.pt Carla Curado Technical University of Lisbon - ISEG Portugal ccurado@iseg.utl.pt Abstract The present study uses a nationwide longitudinal database to analyze the Portuguese workforce searching for gender differences in promotion. The database presents longitudinal data from employees in eight different professions across the country. The research examines individual dimensions such as age, tenure and education looking for their impact over promotion and possible cumulative gender effects. Results seem to indicate considerable gender dissimilarities regarding promotion rates, consistent with previous literature, but also reports differences, namely by questioning the glass escalator effect, the impact of tenure and the influence of education over promotion. The paper contributes to the body of knowledge on gender issues and career related impacts. Keywords: Gender studies; Professions; Promotion, Field study Topic Groups: Gender, diversity and social issues; Human resource management and career development JEL Classification: M51, J16, M50 INTRODUCTION Due to relative scarcity of women in top management positions it might be questioned if gender affects progression in firms, so it’s appealing to study gender influence in professional promotion (Steinberg, Haignere, Chertos 1990; Lyness and Heilman 2006) and the barriers women have to face along their careers (Lyness and Thompson 2000; Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal (ABSRJ) Volume 4 (2013), Number 2 Wellington, Kropft, and Gerkovich 2003). The interest concerning the existence of gender discrimination related to professional promotion has motivated studies in several countries (Judge et al. 1995; Stephen 1990; Cobb-Clark and Dunlop 1999; Cabral, Ferber and Green 1981; Lewis 1986; Olson and Becker 1983; Dencker 2008; Metz and Harzing 2009; Hoobler, Wayne and Lemmon 2009). The shorter rate of women progressing in organizations is frequently associated with the occupational segregation in which women usually occupy the lowest management levels at firms, basically being held up to get to higher levels in the hierarchy and better rewarded posts (Adams 2007; Agars 2004, Cassirer and Reskin, 2000; Morrison and von Glinow 1990; Maume 1999; Kirchmeyer 1998; Hymowitz 2004; Lyness and Thompson 2000; Tharenou 1999; Spencer and Stuart 2006). Women who desire to go up in the hierarchy need to adopt a male role model, or following male standardized behaviors, in order to guarantee the possibility to reach an upper level in the organization (Still 1994). Women feel there are barriers holding them from achieving top management levels and as a result being misrepresented in command positions (Maume 2004; Powell & Butterfield 1994). According to Peiss (1998) only in four business sectors women seem to exceed such barrier; the consumer marketing advertising, the cosmetic industry, the small local businesses and the education, being that in the educational area the post of school director tends to be occupied by a woman. The scarcity of gender studies addressing promotion issues in Portugal and the relevancy of the issue in political and entrepreneurial debates present an opportunity to fill in a research gap. In addition, Portugal being a Latin cultural country where traditionally women are not seen as leaders or considered primarily for promotion, serves as an adequate setting for such study. The paper addresses only formal promotion sequences not exploring any type of effect on payment increase related to each promotion. THEORY The European and Portuguese Landscape In 2005 women represented 51.6 percent of the total Portuguese population. In the period from 1998 to 2006 women increased their participation in the work force passing from 51,8 percent to 55,8 percent, while men participation remained around 69 percent (INE 2005). Gender equality in all areas of life is a fundamental right and a value proclaimed by the European Union enshrined in its policy since the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Nevertheless, the European Commission’s 2009 Report on Equality between Women and Men (EC 2009 REWM) indicates that the Central Banks of all member states were led by a male governor. The same European Commission’s 2007 Report indicated that, on average, the highest decision- making bodies of EU central banks include five men for every woman. At European level, all three of the financial institutions (European Central Bank, European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund) are led by men and women account only for 16 percent of the highest decision-making bodies of these institutions. Given this background, the Portuguese reality in EU regarding women’s head of boards is controversial; in a study (Community Labour Force Survey 2007) covering 15 countries none of the Portuguese companies covered in the sample were led by a woman. In the same study, regarding to board membership, women account for less than 5 percent. On the other hand, according to Portuguese domestic statistics (INE 2011), little over half (55,3 percent) of firms have women participating in management jobs and 30,1 percent of management jobs are held by women in Portugal. The same statistics report top management figures, showing that 12 percent of board heads are women. Regarding gender diversity in the Portuguese firms’ management teams’ composition is as follows: 45 percent are mixed, 45 percent have exclusively male members and 10 percent have exclusively female members. Given such conflicting reports, it ABSRJ 4 (2): 140 Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal (ABSRJ) Volume 4 (2013), Number 2 seems critical to further develop research and cumulate evidence in order to fill the gap exposed. The paper addresses the topic of women participating in the work force by exploring the phenomenon of promotion at firms. Bases of promotion Promotion stands for an upward hierarchical movement from one position to another, in which the employee ascends to a higher level of responsibility and complexity of duties and obligations receiving as counterpart a more rewarding set of benefits. Promotion involves much more (Seibert, Kraimer & Liden 2001) it also includes a change in the daily work. In the past, women’s promotions were not a synonym of increased responsibility and a matching higher hierarchic level as it happened with the men (Stewart and Gudykunst 1982). According to literature, studies presenting similar proportions of both gender promotions show that the raise in responsibility and hierarchic level differs among genders (Eddleston 2004). Extent literature support that women present lower promotion rates (Judge et al. 1995; Stephen 1990; Cobb-Clark and Dunlop 1999; Cabral, Ferber and Green 1981; Lewis 1986; Olson and Becker 1983; Dencker 2008; Metz and Harzing 2009; Hoobler, Wayne and Lemmon 2009) than men in similar situations - which means men under the same circumstances and chances are more likely to receive a promotion to progress in the career (Cabral, Ferber and Green 1981; Cannings 1988; Cobb-Clark 2001; McCue 1996; Olson and Becker 1983; Ransom and Oaxaca 2005; Spurr 1990). Although the main trend is strongly sustained in literature, there is also contrary evidence supporting research studies that present men’s promotion rate of being lower than women’s (Barnett, Baron and Stuart 2000; Gerhart and Milkovich 1989; Spilerman and Petersen 1999; Stewart and Gudykundt 1982). Kaestner (1994) study shows that women in higher levels in the hierarchy have similar and sometimes even superior promotion rates than men, alongside with reports of similar promotion rates among different genders and studies that find no significant differences in men’s and women’s promotion’s rates (Giulano, Levine and Leonard 2005, Hartmann 1987; Lewis 1986; Paulin and Mellor 1996; Powell and Butterfield 1994; Seibert et. 2001; Sheridan, Slocum, Buddha, and Thompson 1990). Carol and Heaton (2003) discloses that the career’s development differ between genders; since men receive more internal promotions than women and the latter tend to progress in the career moving to another organization. Considering Lazear and Rosen (1990) studies, men and women receive equal treatment at the work place but preferential treatment is given to men when referring to promotion. Women have lower probabilities of getting a promotion for better rewarded positions when compared to men with similar individual characteristics. Firms prefer to promote men because they assume men will remain in the firm longer than women. In spite of these results little evidence exists regarding gender differences in capabilities and skills (Hind and Baruch 1997). Considering previous literature and the gap regarding Portuguese evidence on promotion, the study addresses visible aspects of the phenomenon at nationwide scale. Thus, the following hypotheses test the gender effect on promotions in Portugal: Hypothesis 1 – Male promotion rates are similar to female promotion rates When men do women’s work a phenomenon might occur: the Glass Escalator (Williams, 1995) traducing in men consistently being promoted faster over women, even when they are numerically a minority (Budig 2002; Taylor 2010; Williams 1992; 1995). Considering that gender segregation in promotion seams to create different patterns of evolution for men and women (Henson and Rogers 2001; Charles and Grusky 2004) and having present the previous notion about feminine professions (Cassier & Reskin, 2000) the following hypothesis emerge: ABSRJ 4 (2): 141 Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal (ABSRJ) Volume 4 (2013), Number 2 Hypothesis 2 – Regarding feminine professions men’s promotion rates are higher than women’s Some personal effort promotes knowledge, abilities and credibility for those who want to assume top management positions (Tharenou et al. 1994; Spurr 1990; Lyness and Heilman 2006; Metz and Harzing 2009), but evidence seems to suggest that there is a gender bias. Considering literature reports minor top management occupancy levels by women, in spite of women presenting higher education levels than men (Fagenson and Jackson 1994). Melamed (1995) findings support that skill certification benefits more the women’s careers than the men’s. In an opposite way Tharenou et al. (1994) find that skill certification benefits more men’s than women’s careers. Thus, it is hypothesized: Hypothesis 3: Educational levels have a higher impact on promoted women´s than men´s Tenure is also considered critical for human capital value enlarging the abilities’ span of individuals (Nordhaug 1993) influencing promotion probabilities. Long term at the firm is seen as a sign of experience, knowledge and productivity (Chase and Aquiliano 1981), being a criterion to consider in the promotion decision making. As firms prefer to promote employees who present greater probability to stay in the firm, it is reasonable that they promote the most tenured. According to Konrad and Cannings (1997) and Kirchmeyer (2002) the effect caused by tenure differs between genders; it contributes positively for career progression in the case of men and negatively for women. Thus a two folded hypothesis arises: Hypothesis 4a: Tenure impacts positively on men’s promotion Hypothesis 4b: Tenure impacts negativity on women’s promotion METHODS The paper uses a nationwide database (Ministry of the Work and Social Solidarity) that gathers information from all the firms established in Portugal, between the years 2002 to 2005. Participation is mandatory; once a year firms are called to contribute, allowing the Ministry to gather information on employees’ gender; state profession’s classification; tenure status; age; latest promotion date; education. Data analysis was run after it has been cleaned from all its inconsistencies; incomplete registers and registers for which it was not possible to guarantee beyond any doubt its traceability over the period covered by the study. Such procedure resulted in the elimination of over 30.000 registers from the original database when considering the period covered. The study considers a set of 8 professions selected as the ones where gender segregation in promotion is expected to be more visible (Cassirer and Reskin 2000; Morrison and von Gilnow 1990; Maume 1999; Kirchmeyer 1998). Four of the eight professions in the study might be considered as feminine professions - women’s professions according to Wingfield (2009). Professions P22, P23, P24 and P41 that present higher rates of employed women against men, these professions are associated to lower levels of authority (based on span of control analysis) consistent with feminine professions’ profile according to literature. Table 1: Employee by profession and gender at the beginning of the period (2002) Professions Male Female Total % P11 - Public administration top and middle management 336 194 530 0,40% P12 - Top Firm Managers 32.213 10.265 42.478 30,40% P13 - Small firm managers 43.751 17.100 60.851 43,50% P21 - Exact sciences specialists 6.195 1.892 8.087 5,80% ABSRJ 4 (2): 142 Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal (ABSRJ) Volume 4 (2013), Number 2 Source: MTSS, 2008 P 22 - Health specialists 1.448 2.913 4.361 3,10% P23 - Teachers and professors 1.560 2.647 4.207 3,00% P24 - Other Sciences specialists 5.280 6.078 11.358 8,10% P41 - Administrative personnel 1.371 6.631 8.002 5,70% Total 92.154 47.720 139.874 Average age (years) Average tenure (years) School education (years) 43 8 10 40 8 12 42 8 11 Considering the total 139.874 observations over the period, 34.12 percent respect to women, the total average age of employees is 42 years old. Employees covered in the study have on average 11 years of education at school and an average tenure of 8 years at the beginning of the period covered by the study. For promotion rates see table 2, For promotion each employees has been track throughout the periods studied independently the firm where he or she were working for, and if a change in the rank position was reported a promotion was counted. Table 2: Employee promotions (2002-2005) Source: MTSS, 2008 Period Number of Employees promoted % Employees promoted % Male % Female 2002-2003 17,738 12.7% 63.3% 36.7% 2003-2004 14,997 10.7% 62.3% 37.7% 2004-2005 594 9% 62.1% 37.9% FINDINGS When analyzing promotions over the considered period; 2002 to 2003, 2003 to 2004 and 2004 to 2005, results are illustrative (Table 3). Regarding Public administration, top and middle management positions (P11) the equality hypothesis is not rejected over the three periods of promotion considered, meaning it can be assumed to exist no gender bias. Addressing top firm managers (P12), small firm managers (P13) and to exact sciences specialists (P21), in the three periods of promotion considered the equality hypothesis 1 is rejected, meaning it can be assumed to exist gender bias, visible in a highest promotion rate of men over women regarding these jobs. Hypothesis 1 is also rejected when considering health specialists (P22), teachers and professors (P23), other sciences specialists (P24) and administrative personnel (P41), but in this case results show a lower promotion rate of men compared to women, generating a contrary gender bias from (P12; P13; P21). Results lead to the partial rejection of the hypothesis 1 on the majority of professions, apart from Public administration, top and middle management positions (P11) (Table 3). ABSRJ 4 (2): 143 Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal (ABSRJ) Volume 4 (2013), Number 2 Table 3: Statistical test results for equality of promotion rates between genders Test for gender equality of promotion Test for men’s promotion rates higher than women’s Profession n p=0,5 p-value p