MORE WOMEN WORK IN NONPROFITS. SO WHY DO MEN END UP LEADING THEM?
With thanks to Harvard Business Review and the author for this article.
Cathleen Clerkin, PhD, is the associate vice president of research at Candid (a research and data nonprofit) and an affiliated research scientist at the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California. Cathleen’s research has been published broadly in both academic and popular press venues, including in her recent coauthored book, Resilience that Works: Eight Practices for Leadership and Life. Cathleen holds a BA in psychology from the University of California, Berkeley, and MS and PhD degrees in psychology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Summary
The term “glass escalator” refers to the finding that men in female-dominated occupations often experience a faster and smoother rise to the upper levels of leadership than women. Why does the male advantage persist? Systemic power dynamics and gender stereotypes are pervasive across industries. Because of these stereotypes and incorrect assumptions, even in fields where there is an abundance of qualified women for leadership roles, men continue to be singled out and fast-tracked. The author offers several best practices that have been shown to tamp down the escalator effect and promote gender equality.
You’ve probably heard of the “glass ceiling”: an invisible barrier of gender bias that prevents women from reaching the top of the career ladder, especially in male-dominated industries. But are you familiar with the glass escalator? Coined by sociologist Christine Williams, the term “glass escalator” refers to the finding that men in female-dominated occupations often experience a faster and smoother rise to the upper levels of leadership than women. Numerous studies have provided evidence of a glass escalator among nurses, social workers, paralegals, librarians, and elementary school teachers. For example, a 2021 study found that while men represent just 10% of the U.S. nursing workforce, they hold close to half of top nursing leadership positions.
Why the glass escalator matters
A common argument in early discussions of the glass ceiling was that having more women in the workforce would result in more equitable treatment. This is a sentiment still invoked today (“It’s a pipeline problem; we just don’t have enough women in technology” — sound familiar?). The existence of the glass escalator disproves this notion, documenting that a male advantage persists even in majority-women industries.
Why does the male advantage persist? Systemic power dynamics and gender stereotypes are pervasive across industries. A wealth of research has found that men are often assumed to be more competent than women and that there is an implicit association between men and leadership, a phenomenon dubbed “think manager — think male” (despite evidence that women outperform men on most leadership skills). Because of these stereotypes and incorrect assumptions, even in fields where there is an abundance of qualified women for leadership roles, men continue to be singled out and fast-tracked.
Evidence of a glass escalator in the nonprofit sector
While previous glass escalator research has focused on discrete professions, new evidence suggests that there is a glass escalator in an entire U.S. sector: the nonprofit sector. Unlike the other two major sectors (government and business), the nonprofit sector has long been female-dominated, with an estimated 70–75% of workers identifying as women. This makes sense considering that, much like professions such as nursing, teaching, and social work, the work of the nonprofit sector aligns with gendered expectations of women: caring for others (e.g., homeless shelters, foodbanks, animal rescues) and doing so selflessly (e.g., working for the greater social good, usually for less pay).
For the last five years, Candid, the nonprofit data organization where I work, has invited nonprofits to share demographic information about their organizations, including workers’ gender identity. To date, this data set includes information from roughly one million nonprofit workers, making it the largest data set of its kind.
When my team of researchers analyzed this data, along with additional organizational finance data we collected, we found clear evidence of the glass escalator. Sixty-nine per cent of the nonprofit workers in the data set were women. However, female representation started to fade as we looked at higher levels of leadership and power.
Overall, 62% of nonprofit CEOs or executive directors identified as women while 38% identified as men. However, larger organizations were increasingly likely to have a male CEO. This is notable, as larger organizations tend to be more established enterprises, associated with more employees, money, power, and prestige. Moreover, large organizations generally acquire their CEOs through a job search (rather than as a founder), suggesting a male advantage in leadership selection.
Similarly, when we look at revenues of organizations run by men and women, it becomes clear that men — despite their overall underrepresentation in the sector — hold more power and resources than women do. Specifically, on average, men CEOs led organizations with roughly twice as much revenue as women CEOs, as shown in the following chart.
Additionally, Candid’s analysis of CEO compensation suggests that male CEOs also enjoy a compensation advantage, getting paid on average 27% more than women.
Male representation is also more prominent among larger nonprofits’ boards of governors, as shown in the following chart. The average board composition of very small organizations (those with budgets below $50k) was roughly 60% women. In contrast, among larger organizations (those with budgets above $25 million), the average board composition was roughly 56% men.
The mechanics of the glass escalator
Research suggests that supervisors, coworkers, and clients may facilitate men’s free ride. Women coworkers are often pleased to see men enter “their” occupation, as more men in an industry tend to raise the pay and prestige of the work. In fact, women may push men in their organizations forward and up in the hopes that having a male representative will be beneficial (e.g., in client talks and negotiations). Additionally, male supervisors — who tend to be prevalent even in women-dominated occupations — may be more likely to see themselves in their male direct reports, pulling them up the ranks as their successors.
Of course, men do sometimes face discrimination for doing “women’s work” (e.g., getting teased or harassed by male coworkers or customers, or even dismissed by clients — remember the Friends episode with the male nanny?). However, even this backlash can sometimes also facilitate the escalator effect, as people who are uncomfortable with men in stereotypical “women’s roles” may attempt to resolve the discomfort by moving men into more “masculine” roles, such as making them a manager or supervisor or adjusting their title (e.g., “administrator” instead of “secretary”). Therefore, as the escalator metaphor suggests, men might have to actively intervene if they don’t want to be automatically moved up.
Not all men get to ride the escalator
The glass escalator appears to be a racialized phenomenon. For example, a qualitative study of Black male nurses found that Blackness seemed to negate the male advantage. Instead of being welcomed by women coworkers and male bosses, Black male nurses reported being snubbed and ostracized by their majority white women colleagues and passed over for promotions. Similarly, a large study on nursing assistants found that the glass escalator is complicated by factors such as race and citizenship.
Our analysis of Candid’s nonprofit data further suggests that the glass escalator mostly benefits white men. Specifically, the representation of white male CEOs in the data set increased with organizational revenue, from just 22% among the smallest organizations to 41% among the largest organizations. In comparison, the representation of men of color in CEO positions remained relatively stable regardless of revenue size. Representation of women — and especially of women of color — diminished as organization revenue increased.
How can we get off the glass escalator?
No matter what sector or industry you work in, it’s important to be aware of the (often unintentional) behaviors and dynamics that result in an unearned male advantage. Here are some best practices that have been shown to tamp down the escalator effect and promote gender equality:
Check for biased language and treatment in the hiring process. Employers should check their job descriptions for gendered language to ensure they don’t implicitly suggest stereotypically male attributes. Interviewers should also rate applicants using a predetermined score card based on specific and detailed job requirements to limit subjective evaluation.
Track demographic data. Recording demographic data about who gets interviewed, hired, retained, and promoted can help shed light on whether bias is creeping into specific parts of your organization’s pipeline.
Be transparent about pay. Lack of pay transparency often leads to wider gender pay gaps, as opacity allows bias to go unchecked. Having established pay ranges can prevent women from being low-balled — or even lied to — during salary negotiations and promotions.
Create clear career matrices. Transparent standards about career ladders and the behavioral expectations required to move up in organizations clarifies the “rules of the game” and decreases the chances that men will get promoted due to the glass escalator instead of their qualifications and work experience.
Have explicit conversations about career goals. Unintended gender bias may be as innocent as assuming a man wants a promotion when he may not or that a mother of young children won’t want a new role if it requires travel. The best policy is to have frequent, frank conversations with your employees about what they want out of their careers.
Sponsor women and give them challenging opportunities. When people mentor women, they tend to largely focus on listening and offering personal advice. In contrast, men are more likely to be given challenging assignments, network opportunities, and increased visibly — activities associated with sponsorship. These activities, as well as sponsorship in general, are linked with promotability; so sponsoring women helps move them up the career ladder.
The glass escalator presumes a traditional career ladder and organizational structure. However, the rise of the gig economy, remote work, and increased flexibility suggests some of these norms are starting to shift. Indeed, women — and especially women of color — are more likely to opt out of traditional jobs, preferring entrepreneurship and/or jobs that prioritize flexibility and work-life balance. It is too early to say whether these shifts will substantially change things for women. However, in my opinion, such changes in the world of work are more likely to bring on new variations of gender bias rather than extinguish it all together. Either way, taking steps to understand and prevent unintended gender bias is our best chance to achieve gender equality sooner rather than later.