"Women Bring the Big Bucks -- So Why Won't Corporate America Show Them the Money?"

Last week marked the 22nd anniversary of the glass ceiling's entrance into our vernacular -- a phrase which cleverly described the invisible but extensive impediments to women's ascent into positions of senior leadership. Over two decades have passed since we gave the problem a name, and while women's collective gains in politics, business, media, and culture have created a spider's web of cracks, shattering the ceiling once and for all remains an elusive goal.

In her recent piece for the New York Times, Sharon Reier examined shifts in policy and culture that have brought women's senior leadership to the fore across the corporate boards of European businesses. Norway, who instituted a law requiring companies to fill 40 percent of corporate board seats with women in 2003, has met their goal, and similar legislation has passed in Spain, with the goal to be met in 2015. And while these laws are being passed, Europe is simultaneously addressing the institutional barriers for women's equal participation. There, as in the U.S., the long-held preference for former or sitting CEOs has been a restrictive force for women, as few have attained the senior executive positions that lead toward board candidacies. But change is on the horizon: In the Netherlands, a voluntary charter is now being presented to corporations to commit to propelling women into these senior leadership positions, and Norway has instituted a mentoring program and forum for aspiring women board members.

Clearly, Europe ahead of the learning curve on this front: in a 2007 study by Catalyst , which examined the financial results of 520 companies over a four-year period, it was found that companies with the highest numbers of women board directors outperformed those with the lowest. While European nations are bringing parity to their businesses, their gains are being measured in terms of both talent and the bottom line.

This raises some interesting questions for those of us on this side of the Atlantic. For example, as the Euro keeps rising and the dollar keeps falling, will our corporations finally begin to realize that a diverse board is a strong board? Or that the qualities that women leaders offer can catapult a corporation to a heightened level of performance and profit? In this month's Portfolio, Harriet Rubin reminds us that, "in the early and mid-1990s, the number of female appointees to Fortune 500 boards steadily increased. But since then, progress has slowed," stalling in 2007 at just 14.8 percent. Though many of the U.S.'s top companies have instituted programs to advance their female employees, women are still widely underrepresented in the boardroom. And if you pay any attention to the economy, it looks like our business sector could really benefit from a few good women.

At The White House Project, we work to propel a critical mass of diverse women into positions of leadership. And through our Corporate Council, we bring together senior executive women who are active agents of change within their organizations, to close the leadership gap in the business sector. The Council deepens the impact of these women leaders and builds their authority by raising their visibility, fostering expansive networks, and developing strategic initiatives to permanently alter the composition of the corporate sector.

This remarkably talented, intelligent, and ambitious group of women represent some of our nation's top companies who are committed to propelling women into leadership. They know that's good business from any angle. But how many more years will it take for the rest of corporate America to catch up?

In the fall of 2008, The White House Project and Corporate Council will be releasing a landmark report, entitled "Benchmarking Women's Leadership: A Report Card on the Leadership Gap in America." Assessing the current and future status of women in leadership across sectors, the study delivers fascinating research on women's status, from sports and film to business and politics.

Unfortunately, what the report clearly conveys is women's vast under-representation at the top ranks of every field surveyed. And that the long-term goal of shattering the glass ceiling once and for all looms far in the distance: by current rates of change, it could take decades, and in some cases, centuries, before women achieve parity with men in leadership.

There are great benefits to propelling women into leadership across sectors. When women make advances in politics, the corporate arena follows suit. Our governments become more representative, our policies more expansive, and our businesses more profitable. And when the public views more women as experts while watching their daily news, cultural perceptions of what a leader looks like shifts dramatically.

There is a common root to the lack of top women across sectors: a culture that does not fully embrace women as leaders. But a society which does not tap half of its natural resources is operating at half of its potential -- and the repercussions are rearing their ugly heads in the dwindling states of our economy, our politics, and perhaps, our culture. As we envision a better future for our nation, I advise that we heed the lesson that Europe has been learning: that adding women does, in fact, change everything.

Follow Marie Wilson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/twhp

Comments

[HowardRoarke]

If women think breaking the glass ceiling is hard, they should see how hard it is for good and honest people to break it.

Face it, the vast majority of CEOs are lousy human beings, cheats, and scum.

Having women scum CEOs won't really help us any more than having men scum CEOs.

Better people of either gender, that'd be real change.

[charley0008]

I do not construe Ms. Wilson’s articles to be an endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
I am a huge fan of the non-partisan work of the White House Project.
I am in the favorable female demographic for Clinton (white & older) but I do not support her. As a staunch feminist dedicated to women who are not even on the radar for a ‘glass ceiling’ challenge, Clinton deeply offends me. She is not a voice for women! Hers is a predatory interest!
Her record & struggle with truthfulness is one thing, how she speaks about us & reinforces sexist stereo-types to further her political ends is another!
What stereo-type is being reinforced about women, when Clinton, her husband & supporters suggest that many of ‘her women supporters’, who just happen to make up the majority of the Democratic party, will support John McCain or stay home if she does not win?
That we are ‘so irrational’, ‘so emotional’, ‘so vindictive’ and ‘so not ‘team’ players’ that if she does not win we will vote against our best interests and everyone else’s? It is not competence today but the prevalence of those same sexist views that is a major hurdle for women competing for jobs!
Further, this Clinton tactic portrays us as lousy human beings, uncaring & blinded by gender self interest to the pain & suffering of others; the young dieing in Iraq, those suffering for lack of health care & the family losing their home.

[cylindar]

I think it is important for women to be able to hold any position they so desire. Hopefully this will come about soon.

[feelfree]

When women are at the top they can make a difference in what happens to women in executive positions down to the ones who mop the floors. Women can bring a different point of view. Some of these women who encounter the glass ceiling didn't get there with a silver spoon in their mouth. They know the feeling of being passed over for a male. Women in this country earn 80 cents of the dollar that men earn for the same work.

Take blogs for example. Most of what gets written is culturally from the point of view of the dominant culture and most are men. They are writing to people who reflect what they see in the mirror, the hordes of latte sippers or merlot progressives. They aren't worried about healthcare, health insurance, wages, jobs, or inequality that women experience in the workplace because they don't KNOW people like that. So much of what gets written is tunnel vision and they're all looking through the same tunnel.

[SteveClements]

That's why Hillary looked the other way while union busting was discussed. And why her healthcare plan doesn't pride any health care, but does benefit the rich corporate health care industry by requiring everyone to buy it whether they can afford to or not. Or why her active support of NAFTA and Most Favored Nation Status to China has not only helped to drive down actual wages and quality of life for mostly lower income women but has led to further exploitation of third world women and children. Instead she has profited from her 35 years of experience selling out to "the dominant culture" and had a big hand in creating a culture of globalization that hurts women the most. But thank God for the welfare reform she helped Bill push through that doubly punishes hard working women.

[feelfree]

Obama's healthcare plan doesn't cover everyone. Corporations unfortunately will be part of the solution for universal healthcare.

And what did you say Obama's position is on MFN for China?

Is this the same WalMart that exploits women and children and where he sells his book, Audacity of Hope? WalMart has helped in rake in over 500 K.

[luziannagirl]

You know what would help women ascend the glass ceiling?

Better regional and urban intermodal public transportation, better and more affordable health care, better child care, better eldercare, and better public school systems. The public sector should step up and help shoulder some of the burden for essential human duties we've been performing for ...well...eons.

Or, maybe better yet, institute an equitable public-sector pay system for those who perform these essential tasks of caring for young children, elderly parents, and households. Then at least there will be a choice, and in effect, a "bottom" below which no woman can sink beneath simply because she is a fully functional woman.

To underscore my point, I suggest that for a mere 48 hours, all women go on strike for all duties except their paid jobs. Come straight home from work and put your feet up with a cold one and a take out pizza. Let the men get a tiny taste of what it's like to be a woman, juggling the equivalent of 3 or 4 fulltime jobs for a fraction of the pay.

[SteveClements]

HuffPost's Pick

The great majority of women are less concerned with the glass ceiling than the the dirt floor they seem stuck at. For them the women who can't break the glass ceiling are doing remarkably well. The great feminist issue should be the lives of women on the lowest rungs of the ladder. Where is the support for unionizing lower-income women, the fight against union-busting tactics that prey on the fears of lower income women, the indignation at exploitation of women and children in sweatshops in places like China. I can't understand how any feminist, any progressive, can support Hillary. She may be a woman candidate, she is NOT THE woman candidate, nor is she the candidate fighting for issues of real world concern to women. I could point to her back room sellouts of workers when she was on Board of Directors at Wal-mart, which mostly hurt lower income women; she and Bill still profiting off their connections with Wal-Mart, a company facing the largest sex discrimination suit ever. Or her support for Most Favored Nation Status for China that has profited greatly Wal-Mart. Or the extreme degradation of workers at sweatshops providing cheap gods and high profits to Wal-Mart. I could point to her strategist, Mark Penn, being a union buster. Where is the feminist indignation over all that? Or is this a case, as some argue, that first wave feminists are still ignoring lower income and minority women's issues?

[GoCards1978]

Well stated! The OG feminists have completely missed the boat on this. The reasons why women's earnings continue to fall over the past 30 years are the same as the vast majority of the population -- union busting, trade pacts that ignore the negative implications for most American workers, laisse faire deregulation, and tax policies that favor large corporations and the top 1% of Americans to name a few. I have a difficult time worrying about the challenges faced by the "glass ceiling" women -- they're unaffected by the hyperinflation of health care costs, gas prices and groceries. As a woman living on Social Security Disability, which is just over the poverty line, I have to decide which bill doesn't get paid each month so I can eat every other day. The new feminist movement needs to refocus their attention toward working for the greater good. I realize it's much more difficult, complex and less popular but it's vastly more important than what they're doing now.

[avicenna]

Thank you for articulating that truth. It is also worth noting that those women who are knocking on that "glass-ceiling" aren't exactly out to punch a hole through that is big enough too pull up the rest of the sisterhood. They got to that fragile dome by putting the self first and being cut-throat - just like most of the top dogs. Until girls are taught to be competitive in aspects other than their pretty looks, women will continue to put other priorities, like family, ahead of being the CEO of the company. Whether this is the desired outcome depends on the individual and their life dream. Personally, there is something about being promoted to simply fill the quota rather than my merit that rubs me the wrong way.