Vol. 9, No. 10 September 08, 2005

Summer may have been vacation time for many but it proved busy for those who run think tanks. It was so busy that a key milestone slipped by me – the 10-year anniversary of the "glass ceiling." This term was coined by The Wall Street Journal to describe the barriers that supposedly prevent women from rising to the very top of the corporate world.

This ceiling proved sufficiently agitating to the federal government that it convened a Glass Ceiling Commission, whose recommendations emerged in 1995. The Commission found what one would expect – the glass ceiling denied untold numbers of qualified women from the executive ranks. More specifically, women had 45.7 percent of the jobs in America and more than half of the nation’s master’s degrees, yet 95 percent of senior managers were men. In addition, women who did make it to senior management level were earning only 68 percent of the going rate for their male counterparts.

Ten years later, according to The Economist, the percentage of women in the work force is up to 46.5, but only eight percent of the top managers are female. The Economist also says that women now average 72 percent of the earnings of their male colleagues. The prestigious publication also looked at Japan and Britain, where they found progress of a sort, though "glacially slow," and concluded: "The glass-ceiling phenomenon is proving peculiarly persistent. The top of the corporate ladder remains stubbornly male, and the few women who reach it are paid significantly less than the men they join there."

The magazine faults blatant exclusion from informal networks, the pervasive stereotyping of women's capacity for leadership, and a lack of role models. Only after running through this common litany does The Economist raise the issue we have often discussed in this column – the choices women make.

"Many women need to take time off during their careers," says the publication. It cites evidence that, in America, more women with children under the age of one are taking time off from work than they did some years ago. Further, more and more women, "when they are on the cusp of the higher echelon," are withdrawing to care for elderly parents or deciding that the stress and long hours associated with the executive suite are not really what they want.

Indeed, personal differences, effort, and choice explain a great deal more than invisible barriers. As we recently noted in this column, some of the nation’s brightest and most successful women, including the woman with the highest IQ in the world, have chosen to say home for periods of time to care for their children.

The Economist noted the various "diversity" measures by companies but it seems clear that statistical disparities will persist, as they do everywhere. It remains to be seen how agitation about a glass ceiling helps women get to the top. And when they do rise, they should not credit any Glass Ceiling Commission with helping them get there. They also need to perform.

Women should not get top jobs, or retain them, simply because of gender. We should both keep the job market free of quotas and deal with legitimate discrimination whenever it occurs. We should also let women make their own choices, regardless of whether we happen to agree with them.

Sally Pipes is President and CEO at the California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. She can be reached via email at spipes@pacificresearch.org.