Hlavní práce72092_derm02.pdf, 1.2 MB Stáhnout

(1)

University of Economics, Prague

Master’s Thesis

2020 Maya Pieke de Ruiter

(2)

University of Economics, Prague

Faculty of Business Administration

Masters field: Management

Title of the master’s thesis:

Managers as change agents for the elimination of the glass ceiling in British

business.

Author: Maya Pieke de Ruiter

Supervisor: Ing. Tomáš Ryška Ph.D.

(3)

Declaration of Authenticity

I hereby declare that the master’s thesis presented herein is my own work, or fully and specifically acknowledged wherever adapted from other sources. This

work has not been published or submitted elsewhere for the requirement of a degree program.

Grayshott, 26.08.2020 Signature:

(4)

Title of the Master’s Thesis:

Managers as change agents for the elimination of the glass ceiling in British business.

Abstract:

The glass ceiling continues to negatively impact minorities in business in the UK, 40 years after the term was coined. It is fair and there is value in working towards eliminating the impact the glass ceiling continues to have. Managers are identified as viable candidates to act as change agents regarding the change surrounding the elimination of the glass ceiling. Therefore, this research investigates how managers, as change agents, can aid the elimination of the glass ceiling in British business. This investigation is done through a thorough review of literature, followed by exploratory, ethnographically inclined collection of expert perspectives on the glass ceiling, change agents, managers, and the combination of those concepts to eliminate the glass ceiling. The result was a conceptual model of how managers could employ certain practices and change management strategies to help eliminate the glass ceiling at their company.

Key words:

Glass ceiling, change agent, managers, managerial practices, change management.

(5)

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the University of Economics, Prague for the experience as part of the Master’s in Management programme that this thesis was written as partial requirement for. The two years spent in Prague were filled with both education and enjoyment, thanks to faculty members, but especially to the fellow students. The 2020 MIMG cohort include connections that will surely be long-lasting.

Thanks also go to the supervisor of this research report, Ing. Tomáš Ryška Ph.D., for the helpful and practical advice provided around this research.

Last, but not least, a big thank you goes to family and friends for their ongoing support and constructive insights on the research as it was being carried out. The uncertainty of the time period in which the research was carried out makes their support all the more appreciated.

(6)

List of figures

Figure 2. 1 Meyerson and Fletcher's (2000) Small Wins ... 21

Figure 2. 2 Kilian et al.'s (2005) Interventions ... 21

Figure 2. 3 United States Government Accountability Office's (2005) Best Practices ... 22

Figure 2. 4 Kelan and Wratil's (2017) Interpretive Repertoires ... 22

Figure 3. 1 Relationship between research questions... 24

Figure 6. 1 Connection of the research themes with one another ... 41

Figure 6. 2 Illustration for managers to act as change agents to eliminate the glass ceiling.... 54

List of tables

Table 4. 1 Interviewee Details. Source: author ... 28

(9)

1. Introduction

This thesis covers a few concepts; managers, change agents and the glass ceiling. The research is done in the context of Britain, mainly England, where the glass ceiling still exists; as this research indicates. The glass ceiling is a phenomenon impacting all minority demographics, not only based on gender or sex, in that it holds people back in their careers through a complex inequality regime (Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia & Vanneman, 2001; Kelan, 2014; Acker, 2009;

Britton & Williams, 2000). This chapter splits the research into its motives, relevance, necessity and value, research problem and objectives, work structure and limitations.

1.1 Value of the research

My motives for the research were two main factors. The first being the UK, the research’s context, is where I plan to develop a career. The second is I am female, aware of the glass ceiling’s impact and am interested in feminism, which leads me to believe eliminating the glass ceiling is the right thing to do. Therefore, it is interesting personally and professionally to have more insight into this topic. While the research may be clouded by personal interests, the position from which I am conducting it and my beliefs are made known later on.

In the UK context, the research is relevant due to the increasing proportion of women in the workforce, from 57% in 1975 to 78% in 2017 (Roantree & Vira, 2018). However, further demographics are considered. For example, the UK is becoming increasingly multicultural and ethnically diverse (Race Disparity Unit, 2018), the labour pool is diversifying so companies should diversify accordingly, since diversity can improve financial performance and other firm characteristics like size (Hunt, Layton & Prince, 2015; Nolan, Moran & Kotschwar, 2016; Hunt, Yee, Prince & Dixon-Fyle, 2018). While the percentage of minorities in the workforce, e.g.

women and Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) persons, are increasing compared to the general population, they are underrepresented (Race Disparity Unit, 2018; Office for National Statistics, 2020; Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2017). This should be rectified as it is the law to allow fair opportunity, based on the Equality Act 2010 (Government Equalities Office, 2015) and is part of the government agenda (Government Equalities Office, 2010; Hampton-Alexander Review, 2019). It is desirable also, since having more diversified teams can bring value to companies (Hunt et al., 2015; Nolan et al., 2016; Hunt et al., 2018).

Managers are relevant since they influence organisations (Bloom, van Reenen & Brynjolfsson, 2017), and have a key role in change (Ionescu, Meruta & Dragomiroiu, 2014). Upon my preliminary research, it was clear managers can take the change agent role to execute the change required (Furnham, 2002; de Vries, 2015). How exactly managers can act as change agents and the practices and styles they should employ was of interest. Ultimately, one route is investigated here, for the sake of the research scope. This is due to it being exploratory research with limited time and resources, so focusing on one route is appropriate. However, the research results are not a cure-all and further routes should be investigated in future research.

(10)

Moving to theoretical value, investigations into the glass ceiling concept, and the change agents involved, are ongoing; with a study published just earlier this year on the glass ceiling within academic medicine and dentistry (Brown, Crampton, Finn & Morgan, 2020) and a study published last year on the gay glass ceiling (Aksoy, Carpenter, Frank & Huffman, 2019). The glass ceiling term was coined over 40 years ago and what it signifies, discrimination and inequality, is still an issue across the globe. Thus, any research that can generate suggestions as to how to eliminate it is valuable. This research takes a slightly different perspective to previous works, which hopefully gets us closer to knowing how to eliminate it.

The concept of intersectionality adds further theoretical value (Tariq & Sayed, 2017; Bagilhole, 2010). For many years the glass ceiling was only a gender or sex issue, however, when it comes to minorities in the workplace, all demographics should be championed. By taking an intersectional perspective, the theory can be broadened further than gender/sex. Additionally, by considering all minority demographics under the glass ceiling, a majority position is approached, compared to traditional majority demographics. This consideration adds value since if a majority is seen to be negatively impacted, there can be more motivation to change.

The practical value can be general or applied to the COVID-19 pandemic. Generally, having a more diversified team can generate more value (Hunt et al., 2015; Nolan et al., 2016; Hunt et al., 2018). So, eliminating the barrier to diversity should allow increased value. In terms of managers as change agents, it seems logical to utilise existing talent, who are familiar, have existing trust with the employees and can play a key role in change (Ionsecu et al., 2014).

Coming to the pandemic, it has impacted business in the UK drastically. On gender, between a mother and father working from home, the mother tends to have to take time from work for the children (Andrew, 2020; Georgieva, Fabrizio, Lim & Tavares, 2020). From an ethnicity perspective, the overrepresentation of BAME persons in low-paid, high-exposure jobs puts their health at greater risk (Byrne, Alexander, Khan, Nazroo & Shankley, 2020; Public Health England, 2020). With this as the reality for many, moving towards eliminating the glass ceiling can reduce the overrepresentation in lower-paid jobs and pay gap compared to the majority; so, minorities will hopefully not be put in these situations as much. Additionally, companies may realise working from home is feasible for many, leading to openness on working practices.

Thus, now could be the time to introduce changes, with companies in more flexible mindsets.

1.2 The research

The research problem is how managers can act as change agents to help eliminate the glass ceiling in the UK. This is the main research question; presented in chapter three. Due to the width of the research problem, some sub-research questions, exploratory questions and a contextual question were devised, covering managerial practices, change management and the research’s context; explained later in the paper. The research approach is explained in full in the methodology chapter, four, so a summary follows. Regarding the ontology, constructionism was selected, since I see glass ceiling as a social phenomenon created by social actors. This is based on Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill’s (2007) explanation and the glass ceiling being described as a phenomenon (Cotter et al., 2001). An inductive approach allows for a new

(11)

perspective on existing theory and an exploratory study type allows for proper topic understanding, without pressure for conclusive results. Ethnography fits the social phenomenon aspect, with the ethnographic principle of understanding and critical ethnography being appropriate based on the stance on inequality and positionality. Positionality, subjectivity and reflexivity are also considered in chapter four.

The research choice is qualitative, using multiple methods, including ethnographic interviews, since they provide rich data, especially considering the cross-sectional time horizon; as well as literature reviewing. On sampling, non-purposive, heterogeneous sampling allows for a wide variety of interviewees, furthering data richness. The data collection instrument and procedure for the secondary data is documentary and use of databases, respectively. For primary data the instrument is semi-structured interviews, providing in-depth data and the procedure is interviews carried out via video conferencing platforms, since in-person interviews were circumstantially not possible. For data analysis, the interviews are transcribed, coded thematically and a code network created to put everything into perspective and highlight key findings. The validity and ethical choice of deontology are also considered, as recommended by Saunders et al. (2007), with details found in chapter four.

The objective at the root of the approach is naturally a valuable contribution to the issue of the glass ceiling; offering insight into how its prevalence and impact can be reduced by managers.

What this means is concrete answers to the research questions, even if not totally conclusive, they provide some conclusion and are indicative of further research directions. The ultimate objective is to provide a means for managers to eliminate the glass ceiling in businesses across the UK, since it brings value to companies, the economy (Maceira, 2017; European Institute for Gender Equality, 2017), peoples’ wellbeing (Audette, Lam, O’Connor & Radcliff, 2018) and the fact equality is a fundamental human right (United Nations, 2020). I also acknowledge that the issue of the glass ceiling is systemic and far greater than a manager, company and this research. However, since there is a case for its elimination and organisations can drive social change (Stephan, Patterson, Kelly & Mair, 2016), I saw it as a good place to start as any and I see the conceptual model that resulted as a viable means. I judge this objective as achieved, through the development of the conceptual model covering managerial practices and a change management process, within the UK context.

As to how the research advances knowledge in this field, there are a few ways I hope it contributes. The intersectional perspective of the research can add to knowledge on who is impacted by the glass ceiling and further consideration of intersectionality in discrimination.

Another area of contribution is on managers as change agents. The traditional management role may not always cover change management or the driving changes, but the concept of managers as change agents is interesting. So, by illustrating how managers can be change agents in this specific instance, their propensity to act as change agents on other matters can be explored.

Finally, recommendations on eliminating the glass ceiling exist, including Meyerson and Fletcher’s (2000) Small Wins, Kilian, Huaki and McCarty’s (2005) Interventions, the United States Government Accountability Office’s (2005) Best Practices and Kelan and Wratil’s (2017) Interpretive Repertoire. However, this route has not been exhaustively explored, so with

(12)

this research problem, the knowledge on how to go about eliminating the glass ceiling, through managers acting as change agents should be expanded.

1.3 The structure

The paper is divided into seven chapters to keep the flow logical and arrive at a conclusion.

After the introduction, a literature review covers a range of theories, split into seven sections:

the glass ceiling and change agent concept definitions, the causes of the glass ceiling within British business, the case for change, managers as change agents, eliminating the glass ceiling and managers as change agents for the glass ceiling. These sections culminate in visualisations of some previous research results. The research questions are then explained; how they were developed and why they were included. The methodology details methodological choices, including ontological choice, approach, study type, strategy, choice, time horizon, techniques and procedures and finally, ethics; to clarify how the findings were reached. The findings are divided into the ten themes from the data analysis: defining glass ceiling defining change agent, British business, glass ceiling experience, eliminating the glass ceiling, managers, change management, best practices, timeline and worst practices; paving the way for the discussion.

The discussions chapter, six, analyses the findings and presents answers to the research questions. It is divided into five sections, the first covering the definitions of the glass ceiling and change agent, which while not directly tied to the research questions, are still important to cover. The contextual question is addressed, followed by the sub-questions and exploratory questions on managerial practices and then change management. A separate section answers the main research question and results in a conceptual model. When answering the research questions, the sections are ordered by first reviewing theory, the findings and then drawing a conclusion. To close the paper, the conclusion looks at the key research results, the conceptual model, further research recommendations and a reflection on the research. Additional chapters include a glossary, reference list and appendices.

1.4 Limitations

Starting with self-imposed difficulties, the scope or breadth of the research was purposeful, and I deemed it appropriate to investigate in the context of British business as a whole. However, this impacts the generalisability of the results and made reaching them an extensive process, with a lot to consider. The volume of aspects of the research to be considered created a lengthy discussion and an expansive conceptual model answering the main research question. The model hopefully provides an all-inclusive starting point for managers to act as change agents against the glass ceiling but could be overwhelming or too expansive. Despite this breadth, I believe the research problem was addressed and objectives reached.

On a more positive note regarding the volume of information, the amount of data indicates that despite the pandemic limitations, enough could still be collected. Travel restrictions at the time of data collection meant interviews had to be via video call rather than in person. Arranging the interviews was difficult since many candidates did not have the time due to dealing with the

(13)

pandemic. Ultimately, a sufficient number of interviews were carried out, over a longer period than planned for. The research overall took place over a longer period than planned, which may have been partially down to the data collection but also due to adjusting to having returned to the UK from Prague earlier than planned and resulting difficulty with time management. Having said that, the deadline extension meant this was not a problem and I could spend more time on the work. On one hand, the research was not as true an ethnographic strategy as desired, since personal contact required for things like participant observation was not possible at the time of research; but on the other, I had the chance to try the digital ethnography strategy of video interviews (Pink, 2016).

A final limitation, which I tried to mitigate by recognising it, was the fact that my position is one of privilege. Belonging to only one demographic that is discriminated against, in terms of gender, I will not have experienced much of the discrimination covered here. While I have certainly experienced gender discrimination both in subtle and obvious forms across my educational and personal life, it is likely that I lack perspective on the glass ceiling experience, particularly when it comes to intersectionality. Nevertheless, I tried to be mindful of this fact and considerate of my position throughout the research. Additionally, I would consider myself as openminded, in terms of accepting of our differences. However, based on where and how I grew up, it is inevitable that I harbour some biases, which I tried to flag with myself throughout the research and continue to work on personally. The research reflection in the conclusion chapter, seven, include recommendations on what could be done differently.

(14)

2. Literature review

2.1 Defining the glass ceiling

Defining the concepts being dealt with was important. On the glass ceiling, Cotter et al. (2001) call it a phenomenon and “distinct form of disadvantage that is different to other forms of discrimination”. There are four criteria constituting the existence of a glass ceiling according to Cotter et al. (2001): inequality attributed to the glass ceiling cannot be “explained by other job- relevant characteristics”, is greater “at higher levels of outcome than… lower”, relates to advancement chances, not only the “proportions of minorities at higher levels” and “increases over the course of the career” (Cotter et al., 2001). This appeared plausible and relevant.

Kelan (2014) defines it as a metaphor for the lack “of women in senior leadership positions”;

an “invisible barrier… to the highest echelons in organisations”. Those hindered by the glass ceiling are highly qualified, so capable of tasks at the top but they get stuck; progression is blocked. For some minorities, Kelan (2014) suggests it is a concrete ceiling, and that it can be called a “leadership labyrinth” rather than a ceiling. The labyrinth idea was important, since it matters if managers see it as a cut-off point or disadvantage across a whole career. The glass ceiling metaphor accuracy is questioned by Acker (2009), who says it suggests minorities progress until blocked at some point, whereas there are barriers throughout. Rather than one cut off point, an intricate and complicated system resulting in inequalities is presented by Acker (2009). Acker (2009) labels it “inequality regimes”, which includes class, race and ethnicity discrimination. This aligned with the research, since it is nonsensical trying to pinpoint one discriminated demographic, since people fit into many demographics, complicating the process.

Another concept was the cohort effect, suggesting younger cohorts of women aren’t faced with barriers as harsh as older cohorts (Prokos & Padavic, 2005). Due to the focus here being the glass ceiling and to avoid overcomplicating the issue, the cohort effect’s existence was acknowledged but not considered further. Prokos and Padavic (2005) state the glass ceiling is a metaphor explaining the underrepresentation of women in senior positions and is caused by the “cumulative disadvantage of blocked opportunities”. This definition implies the glass ceiling can occur across hierarchy and time, which I agreed with.

Baxter and Wright (2000) state the glass ceiling is a metaphor for analysing inequalities between men and women in the workplace. Britton and Williams (2000) argued that to be oversimplified through referencing the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Britton and Williams (2000) also state the glass ceiling is more than a hierarchy issue and describes a whole range of barriers preventing women from achieving “high positions of authority, prestige and pay”. Based on the labyrinth concept, I found Britton and Williams’ (2000) argument accurate and relevant. Ferree and Purkayastha (2000) criticised Baxter and Wright’s (2000) misrepresentation of the glass ceiling through assuming hierarchical levels are independent of each other. Wright and Baxter (2000) replied that glass ceiling discrimination intensified and did not cumulate constantly higher in the hierarchy. They also suggested that vertical promotion discrimination differs from other forms of discrimination. I agreed with the critics, regarding

(15)

the oversimplified initial definition and overlooking of the issues’ complexities. Discrimination intensifying was interesting and potentially to be looked at further.

Finally, Maume’s (2004) glass ceiling is the “failure of women and [minorities] to match white men in their access to managerial positions”. This phrasing suggests victim blaming, but Maume (2004) later suggests that the lack of progression is due to the fact that the firms are dominated by white men, disadvantaging others when it comes to chances in the recruitment pool. This definition is somewhat vague and was not taken into much consideration.

To conclude, the definition derived from those discussed above for the glass ceiling was:

The phenomenon of the lack of women and minorities in senior positions in organisations, due to a unique form of discrimination where qualified persons are prevented from advancing through the hierarchy. It is not solely a hierarchical issue and nor a single point of actualised disadvantage, but rather a complex regime of inequality and interlinked processes to be navigated through, which becomes harder to do further up the career ladder.

2.2 Defining change agent

Coming to change agent, Lippitt, Watson and Westly (1958) proposed they are outside agents who help make a “planned change that originates in a decision to make a deliberate effort to improve the system” (as cited in Ottaway, 1983). Contrastingly, Bennis, Benne and Chin (1969) stated a change agent may be in- or outside the organisation; useful since managers are inside organisations. Beckhard (1969) then referred to change agents as those who assist “in the management change effort” (as cited in Ottaway, 1983), suggesting change agents may not be directly involved with other aspects of a company, unlike managers.

Ottaway (1983) summarised the definitions in that a change agent helps change a client system as an internal or external agent and through a proactive or reactive relationship; which sets a basic understanding. Another definition Ottaway (1983) mentioned was the glass ceiling being a social issue where Tichy (1975) stated change agents’ “primary role is to deliberately intervene into social systems in order to facilitate or bring about social change”. French and Bell (1978) and Huse (1975) mention regardless of definition, change agents are essential for organisational development (as cited in Ottaway, 1983). I believed the glass ceiling was an organisational issue and to resolve it, development was needed.

Caldwell (2003) splits change agency into two roles; leading and managing. Both roles were each defined with ten attributes, one of which overlapped; openness to new ideas. This struck a chord since any change within an organisation should involve collaboration, thus I perceived the change agent should be willing to listen to others’ ideas when making the change. Arrata, Despierre and Kumra (2007) list some change agent attributes, to help define the role. Change agents do not regard traditional hierarchy, are “freed from day-to-day tasks in order to focus solely on leading and driving change”, implement and train others on new processes and are role models for new and better ways to work (Arrata et al., 2007). This suggests change agents

(16)

are somewhat separate from the regular organisation function. A straightforward definition from Manuele (2015) identifies change agents as those who are catalysts for change in an organisation, once the current situation is deemed dissatisfactory, the change agent decides the desirable future and makes necessary changes to the culture to reach it.

To conclude, the definition of change agent, based on the above definitions and aspects, was:

A change agent is a catalyst for change and essential for organisational development. The change agent can hold different roles, from leader to manager or implementer to trainer, but their main focus is aiding in change efforts. Efforts can affect social systems and include cultural changes, depending on the improvement desired.

2.3 The causes of the glass ceiling in the context of British business 2.3.1 Causes of discrimination

For change to be thorough, the problem’s roots need understanding. The uncovered cause of the glass ceiling was discrimination, based on biases, prejudices and social categorisation processes. The underlying roots, why certain demographics are preferred over others, included insights from essentialism, sociology, colonialism and other historical roots. This research took the perspective of all minorities under the glass ceiling; thus, a number of demographics were considered to understand underlying issues and provide context.

Many factors contribute to the glass ceiling; one being social cognition processes, which Reskin (2000) explains are quick, automatic and unconscious to help us digest information around us;

and are based on social context (Bandura, 1989). The first process is social categorisation, allocating people to social in-/out-groups, via easily identified factors explicitly tied to master statuses, making grouping easy (Reskin, 2000; Buttigieg, Bryant, Hanley & Lui, 2011). People also prefer those in their own in-groups; drawn to those like themselves (Reskin, 2000).

Maslow’s (1943) explanation of the need to belong as part of human motivation supports this preference. The idea of grouping relates to othering, a socially constructed categorisation (powell & Menendian, 2016), where differences are transformed into otherness, generating two groups; the in-group, the norm, and the out-group, defined by “faults, devalued and susceptible to discrimination” (Staszak, 2008). Another process is stereotyping, where personal attributes are inferred from a group and once somebody’s group is identified, characteristics are attached to them and once stereotypes are formed, people unconsciously reinforce them (Reskin, 2000).

Biases play a role, with stereotypes distorting perception, causing evaluation and attribution biases; performance expectations and assumption of success and failure causes (Reskin, 2000).

Power and cognitive biases refer to stereotyping those above/below us and stereotype reinforcement through power (Reskin, 2000). Biases can be conscious, explicit discrimination, or unconscious, passive discrimination. Unconscious biases can block diversity and inclusion, since despite awareness, it may be difficult to know how or what to change (Ross, 2008).

(17)

Conversely, Starmans, Sheskin and Bloom (2017) posit people “prefer unequal distributions”

of wealth, so they do not care or want to change. On a whole, unconscious biases and the resulting behaviour influence organisations and threaten its culture; with people wanting to maintain status quo and norms (Ross, 2008). The mismatch between un/conscious beliefs cause frustration, despite progressive policies, conflicting attitudes may halt progress (Ross, 2008).

Reskin (2000) concludes proximate causes of discrimination are “contextual factors that permit or counter the effects” of these habits. However, biases can be controlled (Reskin, 2000) and Tate and Page (2018) explain unconscious bias has become a simple way to discuss racism while avoiding important structural and systemic issues. Unconscious implies no control over the bias, allowing avoidance of racism charges and its continuation, which dangerously decreases the likelihood of meaningful change and maintains White racialised power (Tate &

Page, 2018). The main point is whiteliness and coloniality are more significant perpetuators of racism; recognising unconscious bias is too shallow (Tate & Page, 2018). Rather, unconscious bias provides an “alibi for continuing white supremacy”, since normalisation can worsen discrimination; relinquishing perpetrators of responsibility as they claim ignorance (Tate &

Page, 2018). This is an important and serious point kept in mind.

Buttigieg et al. (2011) cover prejudice, with in-group preference, people prefer their in-group and want to stay in to fulfill their own self-esteem and maintain their position even with adverse effects on out-groups, this desire then causes intergroup prejudice (Buttigieg et al., 2011). The resulting discrimination can be based on experiences with out-group members, which in-group members turn into stereotypes over time (Buttigieg et al., 2011). Buttigieg et al.’s (2011) findings support Reskin’s (2000); social identity theory and in-group preference motivate prejudices and biases fuelling discrimination. These causes were thus considered further.

Gneezy, List and Price (2012) identify disability discrimination as statistical, where group attributes are projected onto individuals (Gneezy et al., 2012). Chan, McMahon, Cheing, Rosenthal and Bezyak (2005) suggest attribution theory is in play, meaning different degrees of discrimination through perceived controllability and stability of the discrimination object by the perpetrator (Gneezy et al., 2012); with more controllability eliciting more discrimination.

Barnes (1985) provides a sociological perspective, proposing that humanity sees disability as abnormal, and things that aren’t normal as bad. Douglas (1984) states culture standardises and orders our values, provides categories and has authority; resulting in our concepts of reality being mostly received from others. The cultural or societal level response to abnormality is either ignoring, condemning or catering for it, though it is still not seen favourably (Barnes, 1985; Douglas, 1984); which may explain the enduring disability discrimination.

Gneezy et al. (2012) indicate race discrimination is based on attribution theory, race being uncontrollable, though statistical discrimination is involved; opposed to animus towards non- Whites (Gneezy et al., 2012). Hodson and Esses (2005) introduce two main theories on perceptions of ethnic prejudice. Through social dominance theory (SDO), people see life as a competition, creating the desire to obtain and maintain dominance at others’ expenses (Hodson

& Esses, 2005). Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) looks at preference to submit to authority,

(18)

keep to traditions and be hostile to out-groups when feeling threatened (Hodson & Esses, 2005).

Higher SDO and RWA correlated positively with prejudice (Hodson & Esses, 2005).

Miglietta, Gattino and Esses (2014) confirmed the positive correlation and prediction between SDO and prejudice. Prejudice’s role is explained as serving maintenance of in-group position, status and intergroup differences. SDO can predict prejudice due to the desire to benefit the group’s dominance and the competitive world view (Miglietta et al., 2014). Ethnic prejudice can be blatant or subtle, putting people into a hierarchy of races or denying discrimination and hostility towards minorities, respectively (Miglietta et al., 2014). Miglietta et al. (2014) found many factors caused discrimination, one being closed-mindedness. On a deeper level, settler colonialism is linked with white supremacy, due to how populations were established, and natives eradicated, as seen in North America (Bonds & Inwood, 2015). A lasting effect of colonialism is preference for lighter skin; the example of South Asia where lighter skin indicates not having to labour outdoors and an “aristocratic lineage” (Shankar and Subish, 2007).

Then, Gneezy et al. (2012) state sexual orientation discrimination is influenced by attribution theory, due to beliefs of sexuality being controllable. Focusing on the work environment, Ragins and Cornwell (2001) found discrimination antecedents included the employee group composition, organisational policies or practices and protective legislation (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Between these causes, the organisation’s own culture seemed most influential, in terms of whether the organisation demonstrates acceptance of different employee sexualities; based on Douglas’ (1984) explanation of cultural standardisation of values. Regarding the underlying cause of homophobia, in the UK, the condemnation of homosexuality was written into law in 1533, under the Buggery Act (British Library, n.d.). This act brought laws on sex and sexuality from ecclesiastical courts into temporal courts, demonstrating a religious root; with the Catholic church being a significant driver of “defining and eradicating sexual deviancy” (Bershady, 2014). Through colonialism, the UK exported its homophobia to colonies; the example of homophobia in Africa being partially caused by “Western imperialism and missionary activity”

and African provisions against homosexuality being “based on colonial law” (Ireland, 2013).

Coming to gender discrimination, Gneezy et al. (2012) indicated it is statistical, possibly due to identifiability of ‘traditional’ male/female gender. Armstrong (2003), covers Foucauldian insights in feminism, with relevant topics here being discipline, power, knowledge and the body. Foucault’s genealogical approach is a type of social critique (Foucault, 1998) aiming to find possibilities for “social change and ethical transformation” (Armstrong, 2003). On power, Foucault ascertained it is exercised, not possessed (Foucault, 1980), so women are not “passive, powerless victims of male power”, but subjects who can resist (Armstrong, 2003). The exercising, rather than possession, relates to perpetrators wanting to maintain in-group positions. Micro-level gender power relations then allow the relevant determination of

“concrete possibilities for resistance and social change” (Armstrong, 2003).

The perpetuation of gender inequality with power relations may be caused by the concept of essentialism, which ties identity to biological functions (Armstrong, 2003). Hypocritically, men can surpass this tie, but women cannot; only able to birth and raise offspring. This, and

(19)

Foucault’s (1978) anti-essentialist argument based on the relation of sexuality and power, illustrates gender being a social construct, tied to a biological category, reinforcing constraints upon individuals and maintaining gendered power relations (Armstrong, 2003); since it is nonsensical for only one gender to transcend their functions. Smuts (1995) states reproduction is the “ultimate goal of male power” and political, social and economic power, are means to control women’s sexuality and reproduction to serve men’s goal (Smuts, 1995). Bayne (2011) links misogyny to womb envy. Supposedly, men envy the ability to produce healthy offspring, which leads to devaluation to make the envied object less desirable and not worthy of envy (Bayne, 2011). Examples from mythology, religion and culture demonstrate men engaging in compensatory defence mechanisms to achieve in other aspects of life (Bayne, 2011).

Moving to discipline, Foucault suggests disciplinary power works to create individuals who self-surveil and self-normalise (Foucault, 1977), explaining women’s complicity to patriarchal standards (Armstrong, 2003). This helps understand the causes of gender discrimination, where those being discriminated against may be unaware or complicit because of conditioning.

However, if power relations exist then so, too, must resistance (Foucault, 1980), with the aim of freedom. Sawicki (1998) stated Foucault’s work provided conceptual tools which enable thinking “beyond traditional emancipatory theories and practices” (as cited in Armstrong, 2003). These insights were relevant and could be carried through to recommendations, along with the above theories rooted in history and society, like colonialism and laws surrounding sexuality. The varying motives for discrimination were all important, but the root causes were particularly interesting. Root causes of different discrimination types vary and there is no single cause for all demographics; indicating intersectionality’s value.

2.3.2 Institutionalised discrimination

In addition to discrimination’s causes, I had to acknowledged that in the UK discrimination is institutionalised. The institutionalisation of racism is widely written about and used here to illustrate the issue. While each discrimination type is different and it is not appropriate to bundle discrimination bases (e.g. race or gender), many forms of discrimination are institutionalised.

Therefore, it was important to be aware of the institutionalisation of various discrimination types, so the deep rootedness of beliefs could be understood and tackled. Before looking into institutionalised racism, racialisation stood out. Phillips (2011) wrote racialisation, rather than racism, is a more encompassing concept which “allows intersections of race with class, gender, sexuality and nation”, which was important here and is expanded on later. Phillips (2011) explains discrimination is institutionalised to such a degree that even if prejudice or bias are dealt with, inequality continues to be an issue. The definition of institutional racism is:

The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people. It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and

(20)

adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. (Macpherson, 1999, as cited in Gillborn, 2006; Parsons, 2009).

Parsons (2009) found antipathy towards new/different people can influence “public willingness to allocate resources to them”, relating to SDO. Not only is racism institutionalised, but often passive, with people accepting inequalities and not feeling the need to rectify them from their privileged position (Parsons, 2009). One reason Parsons (2009) puts forwards for passive racism is neoliberal systems, specifically in education, which encourage focus “individual gain over collective progress”. This is detrimental to progress since those in power usually do not experience discrimination, so it is not on their agenda. Gillborn (2006) showed Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black students received lower grades compared to White peers; due to “unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping” of White teachers, who systematically have lower expectations and harsher punishments for non-White students (Gillborn, 2006). Institutional racism is also demonstrated through disproportionate numbers of non-White students placed in lower ability classes and the fact two thirds of African Caribbean students are made to take a level of mathematics exam, key to progress to higher education, that does not allow them to achieve the passing grade even if they score full points (Gillborn, 2006).

A number of papers focus on institutionalisation manifesting in education and Ogbu and Simons (1998) offer an expanded perspective of relations between minority status and school performance through their cultural-ecological theory. First, in/voluntary status of minorities plays a role (Ogbu & Simons, 1998), similar to attribution theory, with controllability and stability factors, whether minorities are in/voluntary affects their experience. The main factor for distinguishing in/voluntary is the perception of the minority persons if their being in the US was forced by White people or not. This can be paralleled to attribution theory, but rather than the perpetrator seeing the object’s controllability, the minority sees their presence in the US as forced or not, influencing their attitude towards their environment (Ogbu & Simons, 1998).

The cultural-ecological theory explains minority school performance, with culture being how

“people see their world and behave in it” and ecology being the “setting, environment or world”

(Ogbu & Simons, 1998). There are two parts; the mis/treatment of minorities in education and the return on investment and how schooling is perceived and experienced by minorities due to their treatment. These two parts resonated with the glass ceiling, since it can be adapted to the mis/treatment of minorities in the workplace and their responses. Further details of these points were not discussed further, however, they were considered, especially regarding implications relating to trust, cultural responsiveness, dealing with opposition and ambivalence, providing role models, holding high standards and involving the community (Ogbu & Simons, 1998).

These illustrations and explanations of institutional racism are important as an understanding to take forward. As mentioned, all sorts of discrimination are institutionalised in the UK, including sexism, as explained by Lovenduski (2014), where in politics, parliament is a gendered institution and continues to discriminate against women. However, further details on the institutionalisation of various discrimination types were not elaborated upon, since the examples from institutionalised racism demonstrated the issue. Again, discriminations based

(21)

on different demographics or attributes cannot be lumped together, but the main takeaway was the understanding that discrimination is deeply rooted across society and perpetuated by society, so the scale of the change to be made needed to be understood.

2.3.3 The business context

For the cultural and business context, looking at the workplace situation for women, the UK is still unequal (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2004). While legislations exist for equal pay and opportunities and feminism is present, women are not represented nor treated equally to men.

Women are becoming minorities rather than tokens at work and successful women are being hired beyond tokenistic reasons, but Singh and Vinnicombe (2004) also demonstrate social theory through males preferring to recruit those similar. Additionally, chairmen from FTSE 100 companies believe gender to be an unimportant issue and use women to keep shareholders quiet;

in general, many companies do not recognise gender inequality issues (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2004). On the pay gap, companies do not concern themselves with closing nor prioritising it (Brown, Rickard and Broughton, 2017). Despite mandatory reporting on gender pay gaps, it persists. Compared to other European countries, the UK has a larger pay gap and still sees women as the primary caregiver to young children (Brown et al., 2017).

On sexuality, Aksoy et al. (2019) explain the situation for gay men has improved, but for non- heterosexuals overall it is still far behind. While lesbian women and gay men may have more managerial authority and supervisory roles than their heterosexual counterparts, they are only likely to reach low-level management. When race is considered, the glass ceiling is even more evident for non-White non-heterosexuals (Aksoy et al., 2019). In terms of race and ethnicity, the UK still has issues with inequality between Whites and non-Whites. Racism in the UK is complex, hard to pin-point and commonly experienced with sexism (Tariq & Sayed, 2017). It also seems that racism and xenophobia have grown since the Brexit vote (Rzepnikowska, 2019).

The issue of ethnic gatekeeping shows certain ethnicities are targeted more than others (Harris

& Ogbonna, 2016). While actions are being taken for gender equality, especially to reduce the pay gap, there are none being taken for ethnicity (Brown et al., 2017). Brown et al. (2017) do state there have been labour market interventions to tackle inequality and discrimination, but social and economic inequalities are so deep-rooted and widespread that a solution is complex.

The complexity of the solution relates to the acknowledgement that this research cannot solve the glass ceiling issue in the UK, but can contribute to reaching a solution.

Disability discrimination in the UK also persists. There are no initiatives for pay inequality for disabilities, which is problematic since those with disabilities in the workforce are overrepresented in low-paid jobs and underrepresented in higher paid jobs, particularly managements roles (Wilson-Kovacs, Ryan, Haslam & Rabinovich, 2008). Compared to able- bodied peers, disabled employees are given less progression opportunities. When professional positions are held by someone with a disability, they are often found to be very precarious and likened to being on a “glass cliff” (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2008).

(22)

A key concept from looking at the situation in the UK is that of intersectionality.

Intersectionality looks at how multiple parts of a person’s identity can result in inseparable layers of discrimination (Tariq and Sayed, 2017). When it comes to the glass ceiling, there are more demographics than simply women being disadvantaged. Not only that, but the different demographics that one person can belong to can compound and exacerbate the effect of the glass ceiling. With it being clear that intersectionality plays a role in discrimination and inequality, also within the UK, the concept was taken forward into this research.

2.4 The case for change

Before looking at how managers can be change agents for glass ceiling, the reason for managers, or anyone, to be concerned with change agency regarding glass ceiling practices was explained.

To start with, there is a business case for diversity and equality. Literature focuses on gender equality, with the first supporting reason being it can lead to company growth and value creation (Hunt et al., 2018; Agyemang-Mintah & Schadewitz, 2017). There are statistically significant correlations between gender equality within companies and their profitability, illustrated through companies in the 1st quartile of gender diversity ranks being 21% more “likely to experience above-average profitability” than those in the 4th quartile in 2017 (Hunt et al., 2018).

1st quartile companies are also 27% more likely “have industry-leading performance on longer- term value creation” compared to the 4^th. Additionally, companies lacking gender diversity were 29% more likely to underperform compared to diverse counterparts (Hunt et al., 2018).

Organisations with over 33% women on the executive committee achieve ten times the net profit margins of those with below 33% (McDonagh & Fitzsimons, 2020). The lack of women on executive teams accounted for companies missing out on £47 billion of pre-tax profit in the past year (McDonagh & Fitzsimons, 2020). On ethnic diversity, companies in the 1st quartile of ethnic diversity ranks were 33% more likely to achieve above-average profitability compared to the 4th quartile when executive teams were diverse and 43% when the board was diverse, (Hunt et al., 2018). Economic value and competitive advantage can be improved through racial diversity, through product market alterations, value chain productivity and a strengthened business context (Glover Blackwell, Kramer, Vaidyanathan, Iyer & Kirschenbaum, 2017).

There are non-business-related cases for change, including correlations with quality of life, sleep and economic benefits. On economic benefits, within the EU, increased participation of women in the labour market has positive economic effects, from increased number of jobs, a strong positive effect on GDP over time, tackling productivity challenges and ageing population issues to more competitivity (Maceira, 2017; European Institute for Gender Equality, 2017).

On a moral note, we should care because of the devastating effects inequality still has in parts of the world on education, infrastructure and justice (Glover Blackwell et al., 2017) and the fact that gender equality is a fundamental human right (United Nations, 2020). There are also correlations between gender equality and quality of life; perceiving society as equal regardless of the reality can increase life satisfaction (Audette et al., 2018). More concrete links are utilising the workforce potential through women’s participation can improve the economy and in turn wellbeing (Audette et al., 2018). More autonomy for women was shown to improve

(23)

family life and their participation in society helps environmentalism, healthcare spending, education, welfare (Audette et al., 2018). Then, gender equality has been linked to sleep, with more equality leading to income security and better sleep; and less stress and greater happiness (Maume, Hewitt & Ruppanner, 2018). Gender equality also challenges hegemonic masculinity, allowing men to take better care of themselves, including sleeping better (Maume et al., 2018).

The general case is clear, but we can ask why specific people should care, in terms of majority demographics, organisations and managers? First, the majority, in this example, men, can be motivated through the fact that they can fall under minority demographics, when taking intersectionality into account, therefore, the fight for equality for the ‘other’ may be their fight too (Spar, 2020). Empowering minorities does not take power away from men, but rather reconfigures the distribution, which in the case of women’s empowerment has shown to benefit men regarding time spent with their children, lowered involvement in accidents, reduced overrepresentation in crime and education dropout statistics (Holter, 2014). There are also correlations between gender equality and decreased overall crime and increased health (Holter, 2014). The power distribution reconfiguration gender equality brings relates to challenging hegemonic masculinity and freedom to redefine what manhood means (Spar, 2020).

Organisations also have a role to play. In terms of what they gain, the business case has been covered, however, they not only gain, but have a duty to make necessary adjustments for employees. Regarding job candidates with a disability, under the Equality Act 2010, an organisation is required to make reasonable, in terms of cost and practicability, adjustments so they are not at a disadvantage to non-disabled candidates (Government Equalities Office, 2010).

Organisational involvement in changes can also hold value for society. Stephan et al. (2016) explain there is possibility for organisations to drive positive social change (PSC). PSC is a proactive, multilevel change which includes bottom-up dynamics and can transform “patterns of thought, behaviour, social relationships, institutions, and social structure” to benefit those beyond the organisation, (Stephan, 2016).

One PSC project domain can include social and economic inclusion; effectively empowering marginalised groups (Stephan, 2016). This backs up the case for companies to try and eliminate the glass ceiling, not only for the reasons listed above, but also because it could have wider ramifications. This potential for greater impact relates to the fact the glass ceiling is a systemic issue, as seen through the institutionalised discrimination present in the UK, and trying to improve part of that system, one glass ceiling in one company, will not solve a global and long- standing problem. So, I acknowledge that trying to eliminate the glass ceiling within one company will not eliminate it for everyone. However, change needs to begin somewhere. We have seen the benefits change can bring, the possibility for organisations to drive it and below discuss why managers should be involved and how they can act as change agents. Therefore, while this research will not solve the problem of inequality or discrimination, I believe it is a viable starting point for making improvements to the glass ceiling at a more local level.

On that note, managers have a key role in any form of change, regardless of the kind of change (Ionescu et al., 2014). Managers have a specific relationship to employees, which often entails them being closest to employees who may need support throughout changes (Ionsecu et al.,

(24)

2014). This relationship includes acting as communicators, supporters, trainers, creating a workable environment and managing resistance (Ionsecu et al., 2014). They also give authority and credibility to the change occurring, so are vital parts of it and should see the value in the change, which in this case ranges from the company’s profitability to quality of life.

2.5 Managers as change agents

Moving to how managers can be change agents, Furnham (2002), states that for managers concerned with change, their success will depend on three things; “their level of courage… skill in dealing with underperformers… sensitivity in managing their customer-facing staff”, which is not an exhaustive list, with management level and skill discussed below, but an interesting start. The first success determinant of courage level is split into three different types of courage by Furnham (2002), possibly needed to go against the grain in terms of the type of change being made. Starting with the courage to fail, relating to risk-taking and managers trusting their own judgments. The second type of courage is interpersonal or emotional courage, needed for confrontation or delivering bad news (Furnham, 2002). The third kind is moral courage, which enables managers to stick by what they believe in and mostly importantly ensure things remain fair (Furnham, 2002). Each courage type seemed logical and interesting to carry forward.

The next key to success for managers is dealing with under performers, according to Furnham (2002). This concept was interesting, though was not directly relevant to change agents in the context of the glass ceiling and not elaborated upon. The third task relates to customer-facing staff, whose attitudes towards customers are supposedly influenced by their work environment and as a result, all those in the company support the customer-facing staff (Furnham, 2002). TI did not see this concept as relevant to the research. At the end of Furnham’s (2002) discussion, he mentions middle managers can “have a pivotal role in organisation change”. Buick, Blackman and Johnson (2017) note there is a strong theme throughout literature on the topic of middle managers being key to change. This may be due various middle management features, one being their linking strategy and implementation (Balogun, 2003) or senior management and employees (Cao, Bunger, Hoffman & Robertson, 2016). Middle managers must understand management’s instruction and be able to explain the changes to employees while figuring it out themselves (Baraldi, Kalyal, Bernston, Näswall & Sverke, 2010). The importance of middle managers’ roles in changes was considered further.

Middle managers are not a cure-all for organisational change and may hinder it (Buick et al., 2017). If attempting to facilitate change, they must consider employees are often resistant to change, and middle managers will have to deal with it (Huy, 2003); potentially through good relationships and employee trust (Furst and Cable 2008). Buick et al. (2017) summarise middle managers have a broker’s role in change and the ability for the role depends on the environment and own management. Top management should ensure the organisation facilitates middle managers’ development into change agents and make change management “a core middle manager capability” and foster it (Buick et al., 2017). These points seemed relevant.

(25)

2.6 Eliminating the glass ceiling

Having looked at managers in the change agent role, the glass ceiling could be revisited. A concept from Guldiken, Mallon, Fainshmidt, Judge and Clark (2019) is that of gatekeeping by CEOs to aid gender inclusivity. CEOs can impact decisions regarding their successors and shape top management’s and board of directors’ composition. CEOs’ beliefs on gender diversity also influence those of top management (Guldiken et al., 2019; McKinsey, 2012).

Guldiken et al. (2019) mention social categorisation, where people prefer those similar to themselves, meaning men in management are less likely to recruit women. Thus, you would need women already in higher levels of the company to help others on board; though Guldiken et al. (2019) stated gatekeeping was more likely to help, which made sense.

Lockwood (2004) provided ways a company’s human resources (HR) department could break the glass ceiling. While the measures were relevant, they are specific to HR, so not mentioned here since the focus is on managers; while it was acknowledged that HR may aid managers.

Lockwood (2004) does suggest driving change through management commitment, which ties well into the recommendations, from McKinsey (2012), recommending visible commitment from senior management. Without visibility, CEOs are less likely to succeed in getting others in on the change. They can do so by providing good reasoning for gender diversity and leading by example (McKinsey, 2012). In addition to the CEOs’ role, organisations should use facts and figures to illustrate the current situation, set targets, and use incentives (McKinsey, 2012).

The McKinsey (2012) report also explains peoples’ mindsets should be aligned, since a change in thinking is needed and that initiatives should be for firm-specific issues (McKinsey, 2012).

These were all good recommendations, mostly backed up with good reasoning.

A critique of the literature covered so far was the focus on disadvantages for women, which is partially due to the fact that literature on the glass ceiling has the perspective of it being a women’s issue. However, this paper covers disadvantages to all minorities, thus, it is important to consider how some of the elimination methods discussed above may apply to the minority glass ceiling or only apply to women. A report listing five successful initiatives to advance the careers and opportunities for minorities and women comes from the United States Glass Ceiling Commission (1993). First, CEOs must recognise the need to advance minorities. The strategies for such initiatives must be part of the organisation’s overall strategy (United States Glass Ceiling Commission, 1993). Similar to the McKinsey (2012) report, the first step is identifying problems within the company to know which changes to make (United States Glass Ceiling Commission, 1993). Managers in charge of supportive actions for minorities and women must be held accountable, rewarded and incentivised towards success; partially doable through systems to track minority progress (United States Glass Ceiling Commission, 1993).

Management’s involvement was relevant here; backing up and being backed up by other papers.

The final successful approach includes training employees with a similar aim to the McKinsey (2012) report; regarding the mindset, but specifically to combat stereotypes and preconceptions (United States Glass Ceiling Commission, 1993). For how to successfully increase minority advancement, with the general increase in diversity, an overarching approach should be

(26)

“multiprogram or systemic”, to ensure the impact is stronger and due to the fact that biases are deeply embedded in people (United States Glass Ceiling Commission, 1993). The publication highlighted companies should not rush to compare themselves to others, since their barriers to advancement for minorities are likely to differ from others’, on top of there being no quick fix and managers needing to truly believe changes need to happen (United States Glass Ceiling Commission, 1993). I agreed with strong and thorough impact due to deep roots. Having discussed the United States Glass Ceiling Commission (1993) publication, it seemed some recommendations from gender-focused literature can be true from the perspective of all minorities. Thus, a few recommendations from previous literature were considered again later.

2.7 Managers as change agents for the glass ceiling

So far, concepts were covered individually, this section brings eliminating the glass ceiling and managers as change agents together. There is some overlap between this section and the previous one, however the points are not too repetitive and were important to mention to round up the discussion. First, CEOs can play the macro change agent role for gender equality, where practices can be likened to heroic leadership (Kelan and Wratil, 2017). The first two interpretive repertoires for change agency and equality concern accountability and ownership, with CEOs holding themselves and others accountable for initiatives, an external incentive, compared to creating ownership, an in intrinsic incentive (Kelan and Wratil, 2017). Kelan and Wratil’s (2017) next points relate to influencing others, with communication conveying the business case for equality, a commitment to fairness and a personal commitment.

Further influence comes from CEOs being active change agents leading by example, relating to initiating; putting their change agency into motion (Kelan and Wratil, 2017). CEOs felt culture change had to be driven through organisational culture changes. The final point was to make equality into a long-term project, rather than a quick fix (Kelan and Wratil, 2017).

Looking at those to lead the change, de Vries’ (2015) focuses on male and female managers, however some of the points made could be translated into majority and minority categories. de Vries (2015) explains men should be involved in equality efforts but shouldn’t be the main champions since they benefit from the current system. On the other hand, relying on female managers defeats the point of equality and suggests it is not a problem men should tackle.

Women are expected to be champions without question, but criticised for being self-serving, whereas men are applauded for any effort made (de Vries, 2015). Men can influence others from their positions of power and women can act as role models; reducing the vulnerability women face championing equality and using the power men hold (de Vries, 2015). These complementary roles seemed promising and applicable to other demographics.

Moving towards individual managers, when the emphasis on individual equality champions is too much, the strategy can become precarious. In addition to relying on individuals, equality should be part of the organisation’s core, not seen as something optional, and change should come from the top down (de Vries, 2015); supported by the Department for Business Innovation

& Skills (2013) who note “strategic approaches are likely to be more successful: equality and diversity need to be embedded in the business organisational strategy, not ad-hoc additions to

Hlavní práce72092_derm02.pdf, 1.2 MB Stáhnout

University of Economics, Prague

Master’s Thesis

2020 Maya Pieke de Ruiter

University of Economics, Prague

Faculty of Business Administration

Title of the master’s thesis:

Managers as change agents for the elimination of the glass ceiling in British

business.

Author: Maya Pieke de Ruiter

Supervisor: Ing. Tomáš Ryška Ph.D.

Declaration of Authenticity

I hereby declare that the master’s thesis presented herein is my own work, or fully and specifically acknowledged wherever adapted from other sources. This

work has not been published or submitted elsewhere for the requirement of a degree program.

Grayshott, 26.08.2020 Signature:

Title of the Master’s Thesis:

Managers as change agents for the elimination of the glass ceiling in British business.

Abstract:

Key words:

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

List of figures

List of tables

1. Introduction

2. Literature review