Equality is a value we consistently strive for in the United States of America; it is one of our founding principles and primary goals for the country. However, it is now 2016 and we still are not even close to having gender quality in the work place. For experts who study the issue, it seems to all boil down to one question: what factors play a role in why there are significantly less women in top-tier jobs in the professional world? While there are many factors that contribute as to why there are fewer women occupying the highest seats, most fall under the two categories of how other people perceive women, and how women perceive themselves.

Before jumping into such a broad and hot-button topic, it is important to understand the background of the argument and how it is situated in context. Experts have been discussing women's equality in the workforce for years, but yet as a society we have not made any significant gains in propelling women to the highest seats of their profession. Much discussion exists regarding why women are seemingly scarce in these c-suite jobs, but there is not much dissent over the opinion that women should be equally represented. A large part of the context in this conversation of gender equality in the workplace is riddled with specific terms. To understand the topic it is crucial to know what these words mean and how they are applied to the discourse. One of these commonly used terms is called a "double bind." According to the article "Body Language and the Double Bind Paradox," Carol Goman explains her interpretation of the paradox of the double bind:

As males rise in rank and status at work, they retain (and often increase) their perceived likeability  --  so they can be both powerful and likeable. Women, on the other hand, are more likeable when their behavior conforms to the stereotypes we hold of them as nurturing, empathetic, and collaborative [ ... ] When women project status and authority in order to advance in the business world, the more powerful they appear and the less" likeable they become. ("Double Bind Paradox")

Writer for the Washington Post, Catherine Rampell, also describes a scenario of the Double Bind: "If you don't ask for a raise for fear of being disliked, your priorities are misplaced. If you promote yourself and demand that your work be recognized, you're punished for being unlikable and denied opportunities to advance" (Rampell).

Another frequently used reference is the "glass ceiling." It is often describes as "[a]n invisible upper limit in corporations and other organizations, above which it is difficult or impossible for women to rise in the ranks." In reality, it is a metaphor for the "informal barriers that keep women from getting promotions, pay raises and further opportunities." Maintaining a glass ceiling is not something necessarily condoned or explicit, but yet it happens every day (Lewis).

In order to fully grasp how truly underrepresented women are in upper level jobs, many statisticians have calculated just how wide the gender gap really is. The numbers and statistics cannot be ignored. As some sort of context, note that women make up about 51% of the U.S. population. According to the Center for American Progress, women "hold almost 52% of all professional-level jobs" but they are "substantially behind men when it comes to their representation in leadership positions." Two particular striking statistics from this source state that women "are only 14.5% of executive officers" and a mere "4.6% are Fortune 500 CEOs." Sadly, in the financial services industry and health care/social assistance fields, no women hold a CEO position (Warner).

Now that the context, situation, key terms, and statistics are explained, the root of the argument lies ahead: the factors that contribute to female underrepresentation in the professional world. Firstly, one of the biggest reasons why women are held back from obtaining the highest positions is because of how others perceive them. The lens society views women through is undoubtedly different than how they view men, and the result is that fewer women hold high-seated positions.

The single-most important way we, as humans, are perceived by others is simple: it is through our use of body language. Body language is something we rarely think about because we subconsciously do it. I argue that it is a main reason why women are looked upon differently than men because we exhibit completely different posture, physical actions, and non-verbal cues. Leadership Communication Coach and Author Carol Goman claims that "[i]n the workplace, your nonverbal signals are continuously and unconsciously being assessed for warmth (empathy, likeability, caring) and authority (power, credibility, status). Knowing how specific body language cues are most likely to be perceived by others can be the first step in successfully transitioning from one impression to another" ("Double Bind Paradox").

 Goman details how men and women hold their heads differently, which may lead to them being seen as inferior. Women, specifically, tend to tilt their head to the side as "a signal that [they] are listening and involved," but men and others can subconsciously process this as submissive. She suggests that women only use the head tilt when trying to purposefully demonstrate concern, and otherwise try to stick with a more straight, "neutral (and authoritative position" ("Double Bind Paradox"). Also in terms of how people use their heads Goman notices that women nod to often show empathy or encouragement, while men typically only nod when they agree with something ("Ten Mistakes").

Next, Goman discusses the use of hand gestures and how it differs between males and females. Her point is the women typically keep their palms face-up in a gesture that exudes "warmth and candor". A man, however, is more associated with keeping his palms down or using the gesture called "steepling." You have probably seen this before when someone presenting touches their fingertips together and leaves space between their palms, mimicking a church steeple. Goman argues that the two male gestures assert assuredness and confidence ("Double Bind Paradox"). Something women might want to avoid, according to Goman is being overly expressive with their hand gestures. She writes that sometimes "women ... express the entire spectrum of emotions" and "often overwhelm their audience ... especially if the audience is comprised primarily of males" ("Ten Mistakes"). To help, she recommends minimizing your movements so you convey calmness and look contained and powerful.

Most often, women sit cross-legged with their elbows at their waist and hands clasped together on their lap. Goman points out that this approach to sitting is typically evaluated as powerless by other people. She offers than "status and authority are nonverbally demonstrated through claiming height and space," suggesting that "[w]hen you want to project confidence, remember to sit tall, pull your shoulders back, bring your elbows away from your body, place your hands on the table and uncross your legs, placing your feet solidly on the floor. Wrapping up her piece, Goman writes that "[w]omen who want to advance in their organizations can beat the Double-Bind Paradox and gain a nonverbal advantage by knowing when and how to display body language signals of competence and power, and when to switch signals in order to be perceived as warm, empathetic and inclusive" ("Double Bind Paradox").

Additionally under the umbrella of how others perceive women is the concept of the double bind that was defined previously. The double bind serves as one possible reason there are less women in business and professional roles: they are presumably liked less as a person by other people. Morally, it is wrong of society to think less of a woman for achieving more. We should be proud, happy, and supportive of a hard work ethic, regardless of gender, and yet it continues. As mentioned earlier, the double-bind paradox basically means that as men achieve more they get increasingly likeable, while with women it is just the opposite. The more that women rise up the ranks and gain power professionally, they less likeable they become. This argument is bolstered with the Heidi/Howard Case Study done by Professor Frank Flynn of Stanford Graduate Business School. The European Business Review gives an overview of what happened: In the study Flynn gave half of his students a story about a woman name Heidi Roizen, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He gave the other half of his class the exact same story, except for one thing: he changed the name from "Heidi" to "Howard." After reading, the students were asked to "go online and rate their impressions of Roizen on several dimensions" and Flynn found that the students tended to be far harsher on Heidi than Howard." To be more specific, the students found Heidi to be too aggressive, assertive, and they would not want to hire her or work with her. Flynn recalls that the same was not true for the students who read about and rated Howard; the students found his ambition attractive (Barsoux).

The other topic that heads why women are underrepresented in high-seat jobs is due to how women perceive themselves. Sheryl Sandberg, the current COO of Facebook, delivered a TED Talk about how women sometimes hurt themselves in the workplace. As one of the leading female executives of our time, she offers credible and knowledgeable experiences with the issue of gender equality.  She talked about the choice women have to make between professional success and personal fulfillment. The main chunk of Sandberg's lecture is spent describing experiences where she has observed women holding themselves back, and also continues on to her advice to correct those actions. She asks the big question: "What can we do to keep women from dropping out of the running for big [positions]?" Her first observation is that some women "don't sit at the table," as she likes to coin it. She tells an anecdote about two women who came into her office for a meeting with both genders, but for some reason they did not join the men at the main table ... they sat to the side of the room. Sandberg quips that "no one gets a promotion doing that" and that women "systematically underestimate their own abilities." She talks about how men almost always attribute their success to themselves, while women attribute it to other factors. 

Sandberg's next point is "make your partner a real partner." She calls to attention the fact that women do roughly two-times the amount of housework, and three-times the amount of parenting that men do. Also, in history and still currently the trend is to put more pressure on men to succeed, she notes. Her call to society leaders is to make it easier for men to stay home so women can be equal in the workforce.

Lastly, Sandberg's advice is "don't leave before you leave." She talks about how she has seen women in her lifetime and work experience who start thinking about having a child, and they instantly slow down and do not look for their next opportunity. Sandberg dubs this chain of actions "leaning back." She urges women to keep their foot on the gas pedal until the very day they leave to have their children. She has seen to many women just give up on their careers to be moms because they think they have too, which is not necessarily the truth. 

Perhaps as some more tangible evidence of how women perceive themselves in a light that hurts them professionally, a study was done by Michelle Haynes (UMass) and Madeline Heilman (NYU) that "investigated the tendency of women to undervalue their contributions" in a collaborative environment. When given a group project of sorts with men, women consistently gave most of the credit to the men and very little praise to themselves. However, if they were working with other women, they took their fair share of credit and divided the praise among the group ("Had to Be You"). Haynes spoke to the study in article for Wired UK, saying "[t]his is one of many factors, among a great many, that may hinder women's earning power and career progress." She added that it is "likely to impact how women view their efficacy at work and the degree to which they are likely to vie for competitive projects and promotions" The authors wrote of the significance of the study, saying that these stereotypical expectations influence "not only ... the evaluations of others, but they also appear to influence women's evaluations of themselves" (Wired). Unless the women were given positive feedback personally and individually, they assumed that the feedback was going towards the males in the group. 

Shanna Van Ness, author of this article and member of the National Association for Professional Women, poses a complication to the argument that women's advancement is hindered by others or by themselves. Van Ness argues that women sometimes simply do not want to advance. She discusses whether there truly is "a glass ceiling" or if we (women) create it in our own minds. My argument almost makes the assumption(s) that women want to advance as much as they can, and that they will do whatever it takes to get to those C-suite jobs. However, Van Ness brings that assumption into light by describing her story in which she wanted to advance, but did not/could not put in the networking and skill-building it required. She addresses that maybe women do simply choose family over work, and their underrepresentation is not completely attributed to glass ceilings, discrimination, etc. Van Ness is a primary source and example saying: Look, the reason I did not acquire the position was not because of everyone else ... it was a result of my own actions (or lack thereof). She basically dictates that it was her fault she did not advance, because she honestly made a conscious decision not to do so. However, Van Ness makes the assumption that because she created her own glass ceiling in her particular scenario, that other women must do the same. This is not necessarily true. However, she does acknowledge that it may not be women themselves by saying that "[w]omen still encounter gender bias, barriers to leadership ascension, and segregation in the workplace" (Van Ness).

Is there hope for the future? Are there any solutions to the underrepresentation of women in top-level jobs? Good news, there is a light at the end of the tunnel! In the National Civic Review, writer Donna Evans provides the public with some examples of companies who are doing things right. These companies actively worked against stereotyping and made gains in terms of promoting female success in their organizations. KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms, made it their goal as an organization to double the percentage of female partners. How? They offer flexible work schedules to their female employees that account for the demands of being a mom, wife, and primary caretaker. Another big company, and international consulting firm called Grant Thornton, established a program to specifically manage the retention and promotion of more women. This program is described as "increasing the number of women in partnership and leadership roles, and recognizing women's success and enhancing their professional development." Since this program (called "Women in Grant Thornton") began, the amount of female partners grew astoundingly from 31% to 88%. Lastly, an additional scenario of a company making changes for the sake of women is Deloitte. Deloitte now specifically monitors its "pay scale and promotional decisions" to eliminate any bias that has occurred in the past. 

In concurrence with the prime examples of leadership in change, Evans also gives some general tips and solution for companies looking to help the issue. She notes that "specific intervention within companies" will lead to change and it has to be "intervention that is led from the top." She suggests something as simple as educating employees on "how stereotypes operate" and making sure that leaders "[hold] individuals accountable" to decrease the gender gap. Another simple change that companies can make is simply to shift the culture to one that recognizes female leadership skills, promoting women's advancement through the corporation. Evans adds to the solutions, saying that companies could "establish managerial training and diversity education" to inform "managers and employees" about the "origin and consequences of bias, inconsistencies between values and actual behavior, and causes and effects of gender inequality in the workplace" (Evans).

In the current era of 2016, women continue to be perceived and treated unequally in the workplace like they were in the past. At stake is the major issue of gender equality, and unless we, as a society, take active steps in bridging the gap, it may not ever occur on its own. It is wrong of society to think less of a woman for achieving more. Why are we not proud of professional ambition and hope for advancement regardless of gender? Even though it may not be necessarily intended, the professional world continues to discriminate on the basis of gender. 

Also, it is important that we get to the root causes of why women are held back from leadership positions so that we can start to correct the problem. In general, the question of equality is a question of right versus wrong. Is it right for society to judge women for succeeding at work? Is it right to judge women based on their body language when we do not do the same for men? In 2014 females made seventy-nine cents to every man's dollar, and no matter where one's stance is on the issue it is incredibly clear that equality is not yet achieved. We need to ensure that Howard and Heidi have a fair shot at climbing the corporate ladder to success if they so choose. 

