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 are still struggling to put women in C-suite jobs: a corporation's most important senior executive positions, typically preceded by the letter "c" as in "chief." 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 improving 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 professions. 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 double bind paradox:

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." Jone Lewis, women's history expert for About Education, describes it 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." Senior Fellow at The Center for American Progress, and writer for The New York Times Magazine, Judith Warner details two particularly striking statistics stating 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, there are not any women who 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 almost all women confront the glass ceiling.

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 one of the main reasons why women are looked upon differently than men is because they 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 can lead to the assumption of inferiority. Women, specifically, tend to tilt their head to the side as "a signal that [they] are listening and involved," but men and others often subconsciously process this as a submissive gesture. Goman suggests to women that they should only use the head tilt when they are trying to purposefully demonstrate concern, and otherwise try to stick with a rather straight, "neutral and authoritative position" ("Double Bind Paradox"). Also in terms of how people utilize 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"). She warns women to make sure they are conveying what they actually mean, and not falling victim to the discrepancies between male and female gestures. 

Next, Goman discusses the use of hand motions and how it differs between men and women. Her point is that 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 that women minimize their movements so that they 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 that "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 ... place your hands on the table and uncross your legs, [planting] 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 previously defined. 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. 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 that still is not the case. 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, the 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, nor 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 only hold themselves back in the workplace. Sandberg is one of the leading female executives of our time, and she tells the audience about her personal experiences with the issues of gender inequality.  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, but she also gives advice to correct those actions. She asks the key 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 comprised of 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). 

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, she notes that the trend in the past was to put more pressure on men to succeed in their work-life. Her call to the leaders of society is to make it easier for men to stay home so women can be equal in the workforce (Sandberg).

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 professional 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 too many women just give up on their careers to be moms because they think that they have to, which is not necessarily the truth. 

Michelle Haynes of the University of Massachusetts and Madeline Heilman of New York University provide some tangible evidence as to how women perceive themselves in a negative light. Doing so only hurts the women professionally, studies show. For example, Haynes and Heilman conducted a study that "investigated the tendency of women to undervalue their contributions" in a collaborative environment. When given a group project 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 (Haynes). Haynes spoke about the study in an 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 relayed 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" (Clark). 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, writer for the Huffington Post 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 women actually create it in their 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 supposition into light by describing her story in which she did not want to advance badly enough to 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 basically 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 fix the underrepresentation of women in top-level jobs? Good news everyone, 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 have actively worked against stereotyping and have 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 allow for the demands of being a mom, wife, and primary caretaker. Another big company, an 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%. An additional company that is in the process of making some serious 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 effective changes, Evans also gives some general tips and solutions for companies looking to fix 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).

So, where are we now? In the current era of 2016, women still continue to be perceived and treated unequally in the higher professional positions. Presently at stake is the lack 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 advancement, no matter the gender of the person? Even though it may not be necessarily intended, the professional world continues to discriminate on the basis of gender.  Corporations and organizations absolutely must take strides to create programs that develop, retain, and advance female employees.

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. We need to make sure the future holds a spot for women in the C-suite.

