A large number of women are present in middle management ranks, but relatively few make it to the top. The glass ceiling effect, a term coined by Alice Sargent in 1987 (Safire, 1993), comprises of two challenging issues; equity and loss of human potential. Many proponents of affirmative action purported it is unfair for the leadership ranks to exclude minorities like women (Agacinski, 2001; Fullinwinder & Lichtenberg, 2004). Others contended the absence of women in the leadership ranks reflect a deep-seated gender bias in corporate leadership (Jackson, 2001; Oakley, 2000). Second, a major loss of human potential and human capital exists (Oakley, 2000; Orser, 2000). Women bring a unique, valuable, and even critical perspective to the leadership task in a global economy (Adler, 1993; Helgesen, 1990; Rosener, 1990, 1995).

       Although women have advanced to leadership positions in some degree, the glass ceiling is firmly in place (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2002). People continue to embrace occupational gender stereotypes as masculine, feminine, and gender neutral when evaluating work in organizations, a practice known as job gendering (White, Kruczek, Brown, & White, 1989). Gatton, DuBois, and Faley (1999) cited numerous studies confirming occurrences of gendering of occupations. Davies-Netzley (1998) indicated that although the number of women is increasing in the profession, the majority of the employees at the bottom of organizational hierarchies are still women.

The top 10 occupations traditionally have the lowest barriers for women, as opposed to professional positions in which white men predominate. Members of the old boys’ network often attempt to maintain the status quo, whereas women often strive for change (Oakley, 2000). From a systems perspective, members of the often informal network pass power and other advantages on to other men within the network, thereby reinforcing the cycle of preferential treatment (Lipman-Blumen, 1976).

Regardless of the barriers, the underrepresentation of women in key leadership positions results in a lack of women sharing their talents as leaders. Although many writings exist about the glass ceiling and considerable interest exists in the potential for gender bias in leadership selection (Hebl, 1995; Kolb, 1997, 1999; Lewis & Fagenson-Eland, 2001; Moss & Kent, 1996), little or no research exists regarding the role of human resource processes or systems in creating or exacerbating the problem. Specifically, no studies have included a focus on the role of recruiters in the glass ceiling phenomenon.

Varieties of systems serve to support the task of hiring a senior executive, particularly human resource systems. Human resource systems comprise of many elements, such as: (a) compensation, (b) recruiting, (c) retention, (d) training and development, (e) employee relations, (f) unions, and (g) benefits. Of particular interest to the current study are the recruitment system and its relevance to the underrepresentation of women in key leadership positions.

A recruiter’s perception of a candidate seems to have a direct effect on the candidate under consideration and thereby for consideration by hiring executives. As gatekeepers, recruiters can have immediate influence on candidate pools. It seems logical to expect recruiter perceptual biases, if they exist, can play a role in the glass ceiling problem.

Conceptual/Theoretical Framework
       Nearly all leadership theories are based on male subjects because males have historically dominated the upper echelon of management and leadership in Fortune 500 organizations (J. W. Scott, 1999). Corporate leadership continues to have an association with men, both in the research literature and in the workday world (Sczesny, 2003). One area of leadership continually of interest to researchers is the trait approach. The trait approach is important because it includes the use of stereotypes regarding which traits are masculine or feminine, and an identification of the traits individuals perceive as good for effective leadership (Cann & Siegfried, 1987; Oakley, 2000; Stelter, 2002; Yukl, 2002). The conceptual framework for the research included a focus on systems theory and thinking, social categorization, and the trait approach to leadership.

Nature of the Study
The two-phase study included an evaluation of the relationships between the recruiters’ gender and demographics and their perceptions of male and female leadership candidates. Recruiting population characteristics include recruiters working in diverse industries across the United States, working at various levels in organizations, and possessing diverse human resource (HR) experience. The study consisted of a sequential, mixed-method examination of the perceptions of recruiters with regard to leadership candidates.

The results from the first phase (P1) illustrated two themes that served to support Lyness and Thompson’s (2000) argument that the barriers to women’s advancement were male stereotyping and preconceptions of women. Tradition, an indoctrination of positive or negative values, perpetuates through generations. Negative stereotyping translates to bias through the categorization of one group over another, thereby resulting in a power differential. In organizations, this is often perceived as discrimination.

The two themes that emerged, tradition in organizational culture and traditional perceptions of women and families, appear relevant given Landon’s (1996) portrait of a CEO. Landon depicted CEOs as white males, around 60 years old. She also noted how CEOs bring their own prejudices and that many of their wives do not work, but stay at home to raise families. Landon contended this was a reason for the absence of women in leadership; that is, men had difficulty viewing other women in senior positions when the men had little to reference. This observation seems consistent with the finding of this study in which 75% of recruiters noted at least once hiring authorities specifically stating they wanted to hire a male candidate for the leadership position. In the first phase, the qualitative interviews indicated a discrepancy in perceptions of male and female leadership candidates. Interview evidence indicated strong baseline differences between genders in recruiter perceptions about the role of gender in the hiring process.

To summarize the P1 results, recruiters influence which candidates appear in leadership candidate pools and show some bias in their selection of candidates. Recruiters in the P1 sample did not make an overt effort to include women in their networks and admitted they do not actively search for diverse candidates. Recruiters seemed to absolve themselves of accountability for gender equity in the leadership candidate pools by placing this accountability on hiring authorities or organizational processes outside of their control. Participants mainly attributed the lack of women in leadership roles to hiring managers’ selection decisions. Since the majority of the P1 participants were agency recruiters, the views presented could be influenced greatly by the service relationship between the client and agency (i.e., the classic agency problem). The agency relationship may serve to offer organizations a loophole to circumvent the organizational systems in place to prevent discrimination. The results of P1 indicate executive recruiters believe they have substantial influence over the formation of candidate pools however they make little to no effort to address gender equity in the pools or feel organizational/agency barriers prevent them from doing so.

The second phase (P2) of the study included the development of a quantitative survey and pilot testing of the survey. Individuals who indicated recruiting was their primary or secondary responsibility then randomly received the main survey. Participation worldwide was 1,217 respondents, with 506 acceptable respondents from the United States. Respondents were overwhelmingly white women.

       Whereas the majority of the relationships tested in P2 were statistically significant at p<.05, application of Cohen’s criteria of strength indicated most were of low strength. The only relationship that had significance and moderate strength pertained to the statement “I believe that women are clearer in their communications than men,” to which women were more likely to agree than men. This is clearly in line with Briton and Hall (1995), who noted men and women perceive women to be better communicators.

       The finding also may relate to studies by Mulac et al. (2000) and Mumby (1996), who observed the perpetuation of masculinity through hierarchy in large organizations, such as Fortune 500 organizations. Masculinity may perpetuate through organizational communications, titles, and the work itself. D. M. Smith and Bell (2000) noted the differences between men and women in communicating. If women are better communicators and their communication style is not in line with the masculine nature of a large hierarchical organization, this could represent one reason why they do not show up in candidate pools and leadership positions.

Two other primary findings emerged: (a) men are less likely to believe an old boys’ network exists, and (b) women are more likely to believe gender discrimination exists at the executive level. Both results may reflect organizational culture in terms of organizational systems, such as performance management and succession planning, managed by human resources departments, and normally mandated by executive management.

Recommendations for Leadership
Current interviewing methods for leadership candidates are insufficient in terms of equality. Behavioral-based interviewing and competency behavioral-based interviewing fail women because, as noted by Catalyst (2004), women do not receive the same operational opportunities as men. Operational experience is often a requirement for senior leadership positions. Women will not have the same experience from which to draw in addressing these types of questions. A comparison of candidate answers will indicate a lack of experience for women. Cognitive interviewing for recruiters may provide an alternative that does not exclude the female experience.

Recruiter training should include a focus not only on diversity or employment laws, but also on increasing awareness of the unconscious processes in stereotype activation. Regular audits of recruiters’ sourcing activities may serve to enforce recruiter accountability. Any variable compensation model can contain incentives for creative thinking in sourcing activities. Rigorous evaluation of candidate pool distribution may result in a greater depth of experience presented to hiring authorities.

Recruiter training in various interviewing techniques, beyond behavioral-based interviewing or competency behavioral-based interviewing may be helpful. The use of cognitive interviewing for recruiters puts experience into context relative to the anticipated leadership challenges thus resulting in an opportunity for the recruiter to highlight the candidate’s experience in a relative form comparable to other candidates. Semistructured and consistent questions, along with blind initial interviews, contribute to minimizing bias.

Incorporating additional training in how to coach hiring authorities in examining their own beliefs and awareness is an avenue for recruitment training initiatives. The additional training will be difficult for agency recruiters whose income is dependent on satisfying their client’s needs. Agency recruiters will continue to feel pressure to conform to the demands of clients, regardless of the training designed to increase diversity. This indicates the ultimate solution to bias in the recruiting function lies more with hiring authorities than with agency recruiters.

       Suggestions for future research and organizational leadership are grounded in real-world activities that might stimulate change in organizational culture. The recommendations suggested included a stronger focus on activities many organizations already undertake, such as training and development. Changes to training and development initiatives and top-down diversity initiatives could facilitate greater acceptance of female leadership by hiring authorities and executive leadership. Organizational culture may be the key to driving change for the acceptance of females in leadership candidate pools.

REFERENCES
Adler, N. J. (1993). Competitive frontiers: Women managers in the triad. International Studies of Management and Organization, 23(2), 3-23.

Agacinski, S. (2001). The parity of the sexes. New York: Columbia University Press.
Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A., (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Role: A Journal of Research, 32, 79-90.

Cann, A., & Siegfried, W. D. (1987) Sex stereotypes and the leadership role. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 17, 401-408.

Catalyst, (2004). Women and men in U.S. corporate leadership: Same workplace, different realities? Retrieved July 21, 2005, from http://www.catalystwomen.org/research
Davies-Netzley, S. (1998). Women above the glass ceiling. Gender and Society, 12, 339-355.

Fullinwinder, R., & Lichtenberg, J. (2004). Leveling the playing field. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

Gatton, D. S., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Faley, R. H. (1999). The effects of organizational context on occupational gender stereotyping. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 40, 567.

Hebl, M. R. (1995). Gender bias in leader selection. Teaching of Psychology. 22(3), 186-188.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage. New York: Doubleday.

Jackson, J. C. (2001). Women middle managers’ perception of the glass ceiling. Women in Management Review, 16, 30-41.

Kolb, J. A. (1997). Are we still stereotyping leadership? A look at gender and other predictors of leader emergence. Small Group Research, 28, 370-395.

Kolb, J. A. (1999). The effect of gender role, attitude toward leadership, and self-confidence on leader emergence: Implications for leadership development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, 305-322.

Landon, S. (1996). Women in the workplace: Making progress in corporate America. USA Today, 125(2618), 66.

Lewis, A. E., & Fagenson-Eland, E. A. (2001). The influence of gender and organization level on perceptions of leadership behaviors: A self and supervisor comparison. Women and Language, 24, 55.

Lipman-Blumen, J., (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanation of the sex segregation of social institutions. In M. Blaxall and B. Regan (Eds.), Women and the workplace: The implications of occupational segregation, (pp. 15-31). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86 -101.
Meyerson, D. & Fletcher, J. K. (2002, April 1). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common
/item_detail.jhtml;jsessionid=C5DJ42IC5VS42AKRGWDSELQBKE0YIISW?id=9624

Moss, S. E., & Kent, R. L. (1996). Gender and gender-role categorization of emergent leaders: A critical review and comprehensive analysis. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 35, 79-98.

Mulac, A., Seibold, D. R., & Farris, J. L. (2000). Female and male managers’ and professionals’ criticism giving: Differences in language use and effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 389-419.

Mumby, D. K. (1996). Feminism, postmodernism, and organizational communication studies: A critical reading. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 259-297.

Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 321-334.

Orser, B. (2000). Creating high-performance organizations: Leveraging women’s leadership. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.

Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 119-125.

Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Safire, W. (1993). Safire’s new political dictionary. New York: Random House.

Scott, J. W. (1999). Gender and the politics of history. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager think-male stereotype. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 49, 353-363.

Smith, D. M., & Bell, A. H. (2000). Gender and communication. In D. M. Smith (Ed.), Women at work: Leadership for the next century (pp. 24-36). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stelter, N. Z. (2002). Gender differences in leadership: Current social issues and future organizational implications. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 8(4), 88-101.

White, M. J., Kruczek, T. A., Brown, M. T., & White, G. B., (1989). Occupational sex stereotyping among college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 289-298.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.