Christine, Sarah, Kyle - Challenges Facing Women in Leadership in India and the United States

Challenges Facing Women in Leadership in India

Women in India face a variety of obstacles that impede their path to success in management positions. While women in India are revered in society for their contributions within the family and community, the same does not hold true as consistently for women’s contributions in the business realm (Budhwar, Siani, & Bhatnagar, 2005). Conflicts between family and professional obligations, patriarchal domination of management positions, gender stereotypes, and lack of resources impede women’s quest for positions of power in India.

Perhaps the most important barrier to women seeking and receiving managerial roles in India is that family is the unwavering first priority of women. Women are often deterred from pursuing a career because they do not want to take time away from caring for their families to pursue a job outside of the home, especially higher level positions that may be more demanding of their time. On the other hand, many businesses are often reluctant to hire female managers because they fear that maternity leave and the obligations of motherhood will significantly impede a woman’s ability to perform in the workplace (Budhwar et al, 2005).

The patriarchal monopoly of management positions in India is influenced greatly by the extremely high percentage (93%) of businesses that are family-run (Mitra, 2002). Within the Indian family, women are expected to be subordinate to the males in the family and therefore do not hold much obvious power in business matters of the family (Budhwar et al, 2005). The same holds true in family businesses, where most women are given low-level positions with no opportunity of advancing into more prestigious roles. There seems to be a glass ceiling that exists for women in family businesses in India because views of patriarchal entitlement to these positions of power are so ingrained in many members of this society. Even when a woman becomes widowed, she is not the rightful heir of her husband’s business and/or property. These assets are either claimed by a son or another male member of the family due to patrilineal tradition (Mitra, 2002).

Considering a woman does break through the many barriers to assuming a managerial position, she is still faced with the heavily ingrained patterns of male dominance in the workplace in her daily business interactions. One study has shown that insubordination of male employees to female managers is one of the most difficult challenges that women face in these positions (Budhwar et al, 2005). Due to the belief that the domain of women is in inferior roles, female managers are often given less challenging assignments and are left out of many major business dealings, which greatly undermines their development and confidence as managers. Along the same lines, the same study found that many males seem to feel the need to protect their egos when they feel threatened by women’s success in the business world. They may go about this process by excluding women from informal networks and by using stereotypes to try to devalue women’s achievements in the workplace.

Women in the workforce in India face many gender stereotypes that hinder their attainment of influential positions within companies and government. The results from a 2002 study indicate the gender stereotypes in Indian businesses are such that:

“Male managers are stereotyped as working in the fields of production, sales and marketing, considered good bosses, leaders and decision makers, and carry out ‘hard’ field work and challenging assignments. On the other hand, female managers are stereotyped as working predominantly in HR, PR and administration at subordinate or junior levels, and in ‘soft’ fields like fashion, clothing and beauty products related organizations” (Khandelwal, n.d., 230)

Female respondents of this study also reported feeling that they did not receive as much credit as their male counterparts for the same amount of work and that they were not given the opportunity to take on more challenging job tasks. In addition, Gupta, Koshal, & Koshal (1998) found that male managers in particular held the opinion that women did not have the ability to gain the skills required of a management position, did not act with the appropriate level of objectivity, could not restrain their emotions from affecting their work, and do not have high enough levels of self-confidence to be effective in a managerial position.

Lastly, women in India face the challenge of having a lack of resources in many different contexts related to achieving success in the business world. First, although many women do receive formal education, it is often found that these women have no particular area of specialization or skill, nor the real-world experience to make them more marketable in the business world (Mitra, 2002). In addition, many of the other barriers that have already been discussed lead to a lack of resources in the areas of finance and networking. For instance, the patriarchal society of India and women’s inferior roles do not give them a great deal of financial power to support many investments in education, job training, or entrepreneurship. Also, the fact that many informal networks in the business world are still only open to men leaves women who are trying to establish contacts within the business world at a disadvantage.

Comparison of Challenges Facing Women in India and the United States

The challenges that are faced by women in business in India and the United States are shared in some respects and different in several others, partly due to their diverse cultural contexts. All of the barriers to assuming managerial roles that were discussed in relation to Indian society certainly do exhibit themselves in American society as well, but they may be to a lesser degree, or actualized in a more covert manner in some cases.

One of the most significant problems that women in the United States face in relation to their role in the workforce is trying to achieve that balance between family and work. Although India is very high in family collectivism and the United States ranks lower on this cultural dimension, this aspect of women’s professional struggles is fairly universal because, although society has changed to accommodate longer maternity leaves and fathers tend to contribute more time to household duties than in the past, much of the household, and, particularly, childbearing responsibilities are still women’s concerns (Budhwar et al, 2005). Both India and the United States have passed legislation in the past few decades that has attempted to accommodate the dual role of women in the workplace as professionals and mothers, although this issue is far from resolved due to somewhat weak adherence to these laws (Budhwar et al, 2005; Harris & Moran, 2004).

As far as patriarchal domination of managerial positions is concerned, more women in the United States do move beyond this barrier and into positions of power more often than in India (Harris & Moran, 2004). Although the workforce in India is constantly increasing in its percentage of female workers, it is important to note that the vast majority of these positions are lower-level, service oriented jobs such as human resources, information technology, etc. Compared to worldwide values, women in India hold an estimated one third to one half less administrative positions than global averages (only 3 to 5.8% as compared to 10%) (Budhwar et al, 2005). Perhaps these differences are influenced by India’s moderate to high power distance culture (Gupta, 2004), which may combine with its patriarchal views to produce a culture in which it is more difficult to assume those coveted high level positions in management.

Gender stereotypes certainly do pervade corporate culture in both the United States and India. While a higher percentage of men may be more likely to be accepting of women in managerial positions in the United States due to the nation’s slightly less patriarchal culture and lower power distance nature, there are still many men that endorse stereotypes of women that are damaging to their advancement in management. For example, Harris and Moran (2004) contest that it is a global stereotype that:

“Women are seen as more “human” and therefore better suited for a specific type of job, such as human resources, communications, public relations, and marketing. Management, especially in the areas of finance and information services, continues to often be seen as a job better suited for men (238).”

Lastly, women in both India and the United States face problems due to lack of resources, although more women typically have the opportunity to pursue a higher level education in the United States, which helps to breakdown the barriers of education and, possibly, financial troubles. While women in the United States do enjoy these benefits, many women still find that it is very difficult to advance due to their exclusion from the informal, “old boys’ network” that still exists in many corporations, through which many advancement opportunities often arise (Harris and Moran, 2004). Both the United States and India are considered to be in the middle range for gender egalitarianism (Gupta, 2004), which may explain why women are still barred from enjoying all of the resources so readily available to men, especially those that cannot be controlled for with equal rights legislation, such as informal networks.

Part B: Lauren, Casey, Shaida

II. Women and Leadership

When examining employment in India it is interesting to note the high barriers of entry concerning female workers. Specifically, women encounter obstacles that can be best categorized under two segments: internal and societal obligations. This section will illustrate the difficulties women in both India and the U.S face in holding high-powered leadership positions through an assessment of cultural dimensions and societal ideologies.The first segment concerns issues such as symbolism of employment and the lack of field experience. Under such categorization, a woman internalizes the meaning of her employment in terms of its validity. Meaning, Indian women oppose working under the circumstance that their employment is for diversification purposes. One can allude to the study by Kiran Mirchandani that examines the employment implications of multi-national call centers in India. Specifically, Mirchandani collected qualitative data in the form of interviews from both male and female workers to understand their perspective regarding gender equality within the workplace. It is important to note that both men and women reported that they did not believe that gender segregation existed in their working environment, but rather characterized their work experience as desegregated where both men and women were treated equally. In the second component of this categorization, a woman’s lack of employment experience hinders the likelihood of employer’s consideration for upper-level leadership positions. As a result of this factor, women are placed in low-end job sectors that offer little advancement opportunity and generally pay less than upper-level positions; thus, supporting gender inequities. Furthermore, one can allude to the growth pattern of women-run enterprise in India to understand the causal effects such inequities have on a woman’s career track. Reshimi Mitra discusses the implications of Indian women being confined to their domestic obligations by explaining that “the relative exclusion of women from formal education and their “mommy track” orientation make it difficult from them to secure jobs except at lower wage levels” (R. Mitra, 2002, p.217). As a result of these consequences, women often engage in alternative forms of employment such as entrepreneurship in order to gain independence and self-fulfillment. However, women owned businesses often show meager growth patterns due to the fact that family demands dictate both their type and style of business; therefore, a woman’s identity is lost as the result of patriarchal philosophy (Mitra, 2002, p.218). The second perspective in understanding Indian women’s poor leadership status is best illustrated through societal obligations founded by cultural ideologies. As a result of the gender ideologies that exist in India, women are raised from a traditional perspective that outlines a woman’s mission in life, which is to get married and to support her family. It is clear that employment is not included in such instruction; therefore, suggesting that a woman’s role is not in the employment sector, but rather confined to the domestic sphere. When examining family businesses in India, women have traditionally been assigned to marginal roles such as consultation that boast little growth opportunity (Mitra, 2002, p.221). In addition, jobs are often characterized in gendered terms. For example, women should only participate in jobs that are deemed feminine and likewise for males. Such characterization is based upon the innate skills or traits related to specific genders. Under this perspective traits that associated with females are shyness, lack of articulation, inability to communicate and a disinterest in money (Mitra, 2002, p.222). Therefore, based upon this model, feminine skills include: nurturing and conflict resolution; interestingly, skills that are associated with their domestic obligations.After understanding the obstacles Indian women face with regards to leadership it is interesting to identify the similarities and differences between Western and Eastern cultures. Such similarities that exist are the following: the lack of women holding upper managerial positions, double-day obligations of women, gender ideologies, exclusion from informal networks, and law established to promote gender equality. It is important to scrutinize a few of these similarities in greater depth in order to acquire a better perspective of the issues at hand.To begin, women in India currently comprise of approximately 31% of the workforce, yet only about 5.8% on the high end and 3% of the low hold managerial positions (P.S. Budhwar et al., 2005, p.179-180). U.S statistics illustrate similar findings, where in 2002 women made up about 46.5% of the workforce and only held about 7.9% of top level positions in Fortune 500 companies (Catalyst, p.4). Such statistics are alarming when considering the alternative, which is that men are assuming higher-level positions despite the significant presence of women in the workforce.Secondly, despite employment laws in both India and the U.S enforcement for equality is often poor. The Indian constitution has drafted both legal and social legislation to ensure equal rights to women, which include: rights to own property, matrimony and divorce, inheritance, education, and equality before the law, these laws have not been enforced. One can agree that within the United States, there is also poor monitoring of laws surrounding gender equality due to the difficulty in documenting some discriminatory practices that exist (P.S. Budhwar et al., 2005, p.181). As a result, in general, women will continue to accept low-advancing jobs that secure men as breadwinners.Lastly, as result of societal perceptions regarding appropriate work and the poor monitoring of equality laws, women are generally ascribed to domestic roles. For example, in both India and the U.S women are nurtured by parents and influenced by society about what careers are “naturally” feminine. Although this differs among cultures due to the context that they use to base such decisions, overall women are placed into “pink ghetto” positions. Such positions are appealing to many women due to the fact that most are part-time, which supports their double-day obligation.In terms of the differences between women leadership in both cultures, one can refer to the context which jobs are assigned to being either feminine or masculine. Specifically, in India, for instance, women are employed in sectors that do not have “dangerous spaces.” Careers that adhere to such standards include: human relations, public relations, administration, and “soft fields” like fashion, clothing, and beauty product organizations (P.S. Budhwar et al., p.184). Contrarily, in the west, jobs are prescribed to women under the notion of “nimble fingers.” Ironically, in India engineering is considered a feminine job, whereas in the U.S it is masculine. These differences and similarities are based upon the cultural dimensions of the U.S and India. Like mentioned earlier, India is classified as a family collectivist culture, whereas the U.S is a high power distant culture. As a result of such contingencies, it is understandable why family takes precedence over work in Indian societies. Similarly, in high power-distant cultures, individualism is promoted; therefore, suggesting that work has a greater importance over family. Hence one’s cultural context greatly influences societal attitudes, norms, and behaviors.

Michelle, Olu & Alex

India is comprised of several different languages, which is a result of the invasion of the British, the existence of a variety of dialects and a vast blend of cultures that exists in the country. The Indian constitution recognizes 23 official languages with Hindi being the most prominent official language. English is listed as a secondary official language but is regarded primarily for business use. There are also 1,652 different dialects. When considering the way in which India communicates internally and externally one must understand that, it is a direct influence of the many cultures by ways of verbal and non-verbal methods of conversing. In reference to Hall’s categorization of India being represented as a high-context society, communication is described as being comprised of highly coded and inherent messages. This classification consists of indirect, succinct, contextual, and affective verbal styles. The high-context style is associated with collective and high-power distance cultures that are demonstrated in the Indian culture.
Foreign trade and foreign direct investment are a significant source of economic growth for India, thus cross-cultural communication is pertinent for India to maintain connection with the global business economic infrastructure. The culture values and social conduct of India allow for a coalition government where each state has its own political party. This form of government creates anxiety in foreign investors from Western, European and other cultures as their ideas of appropriate governance differ. Also, downward communication is more popular in the Western society so when American businessmen manage an Indian company being run with information being transferred from subordinate to manager (upward communication) they may feel insulted. In cross-cultural communication, interpretations of meaning are often misconstrued due to cultural barriers, perceptual barriers, and language barriers. Ideally, improving feedback systems, obtaining language and cultural training can avoid theses barriers.
In my experience with natives of India, I have recognized their ability to argue their point of view successfully, which I would attribute to their use of the succinct and affective verbal styles whereas they tend to allow understatements, pauses, silence to convey meaning and conduct careful observation of how the sender is conveying the message. These methods give them the advantage of effective listening, leading to a greater understanding of the issue being discussed thus allowing them effectual communication. Indians also speak effectively nonverbally with body language and use of physical space. They may use various hand gestures, direct eye contact and stand within close proximity to the person with whom they are communicating.
In a western culture where Americans are extremely sensitive about and value personal space, most of them may perceive Asian’s need for closeness as intrusive. With my being raised in a Native American home where closeness and affection during communication was common, I was not offended when encountering this behavior. I have noticed that natives of India also stand with good posture and tend to raise their voice levels when excited or feel knowledgeable about a particular issue/debate. I understand their verbal and nonverbal communication to be intrinsic to their expression of reverence for their remarkable culture. During their struggle for independence from the rule of the British crown, the tactics of protesting with a commitment to ahimsa "non-violence" led by Mahatma Gandhi was an example of their ability to use their cultural beliefs and communication styles to present their viewpoints and negotiate effectively verbally and non-verbally cross-culturally.

Team Nicole/Jessica/Fay

Cross-Cultural Communication

Communication is an essential aspect of any business relationship, but it is even more important in international settings. Communication styles vary by country, and global companies must understand these differences in order to maintain successful cross-cultural relationships. In order to understand the distinctive features of verbal and non-verbal communication in India, one must examine the cultural context in which the communication takes place.
According to Hall’s dimensions, India is a high-context culture. Communication is indirect and implicit, making it the job of the receiver “to interpret what the message means by correctly filtering through what is being said and the way in which the message is being conveyed” (181). This is not only a verbal form of communication; the receiver also relies on nonverbal clues such as facial expressions and voice intonation to interpret messages.
Verbal and nonverbal communication in India is enacted in the affective style, which is defined similarly to the high-context style: “The affective style is characterized by language that requires the listener to carefully note what is being said and to observe how the sender is presenting the message” (183). The same observations of nonverbal clues that receivers use in high-context cultures are important when interpreting affective style communication.
A contextual style of communication is often found in high-context cultures such as India. This style “is one that focuses on the speaker and relationship of the parties” (182). Relationships play an important role in the way people communicate in India; people often have close personal relationships with the people they communicate with, and in organizational or business settings, “speakers will choose words that indicate their status relative to the status of the others” (182). Personal relationships help people in India better interpret indirect messages, though the contextual style of communication places an importance on hierarchical roles and can serve as a barrier between members of different status levels.
The contextual style creates a difference in both verbal and nonverbal language. In business settings, the boss is regarded as the highest authority and “[i]n some offices, employees rise each time the boss enters the room to acknowledge respect” (Mohan, Lindquist, and Novetzke). The verbal acknowledgement of contextual communication is demonstrated through “a reverence for titles in India” (Mohan, Lindquist, and Novetzke). People address each other through professional or courtesy titles as well as common and honorific Hindi titles (Mohan, Lindquist, and Novetzke).
The business hierarchy is an important part of contextual communication in a high-context culture. Subordinate workers do not openly disagree with their superiors and rarely interact with bosses. “In a group discussion, only the most senior person might speak, but that does not mean that the others agree with him” (Mohan, Lindquist, and Novetzke). This reflects the affective style of language, where verbal communication alone does not convey an entire message.
Due to the importance of relationships in Indian culture, it is common to discuss friends and family in business settings. Because many businesses are run by families, business transactions feature many aspects of family-oriented communication. For example, “many smaller businesses function on handshakes, verbal agreements, and trust” (Mohan, Lindquist, and Novetzke). This form of communication relies heavily on personal interaction and the development of strong relationships.
India is ranked in the GLOBE project as a country with high power distance and low assertiveness orientation. This corresponds with the high-context culture classification and the contextual communication style, as it indicates the importance of power roles and the use of indirect expression in verbal discourse. Assertiveness or aggressiveness is perceived “as a sign of disrespect, particularly if it is from a subordinate or from someone unfamiliar” (Mohan, Lindquist, and Novetzke). Power distance combined with the affective communication style requires inhibited language, especially among subordinates.
India’s cultural characteristics heavily influence the style of communication. Both verbal and nonverbal expression allows messages to be interpreted in this high-context society. Relationships created as a result of the contextual culture are a basis of understanding that can help people better interpret indirect speech. Additionally, an emphasis on power structure is reflected in the language, especially in business settings.

-----

Personal pre-departure notes:

I can't believe we are leaving tomorrow!

I'm really excited. I can't wait to meet the Indian students and hear about their experiences. I am also looking forward to doing yoga and seeing the Dalai Lama.

-Jessica

SOM Travel Course, India March 2007

WOW! We are going to India on SOM's first study abroad course. I am very excited, and am sure it will be a great fun with a group of 18 delightful and charming ladies, and two faculty members. Watch out for the travel stories and observations of the participants on this blog.