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.