This document summarizes a report that compares the rates of women in senior management positions across the public and private sectors in Australia. It finds that while women make up over half the public sector workforce, they only hold about 40% of senior roles. In the private sector, women represent 34% of managers but it is estimated it would take 177 years for equal representation. The summary discusses barriers like organizational culture, glass ceilings, and gendered work environments that have limited women's advancement. While equal opportunity laws have been enacted, the impact has been minimal and changes are still largely dependent on policies at the organizational level.

1. A COMPARISON OF WOMEN IN SENIOR
MANAGEMENT ACROSS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SECTORS IN AUSTRALIA AND A DISCUSSION
AROUND THE BARRIERS THEY FACE.
By Vanessa Clark

2. pg. 2 Vanessa Clark
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to compare the patterns of women in senior management
across the public and private sectors. In particular, this report will examine the barriers
women face in terms of organisational culture, ‘gendered organisations, ‘the glass ceiling
effect’ and ‘structural theory’ and if Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) / Affirmative
Action (AA) legislation has impacted on women’s outcome. It was found the rate in which
women progressed into senior management roles is gradual, and the introduction of
legislation has not had that much of an affect across both sectors. It is recommended that
policies need to be monitored and addressed at the organisational level if change is to
occur in the future.

3. pg. 3 Vanessa Clark
Contents
History until today .......................................................................................................4
Barriers women face...................................................................................................4
Women in Senior Management in the Australian Public Sector..................................6
Women in Senior Management in Private Sector .......................................................6
Conclusion..................................................................................................................7
Recommendations......................................................................................................8
References .................................................................................................................9

4. pg. 4 Vanessa Clark
History until today
Initially careers for women were described in ways that essentially precluded managerial
careers. Some would say management is not a feminised occupation, where men still
outnumber women especially in the ranks of senior management (SM) (Ross-Smith &
Huppatz, 2010). However, changes in social and legal environment led to the entrance of
women in management (Schneer & Reitman, 1995). In Australia, women in the workplace
have increased over the years, however, evidence suggests women are not moving into
management position in large numbers. There have been some increases in women
representation in management positions with 10.7 per cent of executive management
positions were held by women, compared with 8.4 per cent in 2002. These figures indicate
there has been slight movement over time but nothing large.
Further, data obtained from the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency
(EOWA) suggests in 2005, 34 per cent of women were managers in the private sector, and
in the public sector women managers constituted for over one third of senior executive
roles (Burgess, French and Strachan, 2011, pg 156). This would suggest gender was in
the too distant past, almost completely integrated with class in many organisations. That
is, managers were always men: the lower level white collar worker were women. (Acker,
2006). In order to remedy this, the Australian government has recognised the
disadvantages women have faced over time. This has resulted in the introduction of Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) into the public sector and Affirmative Action (AA)
legislation was enacted into private sector organisations (of more than 100 employees)
(Rindfleish, 2002). This legislation was passed to provide equal rights for men and women
in the workplace.
Barriers women face
Research indicates there are barriers women face at the organisational level and form a
combination of reasons why women’s progression is slow.
Firstly, women face the “glass ceiling effect”, which refers to a combination of factors
which limit women in SM (at the organisational level). Conceptualised by Zivcicova,
Masarove, Rackova (2015) the most common combinations and factors creating the glass

5. pg. 5 Vanessa Clark
ceiling are: social barriers; education, employment, gender structure of the society and
gender stereotypes. Information barriers; lack of information about women in
management, differentiation barrier; recruiters tend to select people similar to them,
gender equality of work labour; successful women in SM usually work in less popular
industries, old boys’ networks; informal network in which it is hard to get in especially for
women; sexual harassment and gaps in anti-discrimination laws. As a result of the glass
ceiling effect researchers have found women may not progress because they are
discouraged from pursuing opportunities or simply not considered when succession
decisions are made or face hostile working environments when trying to progress. (Neck ,
2015).
Secondly, as theorised by Kanter (1977) woman can face what is known as ‘Structural
Theory. In its simplest, structural theory is defined as the ‘structure of the work
environment and is an important correlate of employee attitude and behaviours in
organizations, and, that perceived access to power and opportunity structures relate to the
behaviours and attitudes of employees in organizations (Wilson & Laschinger, 1994). In
aligning Kanter’s theory with research into the area it would imply staffing decisions are
made in favour of a dominant group i.e. male because current job incumbents tend to
select others whom are similar to themselves and predict female managers are less likely
to be promoted than their male counterparts. (Lyness & Judiesch, 1999).
Lastly, a ‘gendered organisation’ refers to: an organisation or any other analytic unit, is
gendered means that advantage and disadvantage, exploitation, control action and
emotion, meaning and identity are patterned through and in terms of distinction between
male and female, masculine and feminine. The essence of this theory is that organisations
are built upon assumptions about gender that underline much of what they do and in many
instances reproduce inequalities. (Whitehead, 2013). Acker (1990) believes management
has been, arguably and continues to be, inherently masculine and the gendered nature of
management and organisation is now established (Ross-Smith & Huppatz, 2010). Since
women face barriers to their career success not experienced by men, it seems plausible
that their routes to career success vary from the ways used by men to achieve career
success (Melamed, 1995)

6. pg. 6 Vanessa Clark
Women in Senior Management in the Australian
Public Sector
In 2012 women in The Australian Public Service (APS) made up 57 per cent of the
workforce, but only made up 40 per cent of the senior positions overall. In all but four
departments women outnumbered men (in the total workforce), but by contrast, only four
out of nineteen departments had more women than men at the senior level (Evans,
Edwards, Burmester, May 2015).
Research conducted by McMahon, Limberick, Cranston and Anderson (2006) in the area
of women (in SM) in the public sector found; in the last 20 years there are now more
women in senior executive and CEO roles. However, the progress has been slow with only
modest increases, which means that in the public sector there are women present (in SM
roles) but, not at rapid rate.
Even though as outlined earlier, the Public Service is predominately women, it would seem
the SM roles are generally masculine and this could imply the public service is a gendered,
especially when it comes to the lack of women represented in senior roles. In
consequence, it will be extremely difficult for women to adapt to systems where bias is
mobilised unconsciously through dominate organisational norms and values. In short,
senior women may not be playing on even field (Evans , et al., 2015).
With this in mind the public sector enacts Equal Employment Opportunity legislation more
proactively where the public sector has more structural mechanisms in place to address
and enforce both EEO and gender equity. However, in practice, it would seem there was a
fundamental disjuncture between the values of the APS and its practices. The under
representation of women in the Australian Public Service leadership is anathema to the
notions of merit, equality and fairness on which the service is founded. (Evans , et al.,
2015)
Women in Senior Management in Private Sector
Hede and O’Brien (1996) found women’s representation in management in Australian
private sector organizations showed an increase in women management with only 4.5 per
cent over six years. Further data obtained by EOWA showed in 2007, 34 per cent of
managers were women which could indicate it would take 177 years for equal
representation in management.

7. pg. 7 Vanessa Clark
There could be a number of reasons why the statistics represent slow progression. Neck
(2015) found the culture of many corporate organisations remains masculine and
leadership has traditionally been dominated by men, many aspects of organisations are
structured around male experiences, lifestyles and preferences (Neck , 2015). This implies
Kantar’s structural theory is at work whereby the work environment strongly correlates with
employee attitudes which has resulted in slow progression for women.
Another element that seems to be represented in the private sector is the ‘glass ceiling
effect’ where there is a transparent barrier which prevents women from moving up the
corporate ladder. (Bombuwela & De Alwis, 2013). This is particularly evident in a further
study conducted by Neck (2015) in addressing Australian women in SM within the private
sector. Neck (2015) found a culture of ‘male is the norm’; leaders ‘hire people like
themselves’ and there are high levels of male managerial ship, coupled with masculine
cultures. Further gender bias, whether they are conscious or subconscious stereotyping of
women. It was noted there was ongoing preconceptions and stereotyping of women which
disabled their progress to senior levels, especially within the Australia private sector. In
Australia assumptions and perception around woman’s leadership ability, potential and
ambition have been shown to negatively impact on their advancement (Neck , 2015).
Essentially corporate SM positions are still being held pronominally by men and more
stringent regulations and controls should be built into equity policies and enforced in
private sector organisations (Rindfleish, 2002).
In terms of Affirmation Action and whether it has impacted on the private sector a study
conducted by Rindfleish (2002), found 57.7 per cent of private sector women thought that
the introduction of AA has had ‘not much’ improvement on the position of women (in SM)
and the legislation was “too weak” to improve the status quo. These results indicate that
the private sector organisational contexts will continue to show slower progress.
Conclusion
Even though there are women in SM roles across both sectors in Australia, statistics show
there has been a slow increase over time. There are still barriers in women’s advancement
into SM roles across both sectors. However, the barriers to advancement are different; the
public sector displaying a more gendered representation and private displaying the glass
ceiling and structural effect.
Evidence suggests the public sector should be the leaders in change as they enact EEO
legislation more proactively compared to the majority of the private sector organisations

8. pg. 8 Vanessa Clark
(Rindfleish, 2002), however this isn’t the case. Statistics have shown there are more
women represented in SM roles in the public sector compared to the private. There are
also more women employed overall in the public sector, which could indicate the data
sample isn’t comparative and therefore there are limitations in the research available.
In terms of women in SM, most of the research reviewed has only been around barriers
women face and what has been put in place from a legislative prospective to remedy the
barriers. There is legislation to assist women in both sectors, however, segregation at the
workplace level continues and remains slightly unchanged, in spite of almost twenty years
(of legislation). The point of having legislation (in Australia) is to address inequity,
however, there is no evidence of consequences if companies become non-compliant. This
could be because barriers still exist and the legislation doesn’t appear to have made much
difference.
Recommendations
Firstly, if things were going to change in the future for women of both sectors the onus is
on people of power in the organisation to foster and believe in women in SM. For example,
if there is an issue of gender inequity, the influential members of the business should
champion change and thus be a driving force when situations like these are arise.
Secondly, policies need to be addressed at the organisational level these policies would
need to be supported by all staff and monitored, where sanctions will be imposed where
non-compliance is highlighted.

9. pg. 9 Vanessa Clark
References
Acker, J., 2006. Inequality regimes: gender class and race in organisations. Gender and Society, 20(4), pp.
441-464.
Bombuwela, P. M. & De Alwis, A. C., 2013. Effects of Glass Ceiling on women career development in private
sector organisations - case of Sri Lanka. Journal of Competitiveness, 5(2), pp. 3-19.
Burgess, J., French, E. & Strachan, G., 2011. The diversity managment approach to equal employment in
Australian organisations. The Economic and Labour Relations Review , 20(1), pp. 59-74.
Burgess, J., Henderson, L. & Strachan, G., 2005. Women workers in male dominated industrial
manufacturing. Management Revue, pp. 458-474.
Evans , M., Edwards, M., Burmester, B. & May, D., 2015. Not yet 50/50 barriers to the progress of senior
women in the Australian Public Service. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(4), pp. 501-510.
Lyness, K. & Judiesch, M. k., 1999. Are women more liekly to be hired or promoted into management
positions?. Journal of Vacational Behaviour, 54(1), pp. 158-172.
Mano-Negrin, R., 2004. Gender Inequality and employment policy in the public sector. A cross national
comparison of women managers'wages in five industrialised countries. Journal of Administration and
Society, 36(4), pp. 454-474.
McMahon , M., Limerick, B., Cranston, N. & Anderson, N., 2006. Going up? Women in the public sector.
Career Development International , 11(7), pp. 609-618.
Melamed, T., 1995. Career success: the moderating effect of gender. Journal of Vocational Behaviour,
1(47), pp. 35-60.
Neck , C., 2015. Disappearing women : why do women leave senior roles in finance. Australia Journal of
Management, 40(3), pp. 488-510.
Rindfleish, J., 2002. Senior management women in Australia: diverse perspectives. Women in Management
Review, 15(4), pp. 172-180.
Ross-Smith, A. & Huppatz, K., 2010. Management, women and gender capital. Journal of Gender Work and
Organisation, 17(5), pp. 548-565.
Schneer, J. A. & Reitman, F., 1995. The impact of gender as managerial careers unfold. Journal of Vocational
Behavior , 47(1), pp. 290-315.
Whitehead, A. L., 2013. Gendered oganisations and Inequality regimes: gender, homosexuality and
inequality within religious congregations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 52(3), pp. 476-493.
Wilson , B. & Laschinger, H. K., 1994. Staff nurse perception of job empowerment and organisational
committment: A test of Kanter's theory of structural power in organisations. The Journal of Nursing
Administration, 24(4).
Zivcicova, E., Masarova , T. & Rackova, K., 2015. Participation of women in senior management and decision
making. Actual Problems of Economics, 169(7), pp. 245-253.