Career Success of Women: Role of Family Responsibilities,Mentoring,and Perceived Organizational Support

Abstract

Women are under-represented at top-level positions despite increasing women empowerment and participation, and decelerating gender discrimination in India. Women must go through various obstacles in order to reach to senior- or top-level positions in their professional life. Since there are many impediments that a woman must overcome to get career success, however, this study focuses on the impediments that women face due to organizational and family impediment. The current research article aims to evaluate whether lack of mentoring, perceived organizational support (POS), and family responsibilities impact the perceived career success (PCS) of women in the Indian Information Technology (IT) sector. Data in this regard have been collected using a structured questionnaire and a total of 292 respondents have been analysed. In order to examine the impact of these impediments on the perceived career success of women, the method of structural equation modelling (SEM), has been used. Findings of the study reveal that each of the independent variables significantly impacts the perceived career success of women which works as a wake-up call for women executives that they must overcome these impediments to advance their career smoothly.

Keywords

Hurdles Information Technology (IT) Sector Career Success Family Responsibilities Mentoring Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

Introduction

When one talks about senior managerial positions, the picture that strikes in an individual’s mind is usually male, and the reason behind it is that most of the industries are male-dominated, and in every industry, the number of women found at managerial positions is very less as compared to men. While there is an increase in women’s ranks in organizations over the past decade, most of the organizations are still male-dominated (O’Neil et al., 2008). Women represent just 30% of the technology sector in seven countries, and representation in leadership positions is still narrower (The Economic Times, 2020). Also, female executives require more qualifications, training, and experience in order to get career success. Women are usually and mostly found at lower-level or non-managerial positions in Indian enterprises (Budhwar et al., 2005). Scott (2014) stated that women representation in senior-level positions has been trapped at 24%. Schein (2001) stated that challenges for women in managerial positions exist across the world. Involvement of women in professional jobs, namely engineering, technical work, and construction has been low (Fernando et al., 2014; Powell et al., 2009). As per report of Catalyst (2017), women only held 24% of top managerial positions around the globe in 2016 and one-third of businesses do not have any women at senior-level positions; it was also concluded that even by the year 2060, women will not achieve equality with men.

Chabaya et al. (2009) mentioned that a low level of confidence and self-esteem, women’ dual role, and need of spouse support and organizational support are the key challenges to the career advancement of women. Researchers found that women face various impediments in their career advancement, namely exclusion from networks, lack of mentoring, lack of organizational support, and lack of development opportunities (Bowen et al., 2008; Dainty & Lingard, 2006; Worrall, 2012).Women face many difficulties in order to achieve their career advancement; few of them are gender discrimination, mentoring, exclusion from informal networks, and organizational support to attain senior-level positions in management (Ahuja, 2002; Buddhapriya, 2009; Gupta et al., 1998; Rath et al., 2019).

Miller (2004) and Rosser (2004) declared that balancing career and home has been the key hurdle that hampers women’s advancement. Meyerson and Fletcher (2005) mentioned that home and family’s responsibility lies more on the shoulders of women, and as a result, they need more time away from their office. Sang et al. (2007) discovered that there is a higher level of work–family conflict and intentions to leave and lesser job satisfaction for women compared to men. Family responsibilities or obligations are the capabilities of an individual to support their child or any family member of his/her immediate family (Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland, 2013). Family responsibilities hamper the career advancement of women, and as a result, they face more hurdles in their career ladder as compared to men, and because of such hurdles, women quit their job or make career trade-off decisions (Ugwu et al., 2018). Since a woman aspires to be successful in her personal as well as professional life, balancing both these lives in a perfect manner gives her a great level of stress.

Indian Context

Gupta et al. (1998) established that when it comes to Indian men, they find themselves more comfortable in supervising women rather than being supervised by women as it clashes with their ego. Also, only 2 women hold administrative and managerial jobs in India for every 100 men. Universally, women capture approximately 10% of the top management positions in Fortune 500 companies (Chadha, 2002). Women’s career progression encounters social biases against them which restrain them from reaching the middle- or top-level management (Budhwar et al., 2005). Database of Directors (2007) revealed that only 4.9% of board seats were held by women in 1993 in public companies (Buddhapriya, 2009).

Indian culture and practices act as the main hurdles hindering women from reaching to leadership positions (Desai et al., 2011; Kulkarni, 2002). The economic survey conducted in 2003 stated that in 2001, there were only 176 professional women for every 1,000 men in the organized sector (Kaushik et al., 2014). According to report of Catalyst (2013), women hold only 15.7% of supervisory roles, 18.1% of senior positions, and 14.8% of board positions, and only 4% of executive positions in Fortune 500 companies. During the period 2004–2011, India grew at an average rate of approximately 7%; however, there was a fall in the contribution of women in the workforce from 35% to 25% (ILO Report, 2015).

Bharathi and Bhattacharya (2015) revealed that the main obstacle that a woman must go through is maintaining work–life balance in the Information Technology Enabled Services (IT/ITES) sector, and it becomes difficult to balance due to long working hours, travel time, additional jobs, and then feeling guilty for not taking care of children and elders at home. International Labour Organization (ILO) report states that women acquire less than 4% of top management positions in Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) 100 companies (The Hindu, 2015). The issue is that there are only a few women found in the board of directors in Indian organizations and women are under-represented at managerial levels and at decision-making stages (Bhattacharya et al., 2018). In a study by Rath et al. (2019), preventers to the career advancement of women were identified, namely marriage, gender discrimination, Indian culture, and lack of networking and mentoring.

Need of the Study

Males and females have been in labour force for a long time now, but still, the proportion of women at senior positions or top management is low. Many women are exhausted because of the difficulties or impediments that they must face in their career ladder. Ismail and Ibrahim (2008) disclosed that career progression of women is hampered by family, societal, and organizational hurdles where family hurdles are related to the involvement of women in family responsibilities; societal hurdles relate to societal norms and culture; and organizational hurdles relate to peer support, supervisor support, and organizational culture. In this study, the focus has been on filling this research gap by working on the segments of family and organizational impediments, as these two are the most important factors for any individual, and it becomes very important to understand how family and organization can influence the career progression of women.

It has been surprising to find that gender discrimination plays a vital role in the IT sector. Women are usually found at lower- or middle-level jobs, and the majority of senior- and technical management-level jobs are occupied by men. Even in other sectors, women are found to occupy low paying and unskilled jobs, and out of all working women, 55% of women are found to do the jobs of these categories (Indecon, 2002). Also, it is very important to include female executives from each level, namely lower-, middle-, and top-level management to understand if there is any discrepancy in their views on the basis of their management position. This study has been conducted with a purpose of assessing women’s perceptions on every level of management. Majority of the studies conducted in the past to identify the impediments to career success of women have been of qualitative nature. In the past, researchers have conducted interviews to understand and capture the real picture of impediments to career success of women in any industry. Empirical studies focused on the career success of women have been limited. Also, Tharenou (1999) disclosed that female executives encounter more impediments in their career success compared to male executives. To work on the research gaps, the researcher identified the impediments that impact the career success of women from qualitative studies. Bearing in mind the same challenges that women must go through in their career progression, this study has been conducted using the quantitative methods to identify the impact of those impediments (namely, family responsibilities, mentoring, and perceived organizational support [POS]) on the career success of women in the Indian Information Technology (IT) sector.

Literature Review

Perceived Career Success

As per Hughes (1937, 1951), career success is widely accepted and distinct between perceived and objective career success. Perceived career success (PCS) is perceived directly by the individual and is described by the reactions of that individual towards his or her career experiences. Objective career success is defined by a neutral third party which is directly measurable, observable, and verifiable by one’s accomplishments, such as salary, promotion, and employment status. In this study, the former has been used in order to measure the career success of an individual as it is very important to know irrespective of the monetary or objective career success how one feels or perceives his/her own success.

An individual’s objective career success is primarily measured by three items, namely salary, managerial level, and the number of promotions achieved (Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Tharenou, 2005). Dainty et al. (2000) disclosed that at every stage of women’s career, there exist many difficulties or problems. Siew (2001) classified major factors influencing the career success of women into two: demographic and organizational factors where demographic factors include age, managerial level, experience, and organizational factors include supervisory and performance assessment, management support programme, career planning, and growth activities. Studies by Allen et al. (2004) and Underhill (2006) proved that mentoring leads to career-related outcomes. Over the last decade, PCS has been increasingly adopted by the researchers when it comes to measuring one’s career outcome (Arthur et al., 2005). The extent to which an individual climbs in the organizational hierarchy is described by various terms such as ‘career success’, ‘career achievement’, ‘upward mobility’, ‘career advancement’, and ‘organizational advancement’ (King et al., 2009).

Job satisfaction and career satisfaction have been the common measures used widely to measure PCS for a long time (e.g., Abele & Spurk, 2009; Seibert et al., 2001). Robbins et al. (2011) agreed with the other researchers that fine career success helps the organization in retaining and attracting top performers. Career success is also known as an upward progression of an individual in managerial ranks in an organization, and it has always been related to career frustration, a rapid increase in intent to leave, and eventually, discouraging new entrants (Kurtulus & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2012; Mavriplis et al., 2010; Melamed, 1996; Phillips & Imhoff, 1997). Fernando et al. (2014) mentioned that desire to cooperate with individuals, determination, flexibility, and managerial sincerity are some of the factors that contribute to the career success of women. As per Rosenberg (2018), career success is an upward progression of an individual in his/her job where the person moves from a lower-level position to a senior-level position within the same job. Tamang (2020) established that there is no significant difference in terms of the subjective career success of men and women, but the gender difference is found to be significant for the objective career success of men and women.

Family Responsibilities

Women who are married and have children usually experience a high level of family conflict due to work and family pressure (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Family responsibilities, especially marriage, childcare, and housekeeping activities impact women executives’ career accomplishments (Gutek et al., 1988; Olson & Frieze, 1987). It has been found to be true that work interrupts with family as much as family interrupts with work (Gutek et al., 1991). For female executives, the stress of meeting social expectations is more, and there is a link between career and family of the female managers.

Gutek et al. (1988) found that female mangers’ participation, demands, and achievements and family domain are mutually dependent. Since demographic transition is disruptive for career development and family balance, mostly female managers prefer to remain in one position (Bielby & Bielby, 1992). Thus, it restricts career success and opportunities (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1993). Indian working women usually restrict their career advancement or personal accomplishments due to family reasons (Desai, 1996). Work–family conflict affects the career success of women executives (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). As a result of family impediment, organizations usually disregard the female counterpart when it comes to promotions or managerial hires, due to which most of the women executives are found at the lower or middle level (Powell & Garves, 2003). It has been argued by various researchers that work–family conflict may significantly impact how one views his/her career results (Kirchmeyer, 2006; Schneer & Reitman, 2002). Mayrhofer et al. (2008) found that family responsibilities negatively influence the objective and PCS via work centrality.

‘Family involvement refers to the importance of the family to an individual and the extent of psychological investment in the family’ (Mayrhofer et al., 2008). Buddhapriya (2009) disclosed that family responsibilities impact the profession decisions of female managers; also, women are supposed to take care of the family responsibility and children, which eventually hinders the career advancement of women, and career trade-off also occurs due to the same reason. As a result of the male-dominated industry, maintaining the balance between personal and professional life has been the most prominent career challenge that impacts the career advancement of women (Hatipkarasulu & Roff, 2011). Anyakoha (2012) established that family responsibilities act as a constraint for women to accept job roles at the senior or top level. According to Adhikary (2016), societal hurdles like marriage and family responsibility were found to be the most significant factors that hamper the career progression of women. Ugwu et al. (2018) stated that family responsibilities significantly affect the career success of women. Balancing work and family responsibilities is a critical hurdle to the career success of women (Matot et al., 2020). Thus, in order to check the impact of family responsibilities on the PCS of women, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H₁: There is no significant impact of family responsibilities on PCS of women.

Mentoring

Mentor is an individual who helps his/her juniors to remove those obstacles that can impact their career development (Kram, 1983). Mentoring is widely recognized as a great support to the career development of an individual, but then, the same acts as an impediment when one does not get enough of it to overcome or deal with work issues. It helps people and especially women to reach senior managerial positions by helping them in achieving organizational goals. Blake-Beard (2001) found the challenges that a woman must face in order to get formal mentoring, such as unreasonable expectations of mentors, absence of linkage with mentors, interpersonal agreement in a mentoring relationship, overdependence on mentors, and management of involvement of direct superior.

Wanberg et al. (2003) mentioned that individuals who receive mentoring usually get better performance evaluations and upward progression than the ones who do not receive mentoring. According to Tharenou (2005), females are found to be more benefitted in their career when they were mentored by a female mentor. Apospori et al. (2006) found that mentoring has a positive relationship with the career advancement of an individual. A mentor helps in the career advancement of an individual by providing him/her with the potential career opportunities (Byars & Rue, 2008). O’Brien et al. (2010) defined mentoring as a process where guidance and advice are given by a mentor (experienced member) to a mentee (less experienced member).

Formal mentoring helps Indian women in breaking the glass ceilings which then leads to their career progression and socialization in Indian enterprises (Haynes & Ghosh, 2012). Robbins and Coulter (2013) found that mentoring helps mentees in climbing the corporate ladder and achieve career success. Jyoti and Sharma (2015) declared that the career development of women working in call centres is significantly influenced by mentoring. Mentoring impacts the career of an individual as it targets on personal improvement, work skills, performance, and others (Agnvall, 2016; Anders, 2007). Francis (2017) identified various factors that can impact the career advancement of women, namely family, personal, mentoring, and peer support. Makarem and Wang (2020) established that women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields face various impediments in their career experiences, namely gender stereotypes, lack of mentors, organizational culture, and work–life conflict. A direct relationship between psychosocial mentoring and career success has been established by Malik and Nawaz (2020). On the basis of the above literature, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H₂: There is no significant impact of mentoring on PCS of women.

Perceived Organizational Support

POS is referred to as the extent to which the workforce recognizes that their inputs are appreciated and respected and the organization is concerned about the welfare (Eisenberger et al., 1986). As women receive lesser inspiring opportunities, their managerial development is found to be resultant from overpowering the hindrances that occur due to lack of organizational support (Ohlott et al., 1994). Women at the executive level indicated more impediments due to the absence of organizational support than lower-level managers (Lyness & Thompson, 1997).

Organization’s lack of support for the advancement of women leads to turnover of educated and proficient women talent (Goodman et al., 2003; Indvik, 2001; Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). Jawahar and Hemmasi (2006) suggested that POS for the advancement of women can impact the leaving intentions of women, and also with the help of organizational support, one’s satisfaction level with the employer can be enhanced. Burke et al. (2006) found that women who work in supportive organizations tend to have more job and career satisfaction and a greater level of mental health. Ismail and Ibrahim (2008) found that organizational support can help women in their advancement by providing them equal treatment and removing the impediments that exist in the organization. Organizational support in terms of flexible working arrangements, childcare facilities, and support for personal commitments impacts the work–life balance of an individual, and that ultimately impacts the performance and career advancement (Buddhapriya, 2009). There is evidence in support of the fact that in male-dominated organizations and jobs, women get a lack of peer and organizational support (McGuire, 2002; Taylor, 2010).

When women are perceived to have lack of organizational support, their performance is eventually impacted and undermined (Ely et al., 2012). Glass and Cook (2016) established that there are more chances of women getting promoted for high-risk managerial positions and receiving less organizational support to achieve their organizational goals. Chawla and Sharma (2016) found that support from organizations, like from their respective managers and top management, works as a facilitator that helps in their career advancement. Francis (2017) found that there is a significant relation between organizational support and turnover intention of women; this study also suggested that organizational support plays a vital role when an organization wants to retain its women executive. Rath et al. (2019) stated that support from their superiors works as a strong facilitator that helps women in overcoming the challenges in their career. To create optimistic and positive glass ceiling beliefs, women employees had to seek support, particularly social support from their family, parents, and husband, as well as organizational support (Fathy & Youssif, 2020). Therefore, the following hypothesis has been formulated:

H₃: There is no significant impact of POS on PCS of women.

Research Methodology

The present study is entirely focused on working Indian women and the challenges they face in their career success. Respondents considered for the study have been the women executives appointed at different roles at different levels of management in the Indian IT sector. Data collection has been done with the help of an online survey. The usage of online surveys for behavioural evaluation has increased rapidly (Joubert & Kriek, 2009). For keeping the study’s relevance specific to women, the questionnaire was floated using Google Forms’ link only to the female professionals of the Indian IT sector. Data were collected from March 2020 to May 2020. The questionnaire used for the study was divided into two sections. The former section collected the demographic profile of the respondents, namely age, marital status, parental status, number of dependents, the highest degree of qualification, total experience, and managerial position. The latter part consisted of adapted scales for measuring family responsibilities, mentoring, POS, and PCS, adapted from earlier literature.

Measures

To measure the variables, the statements have been meas- ured on a 7-point Likert scale, in which 1 refers to strongly disagree and 7 refers to strongly agree. Measuring scales adapted from the previous studies are tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1.

Origins

Variables	Origins	Number of Items	Statements
Perceived career success	Greenhaus et al. (1990)	5	Whether the respondent is satisfied with the progress towards income, meeting the career goals.
Family responsibilities	Buddhapriya (2009)	6	Women should take care of family responsibilities, social disapproval, career trade-offs.
Mentoring	Dreher and Ash’s (1990)	8	Whether they were recommended developmental assignments, promote career interests, talk openly.
Perceived organizational support (POS)	Lynch et al. (1999)	8	Organization considered goals and values, concerned about well-being, availability of help from the organization.

Source: The authors.

Sample

For this study, respondents consist of women working at lower, middle, and senior levels of management in the Indian IT sector. A total of 292 responses were received out of 440 floated questionnaires, which means that the response rate has only been 66.36%; later, these responses have been used for the purpose of analysis. Out of the total number of respondents, 45.9% of women belonged to lower-level management, 49.7% belonged to middle-level management, and 4.5% belonged to senior-level management.

Analysis and Results

Demographics

Using descriptive frequency analysis, the demographic profile of respondents has been tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic Profile (Respondents = 292)

Variable	Items	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Age	<25 years	105	36
	26–30 years	133	45.5
	31–35 years	30	10.3
	36–40 years	15	5.4
	41–45 years	4	1.4
	46–50 years	5	1.7
Marital status	Single	182	62.3
	Married	107	36.6
	Divorced	3	1
Parental status	Yes	59	79.8
	No	233	20.2
Number of dependents (Children)	None	227	77.7
	1	38	13
	2	23	7.9
	>2	4	1.4
Qualification	Graduation	153	52.4
	Postgraduation	134	45.9
	Doctorate	1	3
	Any other	4	1.4
Total experience	<2	73	25
Total experience	2–5 years	149	51
	6–10 years	43	14.7
	11–15 years	11	3.8
	16–20 years	15	5.1
	>20 years	1	0.3
Managerial position	Lower management	134	45.9
Managerial position	Middle management	145	49.7
	Senior management	13	4.5

Source: Authors’ calculations using SPSS 22.0.

In addition to hypotheses testing, the correlation between the demographic variables and PCS of the woman in the Indian IT sector has also been evaluated; this is done in order to check how the demographic profile of women is related to their career success. The demographic variables taken into consideration are age, marital status, parental status, number of dependents, the highest degree of qualification, total experience, and managerial position. Each demographic variable, except the highest degree of qualification, has a significant correlation with PCS of women in the Indian IT sector. The results of the correlation between demographic variables and PCS have been shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Correlation Between Demographic Variables and PCS

Demographic Variables	Perceived Career Success (PCS)
Demographic Variables	Correlation	Significance
Age	0.178**	0.002
Marital status	0.152**	0.009
Parental status	0.158**	0.007
Number of dependents	0.138*	0.018
Qualification	0.100	0.089
Total experience	0.216**	0.000
Managerial position	0.117*	0.047

Source: SPSS 22.0, authors’ compilation.

Note: (a) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). (b) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Data Analysis

To check the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable, a three-step approach has been applied to the study. First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) has been applied to identify the reliability and validity of the items and also to reconfirm the dimensions of the various scales used in the study. Second, an analysis has been performed with the help of structural equation modelling (SEM) using SPSS AMOS 22.0, which included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), to assess the goodness of model fit, and lastly, path analysis has been applied to evaluate the hypotheses of the study and to check the interrelationship between the constructs.

Validity and Reliability

Exploratory Factor Analysis: At first, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test were conducted to check whether the dataset was sufficient to run EFA. KMO value varied from 0 to 1, and a value greater than 0.6 was acceptable (Kaiser, 1974). Each factor had a KMO value above 0.8, which proves that the dataset was good and sufficient to run EFA. EFA was applied using the principal component analysis method along with the varimax rotation. EFA produced four factors, all of which had factor loadings greater than 0.6, eigenvalues above 1.0, and these factors described 72% of the total variance explained. Cronbach’s alpha has been computed to see how well the items are connected as a construct and indicate internal consistency and reliability. The minimum acceptable value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.6 (Hair et al., 2006); each construct in the study has a Cronbach value of greater than 0.9, which is known to be excellent. The results are listed in Table 4.

Table 4.

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis

Constructs	Items	Mean	Standard Deviation	Factor Loading	KMO	Cronbach’s Alpha
Family responsibilities	FR1	4.58	2.001	0.717	0.864	0.918
	FR2	4.95	1.732	0.865
	FR3	4.86	1.837	0.808
	FR4	4.78	1.635	0.835
	FR5	4.68	1.754	0.831
	FR6	4.75	1.771	0.771
Perceived organizational support (POS)	POS1	4.36	1.592	0.701	0.828	0.916
	POS2	4.53	1.582	0.759
	POS3	4.87	1.355	0.768
	POS4	4.45	1.614	0.723
	POS5	4.67	1.547	0.761
	POS6	4.73	1.530	0.790
	POS7	4.83	1.439	0.706
	POS8	4.66	1.546	0.720
Mentoring	Ment1	4.71	1.735	0.684	0.928	0.960
	Ment2	4.64	1.803	0.804
	Ment3	4.63	1.755	0.837
	Ment4	4.18	1.896	0.806
	Ment5	4.41	1.902	0.811
	Ment6	4.33	1.866	0.813
	Ment7	4.60	1.822	0.879
	Ment8	4.48	1.847	0.828
Perceived career success (PCS)	PCS1	4.20	1.644	0.734	0.844	0.909
	PCS2	4.39	1.688	0.846
	PCS3	4.10	1.800	0.768
	PCS4	4.15	1.608	0.848
	PCS5	4.40	1.701	0.803

Source: Authors’ compilation using SPSS 22.0.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA has been used to evaluate the construct validity concerns and model fitness. Construct validity has been analysed by checking convergent validity and discriminant validity. To evaluate the convergent validity, CR (composite reliability) must be greater than 0.7, the average variance explained (AVE) should be greater than 0.5 and CR should be greater than AVE. To evaluate the discriminant validity, AVE should be greater than maximum shared variance (MSV) and AVE should be greater than average shared variance (ASV). The study’s results satisfy all the conditions, and outcomes are tabulated in Table 5. To test the model fitness of the constructs, basic conditions are that CMIN/DF is recommended to be less than 3.Goodness of fit index (GFI) is acceptable above 90%, but the requisite requirement of GFI above 80% is found in the present study (Baumgartner & homburg, 1996; Doll et al., 1994), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) which is an indicator of the badness of fit is acceptable below 10%. Incremental fit indices were also taken into consideration, namely Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI) and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI). Results of the study for model fitness are shown in Table 6; all the conditions of model fitness are satisfied.

Table 5.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Constructs	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	Mentoring	PCS	Family Responsibilities	POS
Mentoring	0.959	0.746	0.388	0.306	0.864
PCS	0.906	0.661	0.264	0.218	0.514*	0.813
Family Responsibilities	0.916	0.646	0.266	0.184	0.516*	0.403*	0.804
POS	0.907	0.554	0.388	0.246	0.623*	0.476*	0.351*	0.744

Source: Authors’ calculation using AMOS 22.0.

Note: (a) CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance explained, MSV= maximum shared variance, ASV = average shared variance.

(b) The bold numbers on the diagonal are the square roots of the average variance explained (AVE).

Table 6.

Fit Indices

Fit Indices	Criteria	Results
CMIN/df	<3.0	2.94
GFI	>0.8	0.826
RMSEA	<0.10	0.082
CFI	>0.9	0.917
IFI	>0.9	0.917
TLI	>0.9	0.905

Source: The authors’ compilation using AMOS 22.0.

Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses testing has been conducted with the help of path analysis. Path analysis has been applied to check the impact of family responsibilities, mentoring, and POS on PCS of women in the Indian IT sector. All of the hypotheses are accepted or rejected based on regression coefficients (Beta), significance level (p <0.5), and critical ratio which is acceptable above 1.96. From the results of the study, H1 is rejected, which means that family responsibilities significantly impact PCS of women with beta = 0.189, p <0.001, and critical ratio = 3.378. H2 is rejected, stating that mentoring impacts PCS of women with beta = 0.263, p <0.001, and critical ratio = 3.815. H3 is rejected based on its beta = 0.269, p <0.01, and critical ratio = 4.304 which means that POS significantly impacts PCS of women. The diagram of path analysis is shown with their respective regression coefficients and R² in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ calculation using AMOS 22.0.

Conclusion and Discussion

This study was conducted with an aim to understand how various impediments can impact the career success or career advancement of women in the Indian IT sector. Women’s performance can be primarily influenced by two forces, namely organization and family, which determine their career path. This study has taken these two forces under consideration to understand how lack of mentoring, POS, and family responsibilities are associated with PCS of women in the Indian IT sector.

First, the study analysed the impact of family responsibilities on PCS of women. As a result, it has been observed that family responsibilities bring a positive and significant variance in PCS of women in the Indian IT sector. The findings of the study are similar to the findings of other researchers, namely Buddhapriya (2009), Kirchmeyer (2006), Subramaniam et al. (2014), and Ugwu et al. (2018) who state that family responsibilities influence the career development of women. On the contrary, Parasuraman et al. (1996) stated that family demands bring a negative variance to the career satisfaction of women.

Second, mentoring is always considered as a positive technique that helps everyone, especially in case of women, it improves their performance and guides them in the right direction to reach to the senior- or top-level management in their career ladder. However, lack of mentoring does act like an obstacle to their career success. In the same way, findings of the present study are in line with the findings of Jyoti and Sharma (2015), Metz (2009), and Seema and Sujatha (2015) which state that mentoring positively impacts PCS of women, suggesting that when women get sufficient amount of mentoring in their career ladder in Indian IT sector, they are more likely to achieve their career success compared to the ones who do not receive the same.

Third, it has been evaluated whether POS brings a significant variance to the career success of women or not. Based on the results, it is concluded that POS has a positive and significant effect on PCS of women in the Indian IT industry. The findings of the study are in line with the findings of Erdogan et al. (2004) and Nabi (2001). These findings suggest that the more the organizational support is given to or received by women, the more it is likely to advance their career. An organization has a significant role in providing opportunities and support to its employees that can help them achieve a great height of success in their career, and it is said to be truer in case of women, as they must go through more impediments in order to achieve their career success compared to their male counterpart.

In addition to testing the impact of these impediments on PCS of women in Indian IT sector, it is also found that demographic variables of women have a significant correlation with their PCS, which means that there is a good chance that these demographic variables, namely age, marital status, parental status, number of dependents, total experience, and managerial position can also bring a significant variance or significantly impact PCS of women.

Implications of the Study

The results of the study are useful for the Indian IT industry. Women, especially in the IT sector, must go through a lot of impediments in order to achieve a good career or career success. It has been observed in the results concerning mentoring, family responsibilities, and POS that all of these three impediments impact PCS of women in the IT industry. This works as a wake-up call for women executives emphasizing the fact that they must overcome these impediments to advance their career smoothly. Every woman understands that she must play a dual role, that is, as a responsible family member as well as a responsible employee, but they believe that the same roles should not act as impediments to their career advancement. Therefore, to promote the advancement of women, a change in the mindset of family, society, and organization is required, such as spousal support and organizational support, which can help women in overcoming the impediments to their career advancement to a good extent.

There is finite literature concerning women in managerial positions in the IT sector of India. This study provides and contributes to academic concepts about women’s career progression and the impediments that they face in their career ladder. Also, by providing HRD executives with the current scenario, it becomes useful and helpful for them, as they can plan and implement their policies and initiatives accordingly in order to remove or at least reduce the impediments that come in the way of women’s career progression. Organizations should try to create a supportive environment by providing women with the support that helps them in their career advancement, like flexible and part-time working hours and childcare rooms, to manage family and work simultaneously. It is also suggested to make sure that women executives do not lack mentoring and organizational support. To make sure of it, women should be provided with the opportunities to receive mentoring and to mentor as well, bearing in mind that the organizational support does not vary based on the gender of the employee. These initiatives are also important for each level of management to retain good talent in the organization, as, women nowadays expect to be treated equally.

Limitations and Future Scope of the Study

Even after taking all the precautionary measures to retain the relevancy and objectivity of the study, few limitations have been identified. The study is based only on female professionals; in future, studies can be conducted with a perspective to compare the point of views of male and female professionals regarding the impediments to their career success. This study is focussed on the Indian IT sector; further, it can comprehensively evaluate various other sectors of India. The proportion of women working at senior-level management has been low in the present study. Other researchers may work on this point in future studies by involving a higher proportion of women working at senior- or top-level management. The study has been limited when it comes to the sample and variables included. Other researchers can evaluate the same impediments on a larger sample by including various other impediments such as networks, glass ceiling, international assignments and opportunities, gender discrimination, and many more. Also, this study is focussed only on the impediments to career success of women; in future, one can work on the facilitators to the career success of women. Identifying the facilitators would help women to move on the corporate ladder in a smoother way with the ways to understand how to tackle with the obstacles coming in their way. Understanding the experiences of career progression of women and conducting a similar study in a qualitative manner can help in bringing out the real picture of the Indian industry.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Abele

A. E.

, & Spurk

(2009). The longitudinal impact of self-efficacy and career goals on objective and subjective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 53–62.

Adhikary

J. R.

(2016). Barriers to career progression: a study of the perceptions of Nepali women employees. Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(2), 17–32.

Agnvall

(2016, May). Just-in-time training (pp. 66–71). Human Resource Magazine.

Ahuja

M. K.

(2002). Women in the information technology profession: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 20–34.

Allen

T. D.

, Eby

L. T.

, Poteet

M. L.

, Lentz

, & Lima

(2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127.

Anders

(2007, March 26). Companies find online training has its limits. The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com

Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland (ADCQ) (2013). Definition of family obligation. http://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/complaints/discrimination/family-responsibilities

Anyakoha

E. U.

(2012). Home economics for junior secondary schools. Upper Basic Education. African First Publisher Plc.

Apospori

, Nikandrou

, & Panayotopoulou

(2006). Mentoring and women’s career advancement in Greece. Human Resource Development International, 9(4), 509–527.

10.

Arthur

M. B.

, Khapova

S. N.

, & Wilderom

C. P.

(2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 26(2), 177–202.

11.

Baumgartner

, & Homburg

(1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161.

12.

Bharathi

, & Bhattacharya

(2015). Work life balance of women employees in the information technology industry. Asian Journal of Management Research, 5(3), 323–343.

13.

Bhattacharya

, Bhattacharya

, & Mohapatra

(2018). Enablers for advancement of women into leadership position: A study based on IT/ITES sector in India. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 9(4), 1–22.

14.

Bielby

W. T.

, & Bielby

D. D.

(1992). I will follow him: Family ties, gender-role beliefs, and reluctance to relocate for a better job. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1241–1267.

15.

Blake-Beard

S. D.

(2001). Taking a hard look at formal mentoring programs. Journal of Management Development, 20(4), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710110388983

16.

Bowen

, Cattell

, Distiller

, & Edwards

P. J.

(2008). Job satisfaction of South African quantity surveyors: An empirical study. Construction Management and Economics, 26(7), 765–780.

17.

Buddhapriya

(2009). Work-family challenges and their impact on career decisions: A study of Indian women professionals. Vikalpa, 34(1), 31–46.

18.

Budhwar

P. S.

, Saini

D. S.

, & Bhatnagar

(2005). Women in management in the new economic environment: The case of India. Asia Pacific Business Review, 11(2), 179–193.

19.

Burke

R. J.

, Koyuncu

, & Fiksenbaum

(2006). Organisational practices supporting women’s career advancement and their satisfaction and well-being in Turkey. Women in Management Review, 21(8), 610–624.

20.

Byars

L. L.

, & Rue

L. W.

(2008). Human resource management (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

21.

Catalyst (2013). Statistical overview women workplace. Catalyst. https://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workplace

22.

Catalyst (2017). Quick take: Women in management. Catalyst. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-management

23.

Chabaya

, Rembe

, & Wadesango

(2009). The persistence of gender inequality in Zimbabwe: Factors that impede the advancement of women into leadership positions in primary schools. South African Journal of Education, 29(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v29n2a259

24.

Chadha

(2002). Of Mars and Venus. Businessline. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did¼0000000270062871&Fmt

25.

Chawla

, & Sharma

R. R.

(2016). How women traverse an upward journey in Indian industry: Multiple case studies. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31(3), 181–206.

26.

Dainty

A. R.

, & Lingard

(2006). Indirect discrimination in construction organizations and the impact on women’s careers. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22(3), 108–118.

27.

Dainty

A. R.

, Neale

R. H.

, & Bagilhole

B. M.

(2000). Comparison of men’s and women’s careers in UK construction industry. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 126(3), 110–115.

28.

Desai

(1996). Women’s employment and their familial role in India. In Shah

A. M.

, Baviskar

B. S.

, & Ramaswamy

E. A.

(Eds.), Social structure and change: Women in Indian society (Vol. 2, pp. 98–112). Sage Publications.

29.

Desai

, Majumdar

, Chakraborty

, & Ghosh

(2011). The second shift: Working women in India. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 26(6), 432–450.

30.

Doll

W. J.

, Xia

, & Torkzadeh

(1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 453–461.

31.

Dreher

G. F.

, & Ash

R. A.

(1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 539.

32.

Eisenberger

, Huntington

, Hutchison

, & Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500.

33.

Ely

R. J.

, Padavic

, & Thomas

D. A.

(2012). Racial diversity, racial asymmetries, and team learning environment: Effects on performance. Organization Studies, 33(3), 341–362.

34.

Erdogan

, Kraimer

M. L.

, & Liden

R. C.

(2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 305–332.

35.

Fathy

E. A.

, & Youssif

H. A. E.

(2020). The impact of glass ceiling beliefs on women’s subjective career success in tourism and hospitality industry: The moderating role of social support. https://thalexu.journals.ekb.eg/article_134652_1fc05c496be9dd4ca63e856ecca1c3e7.pdf

36.

Fernando

N. G.

, Amaratunga

, & Haigh

(2014). The career advancement of the professional women in the UK construction industry. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 12(1), 53–70.

37.

Francis

(2017). What influences professional women’s career advancement in construction? Construction Management and Economics, 35(5), 254–275.

38.

Friedman

S. D.

, & Greenhaus

J. H.

(2000). Work and family—Allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. Oxford University Press.

39.

Glass

, & Cook

(2016). Leading at the top: Understanding women’s challenges above the glass ceiling. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 51–63.

40.

Goodman

J. S.

, Fields

D. L.

, & Blum

T. C.

(2003). Cracks in the glass ceiling: In what kinds of organizations do women make it to the top? Group and Organization Management, 28(4), 475–501.

41.

Greenhaus

J. H.

, & Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.

42.

Greenhaus

J. H.

, Parasuraman

, & Wormley

W. M.

(1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64–86.

43.

Gupta

, Koshal

, & Koshal

R. K.

(1998). Women managers in India: Challenges and opportunities. Equal Opportunities International, 17(8), 14–26.

44.

Gutek

B. A.

, Repetti

R. L.

, & Silver

D. L.

(1988). Nonwork roles and stress at work. Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, 2, 141–174.

45.

Gutek

B. A.

, Searle

, & Klepa

(1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 560.

46.

Hair

J. F.

, Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, Anderson

R. E.

, & Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Pearson Prentice Hall.

47.

Hatipkarasulu

, & Roff

E. S.

(2011, April). Women in construction: An early historical perspective. Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) 47th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 6(9).

48.

Haynes

R. K.

, & Ghosh

(2012). Towards mentoring the Indian organizational woman: Propositions, considerations, and first steps. Journal of World Business, 47(2), 186–193.

49.

Hughes

E. C.

(1937). Institutional office and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 43(3), 404–413.

50.

Hughes

E. C.

(1951). Ambition, mobility and sponsorship. In Dubin

(Ed.), Human relations in administration (pp. 240–3). Prentice-Hall.

51.

ILO Report (2015). As India economy grows, female participation in work force declines. http://www.hindustantimes.com/business/as-india-economy-grows-female-participation-in-work-force-declines-ilo/story-pGjf3zWf0VpnWfevajMUsM

52.

Indvik

(2001). Women and leadership. In Northhouse

P. G.

(Ed.), Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Sage Publication.

53.

Indecon (2002). Study of the gender pay gap at sectoral level in Ireland. Indecon International Economic Consultants.

54.

Ismail

, & Ibrahim

(2008). Barriers to career progression faced by women: Evidence from a Malaysian multinational oil company. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 23(1), 51–66.

55.

Jawahar

I. M.

, & Hemmasi

(2006). Perceived organizational support for women’s advancement and turnover intentions: The mediating role of job and employer satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 21(8), 643–661.

56.

Joubert

, & Kriek

H. J.

(2009). Psychometric comparison of paper-and-pencil and online personality assessments in a selection setting. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), 78–88.

57.

Jyoti

, & Sharma

(2015). Impact of mentoring functions on career development: Moderating role of mentoring culture and mentoring structure. Global Business Review, 16(4), 700–718.

58.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.

59.

Kaushik

, Sharma

, & Kumar Kaushik

(2014). Equality in the workplace: A study of gender issues in Indian organisations. Journal of Management Development, 33(2), 90–106.

60.

King

E. B.

, Botsford

W. E.

, & Huffman

A. H.

(2009). Work, family, and organizational advancement: Does balance support the perceived advancement of mothers? Sex Roles, 61(11–12), 879–891.

61.

Kirchmeyer

(2006). The different effects of family on objective career success across gender: A test of alternative explanations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 323–346.

62.

Kram

K. E.

(1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608–625.

63.

Kulkarni

S. S.

(2002). Women and professional competency—A survey report. Indian Journal of Training and Development, 32(2), 11–16.

64.

Kurtulus

F. A.

, & Tomaskovic-Devey

(2012). Do female top managers help women to advance? A panel study using EEO-1 records. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639(1), 173–197.

65.

Lynch

P. D.

, Eisenberger

, & Armeli

(1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 467.

66.

Lyness

K. S.

, & Thompson

D. E.

(1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 359.

67.

Makarem

, & Wang

(2020). Career experiences of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields: A systematic literature review. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31(1), 91–111.

68.

Malik

M. S.

, & Nawaz

M. K.

(2020). Relationship between mentoring functions and career success with mediating role of career resilience; Evidence from Pakistani banking sector. Hamdardislamicicus, 43(2). https://islamicmarkets.com/publications/relationship-between-mentoring-functions-and-career-success-with-mediating-role

69.

Matot

, De Hert

, Cohen

, & Koch

(2020). Women anaesthesiologists’ attitudes and reported barriers to career advancement in anaesthesia: A survey of the European society of anaesthesiology. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 124(3), e171–e177.

70.

Mavriplis

, Heller

, Beil

, Dam

, Yassinskaya

, Shaw

, & Sorensen

(2010). Mind the gap: Women in STEM career breaks. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 5(1), 140–151.

71.

Mayrhofer

, Meyer

, Schiffinger

, & Schmidt

(2008). The influence of family responsibilities, career fields and gender on career success. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(3), 292.

72.

McGuire

G. M.

(2002). Gender, race, and the shadow structure: A study of informal networks and inequality in a work organization. Gender and Society, 16(3), 303–322.

73.

Melamed

(1996). Career success: An assessment of a gender-specific model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 217–242.

74.

Metz

(2009). Organisational factors, social factors, and women’s advancement. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(2), 193–213.

75.

Meyerson

D. E.

, & Fletcher

J. K.

(2000). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 126–136.

76.

Meyerson

D. E.

, & Fletcher

J. K.

(2005). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review on Women in Business, 69–94. Harvard business School Publishing Corporation.

77.

Miller

G. E.

(2004). Frontier masculinity in the oil industry: The experience of women engineers. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(1), 47–73.

78.

Nabi

G. R.

(2001). The relationship between HRM, social support and subjective career success among men and women. International Journal of Manpower, 22(5), 457–474.

79.

O’Brien

K. E.

, Biga

, Kessler

S. R.

, & Allen

T. D.

(2010). A meta-analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring. Journal of Management, 36(2), 537–554.

80.

Olson

J. E.

& Frieze

I. H.

(1987). Income determinants for women in business. In Stromberg

A. H.

, Larwood

, & Gutek

B. A.

(Eds.), Women and work: An annual review (Vol. 2). SAGE Publications.

81.

O’Neil

D. A.

, Hopkins

M. M.

, & Bilimoria

(2008). Women’s careers at the start of the 21st century: Patterns and paradoxes. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 727–743.

82.

Ohlott

P. J.

, Ruderman

M. N.

, & McCauley

C. D.

(1994). Gender differences in managers’ developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 46–67.

83.

Parasuraman

, & Greenhaus

J. H.

(1993). Personal portrait: The lifestyle of the woman manager. Women in Management: Trends, Issues, and Challenges in Managerial Diversity, 4, 186–211.

84.

Parasuraman

, Purohit

Y. S.

, Godshalk

V. M.

, & Beutell

N. J.

(1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(3), 275–300.

85.

Phillips

S. D.

, & Imhoff

A. R.

(1997). Women and career development: A decade of research. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 31–59.

86.

Powell

G. N.

, & Graves

L. M.

(2003). Women and men in management (3rd ed.). Sage Publication.

87.

Powell

, Hassan

T. M.

, Dainty

A. R.

, & Carter

(2009). Note: Exploring gender differences in construction research: A European perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 27(9), 803–807.

88.

Ragins

B. R.

, & Cotton

J. L.

(1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 529.

89.

Rath

T. S.

, Mohanty

, & Pradhan

B. B.

(2019). An alternative career progression model for Indian women bank managers: A labyrinth approach. Women’s Studies International Forum, 73, 24–34.

90.

Robbins

S. P.

, & Coulter

(2013). Management (11th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

91.

Robbins

S. P.

, DeCenzo

D. A.

, & Coulter

(2011). Fundamentals of management: Essential concepts and applications (7th ed.). Pearson.

92.

Rosenberg

D. M.

(2018). Career advancement, how to move up at work. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/advancement-525653

93.

Rosser

S. V.

(2004). Using POWRE to advance: Institutional barriers identified by women scientists and engineers. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 50–78.

94.

Sang

K. J.

, Dainty

A. R.

, & Ison

S. G.

(2007). Gender: a risk factor for occupational stress in the architectural profession? Construction Management and Economics, 25(12), 1305–1317.

95.

Schein

V. E.

(2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688.

96.

Schneer

J. A.

, & Reitman

(2002). Managerial life without a wife: Family structure and managerial career success. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 25–38.

97.

Scott

M. E.

(2014). Number of women in senior management stagnant at 24%. http://forbes.com/sites/forbesasia/2014/03/06/number-of-women-in-senior-management-stagnant-at-24/

98.

Seema

, & Sujatha

(2015). Impact of mentoring on career success—An empirical study in an Indian context. International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research, 2(2), 29–48.

99.

Seibert

S. E.

, Kraimer

M. L.

, & Liden

R. C.

(2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.

100.

Siew

J. C. S.

(2001). Factors affecting career development: A comparative analysis of two organizations in Sarawak, Malaysia (Master Thesis). University of Sarawak.

101.

Subramaniam

I. D.

, Arumugam

, & Akeel

A. B. A.

. (2014). Demographic and family related barriers on women managers’ career development. Asian Social Science, 10(1), 86.

102.

Tamang

G. B.

(2020). Gender differences on objective and subjective career outcomes: An evidence from Nepalese civil service. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 22(1), 56–66.

103.

Taylor

C. J.

(2010). Occupational sex composition and the gendered availability of workplace support. Gender and Society, 24(2), 189–212.

104.

Tharenou

, (1999). Gender differences in advancing to the top. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(2), 111–132.

105.

Tharenou

(2005). Does mentor support increase women’s career advancement more than men’s? The differential effects of career and psychosocial support. Australian Journal of Management, 30(1), 77–109.

106.

The Hindu (2015, January 14). Women make only four per cent of top BSE 100 executives: ILO report (p.16A). The Hindu.

107.

The Economic Times (2020, July 25). Looking at the pandemic through gender lens: Women are facing the brunt of Covid-19 with more job cuts, less pay. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/looking-at-the-pandemic-through-gender-lens-women-are-facing-the-brunt-of-covid-19-with-more-job-cuts-less-pay/articleshow/75735303.cms?from=mdr

108.

Ugwu

K. E.

, Kekeocha

, & Chukwu

O. E.

(2018). Impact of work-family conflict on career advancement of female professionals in commercial banks of Ebonyi State, Nigeria. SSRN.

109.

Underhill

C. M.

(2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 292–307.

110.

Wanberg

C. R.

, Welsh

E. T.

, & Hezlett

S. A.

(2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. In Martocchio

J. J.

, & Ferris

G. R.

, (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 39–124). Elsevier Science Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22002-8

111.

Worrall

(2012). Organizational cultures: Obstacles to women in the UK construction industry. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 2(4), 6–21.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB