Climbing Ladders of Success: Perceptions of Barriers to Public Sector Career Advancement in Jaffna District,Sri Lanka

Abstract

Women in Jaffna district, Sri Lanka, show a high rate of participation and progress in the public sector. However, at senior managerial level, their representation is comparatively lower than that of men. Therefore, two studies were carried out with the principal objective of identifying barriers to career advancement of women at the middle managerial levels of the public sector in the Jaffna district. An equal number of men and women at secondary and tertiary levels in the public sector in Jaffna participated in the studies. In Study 1, 40 officers were interviewed using semi-structured questionnaires, the results of which were then content analysed. In Study 2, a structured questionnaire was administered to investigate the experiences of 120 officers. Cluster analysis and descriptive analysis were performed to examine the nature of these barriers to career advancement of both men and women. Individual barriers and sociocultural barriers were identified as stronger barriers to women than men, and organizational barriers were identified as stronger barriers to men than women.

Keywords

Jaffna public sector women career advancement barriers

Introduction

The underrepresentation of women at senior executive and managerial levels on corporate boards globally (see Cooper, 2001; Livingston & Judge, 2008; Silva, 2008) provides a troubling indicator of the lack of social and gender parities in the labour market (OECD, 2009a). Further, from a purely utilitarian perspective, organizations and businesses with higher numbers of women in senior management positions experience positive organizational outcomes, including financial performance (Joy, Carter, Srira, & Wagener, 2007; McKinsey & Company, 2007). As those from different backgrounds may bring different perspectives into corporate decision-making, team activities and communication, opening up top management teams to a diverse membership, such as by providing opportunities to women to progress in management careers, may improve organizations’ performance (OECD, 2009b). Yet, women face barriers to enter such positions, even in instances where their involvement at lower managerial levels are high.

The present study examines the perspectives of women at lower managerial levels on their experiences with barriers to career advancement. The study specifically compares their experiences to those of men, in an attempt to understand differences in perspectives within seemingly similar work environments.

Representation of Women in Work Organizations

Over the years, women’s participation in the labour market has increased, as more and more women have entered traditionally male dominated areas of work. In Sri Lanka as well, similar patterns may be observed. The number of women engaged in paid work has increased over time. Today, in Sri Lanka, women represent 53.7 per cent of the working age population and 35.5 per cent of the workforce (Department of Census and Statistics, 2013). According to the Department of Census and Statistics (2013), of jobs classified as professional, 11.3 per cent are held by women and only 3.7 per cent are held by men. Even though most of these jobs, such as teaching and nursing, are also gendered, statistics indicate that women in Sri Lanka play a significant role in the labour market.

Women’s Involvement in Work in Jaffna District

Jaffna district, in the north of Sri Lanka and severely affected by a long-term internal armed conflict (Leelangi, 2006), has a similar profile with respect to the labour force. Although official data suggest that labour force participation rates for women (only 22.2 per cent in 2013; Department of Census and Statistics, 2013) are somewhat lower than the country level statistics, local survey reports indicate considerably higher rates, that is, 77.4 per cent (the rate for men was 74.8 per cent; Council of NGOs, 2002).

Prior to the conflict, women’s participation in the labour force was lower. According to Leelangi (2006), women confined themselves to caretaker roles and unpaid household work to a greater extent prior to the 1980s (Leelangi, 2006)—a trend that was reflective of the rest of the country as well (Department of Census and Statistics, 2002, 2006, 2013). They also contributed to the household economy by working in family farms and engaging in income generating activities within the boundary of the home (Leelangi, 2006). During the ensuing 30 years, however, their participation in the labour force rose considerably (Leelangi, 2006), and during that time, many women assumed positions of sole breadwinners in households. In Jaffna, there are over 20,000 such households, as the war has resulted in deaths, disappearances and incapacitations of men (IRIN news, 2010).¹ These women workers include those who are self-employed and those in the private and public sectors.

Women at Managerial Levels

Although women’s share in the global labour market is 52 per cent (Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, 2010), with comparable statistics in Sri Lanka, in general, and Jaffna, in particular, women make up only around 25 per cent of senior management positions (Grant Thornton International Ltd, 2012). Thus, women are underrepresented in these positions, even though their presence in middle management can be comparatively high.

Underrepresentation is most evident in the private sector, where only 6.1 per cent of boards of directors are women. The public sector, which is the focus of this article, follows a somewhat similar pattern (Jayaweera, 2000), even though women constitute a greater proportion of the employees in this sector (19.4 per cent relative to 12.8 per cent for men; Department of Census and Statistics, 2013), that is, women make up only 8.9 per cent of secretaries (the chief administrative officer of a ministry) and 24 per cent of additional secretaries. These positions are at the Grade 4 level, the highest grade within the sector (Silva, 2008). Yet, the proportion of women in lower managerial grades, Grades 2 and 3, is much higher. Therefore, even though women seem to move up to the tertiary level with relative ease, they seem to be impeded from reaching the top. The present study examines the perspective of those in secondary and tertiary or middle managerial level positions (Ministry of Finance and Planning, 2012), as these feed the highest grade of the public sector.²

Conceptualization of Barriers to Career Advancement of Women

Career advancement refers to the nature of an individual’s promotion to higher positions and incomes over time (Ackah & Heaton, 2003). Barriers to career advancement are defined as situations or actions that make it difficult for career progression to occur (Swanson & Woitke, 1997). This article examines career barriers using a social constructivist paradigm, and thus is based on the assumption that the social contexts are created by individuals through social practices and interactions (Brown, 2002).

Social constructionism postulates barriers to career advancement for women are shaped through interactions with society (Tlaiss, 2013), and, therefore, emphasizes individual’s interpretations of their social environment. Social cognitive career development theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000), founded on Bandura’s (1976) work, provides a concentric model of barriers to career advancement. This model specifically focuses on the multiple layers through which demographic factors, including gender, affect career advancement. The innermost layer focuses on immediate, proximal contextual elements such as those related to family, friends and one’s financial conditions. The outer layers highlight institutional and societal barriers. The model, therefore, suggests that career barriers may be classified into those that are individual, organizational and societal in nature (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013; Amondi, 2011; Fernando & Cohen, 2011; Neidhart & Carlin, 2003).

Tiao (2006) defined individual barriers as those directly or indirectly imposed on individuals themselves. For instance, women, for whatever reason, may have acquired relatively poor skills and competencies (Li & Wearing, 2003); they may have self-selected out of promotions (Vianen & Fischer, 2002), lacked confidence (Kolade & Kehinde, 2013) and demonstrated low commitment to work (Mavin, 2001).

Barriers related to organizational culture, policies and working environment are classified as organizational barriers (Amondi, 2011). For instance, women, relative to men, may face gender discrimination in career advancement decisions (Cooper, 2001); policies within organizations may be disadvantageous to women (Anker, 1997) and networking opportunities for women may be fewer (Tonge, 2008). Furthermore, an organization’s culture may be gendered and detrimental to women (Cooper, 2001; Eagly & Wood, 1991).

Broader societal pressures may act as barriers to career advancement as well. Gender stereotyping (Gmur, 2006), cultural norms that impose restrictions based on gender (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000), work–family conflict that may arise as a result of the multiple roles that women embrace (Marcinkus, Whelan Berry, & Gorden, 2007) and the multiple roles themselves (Stockard, 1990) may act as barriers.

A study by Amondi (2011) on the representation of women in top educational management and leadership positions in Kenya revealed that all these types of barriers hindered women from climbing their career ladders. A comparison of mean scores of all respondents indicated that organizational barriers were perceived as strongest to women. Specifically, long working hours, prejudice and discrimination against women and limited networking opportunities were reported as problems. Sociocultural barriers, which included dual responsibilities to family and work, socially imposed caretaker roles, and leadership and management norms set by men followed organizational barriers in the level of importance. Individual barriers were reported as least important, and included the lack of confidence, fear of sexual harassment and reluctance to voice opinions.

A few studies in Sri Lanka have delved on women’s experiences with career advancement (Bombuwela & De Alwis, 2013; Fernando & Cohen, 2011; Silva, 2008). One found that gender discrimination, gender stereotyping and conflicting demands from family and work were inhibiting career advancement of Sri Lankan women in both public and private sectors (Silva, 2008). Another examined how women negotiated work spaces in order to advance their careers (Fernando & Cohen, 2011). A final study, Bombuwela and De Alwis (2013), focused on the perceptions of 150 women regarding the extent to which individual, family, organizational and cultural factors significantly affect women’s career development. Lack of confidence, personal trait and inability to sell themselves, organizational policy and management style, beliefs and stereotyping were reported as important. These issues were reported irrespective of the managerial position the women held.

These studies, however, do not compare women’s perceptions to those of men’s, and thus are not able to compare differences in experience based on gender. Further, as the studies specifically introduced gender as a focal construct, there is a possibility that participants were primed to attribute a gendered perspective in evaluating their work experiences (see Smith, Schwarz, Roberts, & Ubel, 2006). Finally, little attention has specifically been paid to the public sector. Therefore, this article focuses on the public sector, particularly in Jaffna district, and compares the experiences of women relative to that of men in pursuing their careers.

We focus specifically on individuals’ perceptions of the causes of barriers to career advancement, whether they be factors within the individuals themselves, structurally imposed by the organization or derived from the individuals’ sociocultural environment. Specifically, the study focuses on intrapersonal attributions, or the process of ascribing causes for outcomes individuals may experience (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967), such as job promotions or the lack thereof (Martinko & Thomson, 1998). Kelley (1967) distinguished between internal (within oneself) and external (outside of oneself) causes for such outcomes. Research indicates that external attributions for unpleasant outcomes in organizational settings are associated with higher perceptions of injustice (Breaux, Tepper, Carr, & Folger, 2010). Therefore, an attribution of barriers to causes external to the individual experiencing it is likely to result in external solutions to the perceived barrier.

Overview of the Studies and Objective

In the public sector, women’s participation is significantly high, but at the top of the management pyramid, women’s participation is low. For instance, in Jaffna district, women represent 18.8 per cent, while men represent 81.9 per cent of the highest level (Jaffna District Secretariat, 2011). The question then is why women’s representation at the top in the public sector is low? The present studies attempt to identify the barriers hindering women’s career advancement at the managerial level of the public sector in Jaffna district by examining the perceptions of men and women in positions that feed into that highest position regarding the barriers they encounter in their careers. Two separate studies were carried out, which used different methods to investigate the same issue.

Study 1

Study 1 is an exploratory study of barriers to women’s career advancement at the managerial level in Jaffna district’s public sector.

Participants: Officers at secondary and tertiary managerial levels in the public sector in Jaffna district formed the study population. A sample of 40 officers with equal numbers of men and women were drawn from the study population using a quota sampling method. To represent public institutions, participants were drawn from the agriculture sector, education sector and public administration sector ensuring a variety of organizations. Participants were identified randomly from selected offices within these sectors. While agriculture and education sector offices were chosen randomly, four divisional secretariat offices from the district were selected purposively to represent the geographical spread of the district. Details about the participants are given in Table 1.

Table 1.

Description of Participants’ Demographic Characteristics

	Category	Women (%)	Men (%)
Age	<25 years	0	0
	25–34 years	25	15
	35–44 years	45	40
	45–54 years	20	15
	>54 years	10	30
Marital stage	Married	85	95
Marital stage	Single	15	5
Education qualifications	Primary (up to 5th grade)	0	5
	Secondary (up to end of high school)	60	35
	Tertiary (beyond high school)	40	60
Organization	Education sector	25	15
	Agriculture sector	15	20
	Public administration sector	60	65
Level of position	Secondary	80	55
Level of position	Tertiary	20	45
Length of service	<2 years	15	10
	2–6 years	65	55
	7–10 years	20	25
	>10 years	0	10

Source: Authors’ own.

Material and Procedure: An interview method was adopted for this study. Interviewees were asked to explain the barriers they encountered to career advancement. The research instrument used was a pretested, semi-structured instrument. We administered it to five individuals using the procedures anticipated to be used during the actual study. Participants were encouraged to request clarifications while the interview was being carried out and were probed for additional concerns and clarifications at the end of the session. Minor modifications were made as a result of this process.

The first section of the questionnaire focused on demographics and the second on barriers to career advancement. It was formulated in English and then translated into Tamil.

Interviews lasted 15–20 minutes, and were conducted at workplaces during office hours. Care was taken to maintain the confidentiality of responses. Participants were not informed of the study’s focus on gender until the last few questions. Inductive content analysis (Nagvi, 2011) was carried out to analyze the interview transcripts. The inductive coding system (Thomas, 2003), where one of the authors coded barriers into categories, was employed to develop codes. Thereafter, the main issues and barriers to career advancement were identified.

Results

Barriers identified were categorized as individual, organizational and sociocultural. Details of the reported barriers are given below. The responses at times seemed to fit in more than one category. However, classification into different barriers was based on what were perceived by the coder as the participants’ chief concerns.

Individual Barriers: Several types of barriers were identified, each of which had been identified in the past research (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ own.

Lack of Necessary Skills: Women interviewees indicated that lack of necessary skills had a negative effect on their careers. Li and Wearing (2003) found in their study that lack of education and competency is a huge barrier to women’s career advancement. Similarly, the majority of the women respondents reported inadequate educational qualifications to apply to senior level positions, even though they had attained the secondary level education (had finished high school) necessary for middle management positions.

“When I studied for the Advanced Level (A/L) exams, I had an ambition of entering university, but after finishing A/Ls, I got a job in this sector. So I gave up my plans even though I got the opportunity to enter university. I did not do the degree externally while on this job. Because of that, now I have the problem of not having a degree for my promotions” (W₄).

It was found that women perceived a lack of communication skills, problem-solving ability and decision-making ability specifically.

“As I am very shy, I cannot easily move and communicate with the public and other staff, so I cannot be a senior officer” (W₁₄).

“I know that I have a problem with decision making and when I make a decision I need others to clarify and confirm my decision. I am also afraid of facing serious problems” (W₁₆).

A few men reported that not having the necessary skills to be a senior officer hindered their career growth.

“I did not study well in school. I only just passed Ordinary Level (O/L). Because of that, I have an inferiority complex. I cannot move with my senior officers or even with co-staff” (M₁₆).

Lack of Self-confidence: In this study, lack of self-confidence appeared to be a constraint for women’s career advancement.

“In a senior officer position, I would have to work in the office, make field visits, attend meetings and be more responsible for my office. These responsibilities are too big for me. I cannot deal with more responsibilities so I know that I am not suitable for senior positions” (W₂₀).

Self-selection: Self-selection was identified as a barrier when participants reported volitionally remaining in the present position. This was identified as a barrier by both men and women. A few women participants did not want senior managerial roles because of the increased pressure and responsibility perceived to be attached to these.

“I am not interested in senior posts, because at that level the responsibilities are high and we must work under high pressure. In my middle level position, however, it is not like that. I feel comfortable and relaxed in my present job” (M₁₉).

Women officers gave more priority to their families, and they made career choices taking family needs into consideration.

“I do not think too much about my career. My son’s education and his career are important to me, so a senior level posting is not on my mind. I will work here until I have enough service to qualify for a pension. Then I will retire and spend my time with my son and family. I will especially take care of my son. He will go to school from next year and I will look into his studies” (W₆).

When considering men, it was clear that a few of them preferred middle level managerial roles.

“I am from the middle class. We do not like to get involved in politics, but in the public administration sector being a senior officer is dangerous in our present political situation. I do not like that and I feel safe in my present post” (M₁₃).

A few men did not like a job in the public sector.

“I will be here for a certain period and then I will do my own business, because I do not like to do this boring job” (M₇).

“I prefer an executive level job in the private sector. If I get a chance, I will resign from this job” (M₁₈).

Low Commitment to Work: Women reported low commitment to work to be a barrier to career advancement. Participants’ responses were classified as falling into this category when participants demonstrated that they did not wish to put the effort needed for higher level positions.

“In a senior position, officers have to be ready to work any time. I can work during office hours only and I have to go home as early as possible, because my husband is in a job which has more responsibilities and he is always busy. When I come to office, my daughter is alone at home. Sometimes we make her stay at our uncle’s home. So I cannot spend more time in office” (W₁₈).

Low Aspirations: In this study, low aspirations were identified as a barrier to women’s career advancement, although not initially identified from our review of the literature. Past studies, however, had identified low aspirations of women as affecting career growth (Adedogin, Ajonbad, & Mordi, 2011). Responses were classified into this category when participants clearly demonstrated a lack of desire to put in the effort for higher level positions. Several women reported low aspirations to be a barrier to career advancement.

“I do not put any effort to do the promotion exams and I am only interested in automatic promotions, which I can get through my service” (W₈).

This was stated by a fewer men as a barrier for them.

“I have no interest to be a senior officer, because I don’t like to be always busy and tense …. But I will accept automatic promotions” (M₅).

From the individual barriers, “low aspirations” was identified as a strong barrier for women. It was also found that a higher number of women reported “individual barriers” to be barriers to career advancement relative to men.

Organizational Barriers: Figure 2 shows the reported organizational barriers. Among these barriers, gender discrimination and networking were interestingly not reported by either gender. A challenging organizational culture was identified as a barrier by women only, but organizational policies and infringement of procedural justice were identified as barriers by both men and women.

Figure 2.

Source: Authors’ own.

Organizational Culture: Organizational culture refers to values, beliefs and norms shared within an organization that influence how members behave towards each other and with others outside it (Robbins & Coulter, 2003). Research indicates that male dominant organizations inhibit career advancement of women through its culture (Cooper, 2001).

In the public sector, senior officers are compelled to make field visits, which demand that they travel in vehicles with their male drivers. Women express concerns of safety and criticism from society as making them feel uncomfortable.

“Now I am in the ‘assistant’ post of senior officer in the public administration sector. Before that I had a senior officer post in the same sector. During that period, I had to travel with my driver alone to rural areas and I felt uncomfortable and unsafe. So I think this type of working condition makes women officers hesitate in taking up senior managerial roles in the public administration sector” (W₃).

Both men and women stated that as senior officers, they were expected to attend ministry level meetings in Colombo. The job required them to return to Jaffna on the same day and to be in office the next day. For this reason, they had to travel through the night. These requirements made senior officer posts less desirable to women.

Organizational Policies: Organizational policies related to promotions, work scheduling and job descriptions were identified as major barriers which hindered the career advancement of both men and women. Organizational policies were reported by a higher number of men than women as a barrier. For instance, examination procedures for prospective recruits to senior level positions were revealed to be barriers.

“I was unable to score beyond the SLAS exam cut-off even though I passed the exam” (W₅).

“The last time I sat for the SLAS exam, I passed it, but I missed the cut-off by 2 marks” (M₄).

“SLAS and SLEAS exams are held in Colombo normally. When I applied for the SLAS exam, I could not sit the exam as the A9 road was blocked due to the war and we did not have any other means of going to Colombo” (M₈).

Not having a promotion route and the lack of vacancies at senior levels were also cited as barriers by both groups of respondents.

“I received an appointment to this job as a graduate appointee. These types of positions do not have promotion routes” (W₇).

“I received an appointment to this newly created post under the previous government’s policy, but the government has changed now. The new government’s policy has stopped recruiting to our post and has left us stranded” (W₁₀).

“Now I am an accountant. I have to be in this position for 10 years to get promoted according to policy. So I cannot think about promotions for 10 years” (M₁₄).

Organizational policies related to work scheduling were cited by men as barriers to their career growth.

“I have been working here in this position for 3 years and I have been given work on the same subject area throughout and, as a result, I cannot improve my knowledge in other areas” (M₃).

Procedural Injustice: Procedural justice in an organization is mostly concerned with the fairness of organizational procedures related to rewards and promotion decisions (Misuko, 2012). Promotions related procedural injustices can negatively affect careers (De Souza, 2002; Misuko, 2012). Although not identified as a potential barrier at the formulation stages of this study, procedural injustice was identified by both men and women, with higher numbers of men than women identifying it.

“I could be a senior officer in another office in public administration, but because of the political influences of other officers in that post, I am here as an assistant to a senior officer. However, I may be in a senior post in this office next year as my senior officer is due to retire. I do not know whether I will be promoted though” (W₃).

“I expected to be a senior officer on my board, but the government has appointed another non Tamil speaking person to that position in Jaffna. Even though I have enough qualifications and service to be in that position, I was not promoted to that position” (M₆).

Sociocultural Barriers: Other than gender stereotyping, all barriers reviewed from the literature under this category were reported by women. Men reported only work–family conflict and multiple roles as barriers, although both to a lesser extent than women (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Source: Authors’ own.

Gender Stereotyping: This barrier was not reported either by men or women as far as their own careers were concerned, but gendered perceptions of careers suggest that gender stereotyping is a barrier to women’s general career advancement. Six men and four women brought such points up when specifically asked about the role of gender in career advancement.

“Senior officers must move with the public, visit rural areas and deal with problems arising among the public. Sometimes people can attack or blame the officer using bad words. So, for a woman officer this type of senior post is not suitable” (M₁₂).

“Senior officers must attend meetings in Colombo and travel through the night to be at work the next day. This busy schedule is not suitable for women as they have more responsibilities in the home” (M₄).

“In our society, women prefer to be in office jobs or teaching. Senior managerial roles are considered not suitable for women as they involve more responsibilities” (W₁₃).

Cultural Norms: Cultural norms were identified as reasons for women’s low representation in senior managerial roles in the public sector. There were no men who perceived this as a barrier. In this sample, married women seemed to view their own careers less significant than their husband’s and children’s careers. For instance, one woman stated the following:

“My husband is an assistant officer to a senior level post in his office, so he has to work even after office hours. If I get promoted to that kind of position, it is difficult to take care of him and my children. So this post is okay for me” (W₁₇).

Work–Family Conflict: Both men and women participants in the study stated that work–family conflict was a barrier to their careers, but mostly, this barrier was identified by women. Having more responsibilities in the office and at home, whether studying for promotion exams or putting an extra effort at the work, were identified as problems.

“I could not study for my exams as I have more work at my office and home. When at home, there is only time for my duties to my children, husband and mother-in-law and at my office I have no time to even touch my notes” (W₂).

“As my wife is also doing her higher studies and as we have a baby under the age of one, my family environment is not suitable to study and work” (M₄).

Multiple Roles: A number of women had problems with multiple roles such as mother, wife, homemaker and officer. They indicated that playing multiple roles caused problems in their work, and consequently affected their career.

“My husband works in an office where he also has night duty. We have a daughter who goes to school now. We have no one to help. If I am in a position with more work, I cannot take care of my child. Therefore, I am satisfied with this middle level post” (W₁₈).

“I have to drop and pick up my child to and from school and I have to attend to the needs of school, such as parent–teacher meetings, as my husband is always busy at work. If I am a senior officer I will not be able to do this. Because of that I did not try” (W₁₇).

Discussion

The study indicated that both women and men perceived individual barriers, organizational barriers and sociocultural barriers as negatively affecting their careers. Two barriers not identified in the conceptual model, low aspirations (individual barrier) and procedural injustice (organizational barrier), were also reported.

When considering women, based on the number or range of barriers reported, the barriers identified were mostly at the individual level. These were followed by sociocultural barriers and organizational barriers. According to the frequency with which barriers were identified, sociocultural barriers were more.

Women, relative to men, reported lower aspirations a weaker skill set and a lack in self-confidence, in addition to more frequently making a conscious choice to remain in their present positions. Thus, women most frequently recalled individual barriers, rather than the other categories of barriers. The women’s responses indicated that they give more importance to their ‘caretaker role’ than men do, and that social expectations to do so also influenced their career decisions. For instance, sociocultural barriers, such as work–family conflict and multiple roles were reported more often by women than men as barriers. In contrast, organizational barriers were perceived as barriers to a lesser extent by women.

Men reported organizational barriers most frequently. They reported barriers stemming from organizational procedures as the greatest hindrance to their careers by far. Men tended to report that due to the cut-off system in the promotion exams, they could not become senior officers, even though they were qualified. They also reported injustice in appointments of officers for senior posts. Sociocultural barriers were largely not expressed as problems to men. Perhaps, because men are expected to play a breadwinner’s role in society, sociocultural factors support, rather than hinder, their careers.

These findings provide insights into the types of barriers that men and women faced in the public sector. We wanted to further study this issue with a larger sample using a more structured measurement tool that would make comparisons between men and women easier. Study 2 was conducted with this purpose in mind.

Study 2

Study 2 was designed based on the findings of Study 1. The population for this study was same as for Study 1, but the sample differed.

Study 2 used a structured questionnaire to assess the degree to which women and men perceived individual, organizational and sociocultural barriers and to investigate how these barriers relate to participants’ career advancement. However, because of measurement difficulties associated with the career advancement measure, the objective of investigating how these barriers relate to participants’ career advancement was not achieved.

Participant: A sample of 120 officers, both men and women in equal numbers, were drawn using a stratified random sampling method. The sample was stratified according to the gender, level of position (secondary and tertiary managerial levels) and the type of sector (agriculture, education, administration and postal service) to which their organizations belonged. See Table 2 for a profile of the sample.

Table 2.

Description of Participants’ Demographic Characteristics

	Category	Women (%)	Men (%)
Age	<25 years	5	0
	25–34 years	37	23
	35–44 years	40	42
	45–54 years	13	27
	>54 years	5	8
Length of service	<2 years	22	7
	2–4 years	13	12
	5–7 years	28	30
	>7 years	37	52
Education level	Primary and Secondary (up to high school)	20	32
	Tertiary (beyond high school)	80	68
Marital stage	Single	8	25
	Married	92	75

Source: Authors’ own.

Measures and Procedure: A self-administrated questionnaire was used for this study. Pretesting followed a similar procedure to Study 1. In the actual study, much of the procedure was similar to Study 1, although the measure incorporated the findings from Study 1 with respect to additional barriers that were identified.

Career advancement was measured using a scale which was the average of four items (Tharenou, 1999). The items measured the number of promotions, perceived satisfaction with career growth both with respect to one’s personal expectations and relative to that of others and level of progress relative to one’s original goals for career advancement (Tharenou, 1999). Each item was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Although career advancement was measured, due to poor measurement properties (the items had poor reliability, α = 0.593, and did not produce a meaningful factor structure when they were subjected to exploratory factor analysis) it was not used in further analyses.

The first set of the questions on barriers required participants to rate on a scale range from 1 (not a barrier) to 5 (a major barrier) the extent to which each barrier affected their career advancement (e.g., lack in communication and leadership skills). The second set of questions on barriers had a rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), where participants rated the extent to which they agreed with the statements on the barriers they encountered. This second set was derived from Study 1 (e.g., I do not like to put more effort to get promotions through exams, and I just want to get automatic promotions).

Initially, we had planned to construct composite indicators to represent the different types of barriers. However, the results of factor analyses indicated that the items did not conform to meaningful factors. As a result, there was no justification for pooling items. As a solution to this problem, cluster analysis was carried out to organize the data in a meaningful manner. Cross tabulation and descriptive analysis were carried out on the clusters that were identified.

Results

Reliability: To assess reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was used (see Table 3). Because of low reliability, composites were not created as planned, and instead, three different composite variables were created to represent individual barriers, organizational barriers and sociocultural barriers based on exploratory factor analyses.

Table 3.

Reliability of All Sub-scales

	Before Factor analysis		After Factor analysis
	Number of Items	Cronbach’s alpha	Number of Items	Cronbach’s alpha
Career advancement		0.59		0.59
Individual barriers			13	0.77
Lack of necessary skills	3	0.39
Lack of self-confidence	2	0.51
Self-selection	3	0.16
Less work commitment	2	0.57
Less aspiration	3	0.40
Organizational barriers			12	0.74
Gender discrimination	2	0.31
Organizational policies	3	0.57
Networking	2	0.45
Organization culture	3	0.47
Procedural injustice	2	0.76
Sociocultural barriers			11	0.81
Gender stereotyping	2	0.24
Cultural norms	3	0.36
Work–family	3	0.64
Multiple roles	3	0.66

Source: Authors’ own.

Cluster Analysis: Cluster analysis was initially used to identify similar groups of participants (Dymnicki & Henry, 2011). We decided to use cluster analysis because we had deviated substantially in the nature of the measures of barriers that we used. Cluster analysis would allow empirically derived groups to be studied, based on all the data used to create the groupings. Therefore, the results required less focus on using the measures as indicators of preconceived constructs. Hierarchical clustering with Ward’s linkage method was used to determine the number of clusters. A cut-off point in the dendogram was decided through assessing the jump in distances between clusters from one stage to next stage (Everitt, Landau, Leese, & Stahl, 2011).

The number of clusters was identified as two agglomerations in this study. Next, k-means cluster analysis was carried out to assign cases to clusters according to the smallest distance between cluster means and cases. This analysis showed that the first cluster had fewer cases (n = 45) than the second one (n = 75). Means of variables for the two clusters are given in Figure 4. All barriers have higher mean values for Cluster 1 than Cluster 2, which indicates that Cluster 1 represents a group who perceived higher barriers to their career advancement than those in Cluster 2.

Figure 4.

Source: Authors’ own.

Cross Tabulation: Next, cross tabulation was carried out between clusters and gender to find the relationship between barriers and gender. The results indicate that more women (n = 35) than men (n = 10) were in the high barriers group and more men (n = 50) than women (n = 25) were in the low barriers group (see Figure 5). Thus, women perceived these barriers at a higher level than men (χ² = 22.22, p < 0.05).

Figure 5.

Source: Authors’ own.

Descriptive Analysis: Descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the nature of barriers for career advancement by considering the participants as four groups such as high barriers men, high barriers women, low barriers men and low barriers women. Spider graphs were used to examine the nature of perceived barriers to career advancement.

When looking at the high barrier men and women, except for one, all other individual barriers were identified as stronger for women. Lower aspirations were identified as stronger barriers for men, however. In the low barrier groups, lack of necessary skills, lack of self-confidence and lower commitment to work were identified as stronger barriers to women, while lower aspirations and self-selection were identified as stronger barriers for men (see Figure 6). Overall individual barriers were reported more by women than men.

Figure 6.

Source: Authors’ own.

Organizational barriers such as procedural injustice, gender discrimination and organizational policies were identified as stronger barriers for men in the high barriers group, but organization culture was identified as stronger for women in that group. Among the low barriers groups, other than procedural injustice, all organizational barriers were identified at the same level by men and women. Overall, when comparing both men and women, organizational barriers seemed to be perceived as more significant to men than women (see Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Source: Authors’ own.

When comparing both men and women in the high barriers group, women perceived sociocultural barriers such as gender stereotyping, cultural norms and work–family conflict to a higher extent than men, although there was no difference between men and women in the ratings of multiple roles. In the low barriers group, gender stereotyping and cultural norms were perceived as stronger barriers by women than men (see Figure 8). Overall, sociocultural barriers were perceived as strong barriers for women than men.

Figure 8.

Source: Authors’ own.

Discussion

The two studies revealed that both women and men at the managerial level in the public sector in Jaffna district perceived individual, sociocultural and organizational barriers as hindrances to their careers. Both studies suggest that individual barriers and sociocultural barriers were perceived as relatively more important to women and organizational barriers as relatively more important to men.

Among individual barriers, lack of necessary skills, low commitment to work and lack of self-confidence were revealed as more important to women than men in both the studies. Self-selection and low aspirations were perceived by women more frequently than men in Study 1, but rated slightly higher by men than women in Study 2. Self-confidence and low commitment to work were not reported in Study 1, but were reported in Study 2.

Organizational barriers such as organizational policies and procedural injustice were perceived as more important barriers by men than women in both Study 1 and Study 2. Networking and gender discrimination were not reported by either gender group in Study 1, but were reported by both the groups in Study 2. Interestingly, gender discrimination was reported by men to a higher extent than women in Study 2 when participants were asked general questions about what barriers affected the career advancement of women. Why men, more than women, should respond this way is unclear. Perhaps women view the problem in a more nuanced way, as it concerns them personally, and are, therefore, less likely to make broad attributions, such as to gender discrimination. Perhaps men, relative to women, are privy to “inside” knowledge that allows them to see the many ways the workplace is gendered. This finding is intriguing and should be investigated further in future research.

Among the sociocultural barriers, work–family conflict, multiple roles and cultural norms were perceived as more important for women than men in both the studies. Even though gender stereotyping was not reported by men or women in Study 1, in Study 2, both gender groups perceived gender stereotyping as an issue to them. Women, however, gave higher ratings to gender stereotyping than men in Study 2. Although both studies revealed multiple roles and work–family conflict as significant barriers to women than men, in Study 2, these issues were reported as important by men as well.

It is interesting to note that among the low barriers groups in Study 2, men rated these barriers somewhat higher than women did. This may suggest that women who perceived fewer barriers were given more support from their families to pursue careers and, therefore, did not perceive their other roles as conflicting with their work roles. This possibility is consistent with past research and theory (Frone, 2003). Further, the fact that men also perceived career barriers stemming from family concerns similar to women is interesting and supports research, suggesting that men also experience work–family issues, although to a lesser extent, and that they are likely to perceive work environments as less supportive of them, relative to women, when dealing with work–family issues (Hill, 2005).

Although there are some similarities and consistencies across the two studies, there are also some differences. These differences may reflect the differences in the methods used. While Study 1 involved participants recalling their perceived barriers, Study 2 involved rating barriers that were specified to them. Secondly, in Study 1, frequency of each barrier, and in Study 2, the strength of the endorsement of each barrier were analyzed. These differences are likely to have resulted in differences across studies.

Of the barriers examined, individual barriers were highlighted over organizational barriers by women. Individual barriers, especially those that highlight an individual deficiency, were clearly reported more by women than men. In contrast, men were more likely to report and endorse barriers that are structurally created by the organization. These differences suggest that perhaps women internalize the problems they encounter in career advancement. Men, on the other hand, may perceive barriers from a more externalized perspective as problems imposed on them through the work environment. This finding is consistent with research in other areas that indicates a higher tendency for women, relative to men, to internalize negative experiences such as those that are traumatic and stressful (e.g., Eaton et al., 2012; Olatunji, Wolitzky-Taylor, Sawchuk, & Ciesielski, 2010).

The finding that women perceive more individual level barriers, when examined along with Amondi (2011), provides a hypothesis about the nature of women employees’ perceptions of structural barriers to career advancement. Amondi (2011), unlike the present study, showed that organizational barriers were more significant for women (Amondi, 2011). The participants in that study were asked about barriers generally hindering women, and therefore, it did not focus on participants’ personal experiences. Under such circumstance, participants reported structural barriers.

In contrast, the present study sought barriers participants themselves encountered. Additionally, the present study did not specifically identify gender as a cause for the barriers. The difference in the extent to which structural barriers were identified by women in the two studies may stem from these differences in the orientation of the two studies. Thus, in the light of these two studies, women may perceive organizational barriers as most significant, generally and with respect to gender, yet not perceive organizational structural roots as the cause for their personal difficulties.

If individuals do not attribute their difficulties in career advancement to structural problems, and more to personal deficiencies, they are unlikely to view them as injustices (Breaux et al., 2010). As a result, opportunities to address organizational structural gender-based barriers are reduced, as those who may be affected by these problems do not see them as the causes for their own difficulties.

Footnotes

1.

Many women also died, disappeared and were incarcerated during this time (UN Commission on Human Rights, 1999). Such experiences were not restricted to the period of war (Subramaniam, Mujumder, Hatta, & Zakaria, 2014).

2.

It should be noted that in Sri Lanka, these positions are sometimes awarded by the government in power. Therefore, many of these positions are filled through routes other than middle managerial positions (see Parliament of Sri Lanka, 2014).

References

Ackah

, & Heaton

(2003). Human resource management careers: Different paths for men and women? Career Development International , 6(3), 134–114.

Adedogin

, Ajonbadi

, & Mordi

(2011). Impediments to women career advancement: The Nigerian experience. University of Ploiesti Bulletin , 63(2), 11–22.

Akpinar-Sposito

(2013). Career barriers for women executives and the Glass Ceiling Syndrome: the case study comparison between French and Turkish women executives. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 75(3), 488–497.

Amondi

O.B.

(2011). Representation of women in top educational management and leadership positions in Kenya. Advancing Women in Leadership , 31(1), 57–68.

Anker

(1997). Theories of occupational segregation by sex: An overview. International Labour Review , 136(3), 315–339.

Bandura

(1976). Self-reinforcement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Behaviorism , 4(2), 135–155.

Bombuwela

P.M.

, & De Alwis

A.C.

(2013). Effects of glass ceiling on women career development in private sector organizations—Case of Sri Lanka. Journal of Competitiveness , 5(2), 3–19.

Breaux

D.M.

, Tepper

B.J.

, Carr

J.C.

, & Folger

R.G.

(2010). An attributional analysis of employees’ responses to abusive supervision. In Neider

L.L.

& Schriesheim

C.A.

(Eds), The “dark” side of management (pp. 69–92). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Brown

(Ed.). (2002). Career choice and development (4th ed.). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

10.

Cooper

(2001). Women middle managers’ perception of the glass ceiling. Women in Management Review , 16(1), 30–41.

11.

Council of NGOs. (2002). Unemployment survey, Jaffna, Sri Lanka . Jaffna: Author.

12.

Department of Census and Statistics. (2002). Annual bulletin of labour force—2002 (with provincial level data) . Colombo, Sri Lanka.

13.

Department of Census and Statistics. (2006). Sri Lanka labour force survey final report—2006 (with provincial and district level data) . Ministry of Finance and Planning, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

14.

Department of Census and Statistics. (2013). Sri Lanka labour force survey annual report—2013 (with provincial and district level data) . Ministry of Finance and Planning, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

15.

Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. (2010). The world’s women 2010: Trends and statistics . New York.

16.

De Souza

(2002). A study of the influence of promotions on promotion satisfaction and expectations of future promotions among managers. Human Resource Development Quarterly , 13(3), 325–340.

17.

Dymnicki

A.B.

, & Henry

D.B.

(2011). Use of clustering methods to understand more about the case . Chicago, IL: Institute of Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago.

18.

Eagly

A.H.

, & Wood

(1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 17(3), 306–315.

19.

Eagly

A.H.

, Wood

, & Diekman

A.B.

(2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In Eckes

& Trautner

H.M.

(Eds), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Eaton

N.R.

, Keyes

K.M.

, Krueger

R.F.

, Balsis

, Skodol

A.E.

, Markon

K.E.

, Grant

B.F.

, Hasin

D.S.

, & Goodman

(2012). An invariant dimensional liability model of gender differences in mental disorder prevalence: Evidence from a national sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 121(1), 282–288.

21.

Everitt

B.S.

, Landau

, Leese

, & Stahl

(2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). London: Kings College.

22.

Fernando

W.D.A.

, & Cohen

(2011). Exploring the interplay between religion, gender and career development: A study of professional women in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the Critical Management Studies (CMS) 2011 Conference, Naples.

23.

Frone

M.R.

(2003). Work–family balance. In Quick

J.C.

& Tetrick

L.E.

(Eds), Hand book of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

24.

Gmur

(2006). The gendered stereotypes of the “good manager” sex role expectations towards male and female managers. Management Review , 17(2), 104–121.

25.

Grant Thornton International Ltd. (2012). Women in management: Still not enough (Grant Thornton International Business Report). Dubai: Author.

26.

Heider

(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.

27.

Hill

J.E.

(2005). Work–family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers, work–family stressors and support. Journal of Family Issues , 35(6), 793–819.

28.

IRIN News. (2010, September 9). Sri Lanka: Women take over as breadwinners in north. Retrieved March 25, 2016 from http://www.irinnews.org/report/90429/sri-lanka-women-take-over-as-breadwinners-in-.

29.

Jaffna District Secretariat. (2011). Telephone directory . Jaffna, Sri Lanka.

30.

Jayaweera

(2000). Trends in Employment. In Post Beijng reflections: Women in Sri Lanka, 1995–2000 . Colombo: CENWAR.

31.

Joy

, Carter

N.M.

, Sriram

, & Wagener

H.M.

(2007). The bottom line: Corporate performance and women’s representation on boards (Catalyst Research Report). Retrieved March 25, 2016 from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/bottom-line-corporate-performance-and-womens-representation-boards.

32.

Kelley

H.H.

(1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Levine

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation , No. 15 (pp. 192–238). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

33.

Kolade

O.J.

, & Kehinde

(2013). Glass ceiling and women career advancement: Evidence from Nigerian construction industry. Iranian Journal of Management Studies , 6(1), 79–99.

34.

Leelangi

(2006). Rural women in Sri Lanka’s post-conflict rural economy . Colombo: CENWOR.

35.

Lent

R.W.

, Brown

S.D.

, & Hackett

(2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of counseling psychology , 47(1), 36.

36.

, & Wearing

(2003). Between glass ceilings: Female non-executive directors in UK quoted companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance , 1(4), 355.

37.

Livingston

B.A.

, & Judge

T.A.

(2008). Emotional responses to work–family conflict: An examination of gender role orientation among working men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93(1), 207–216.

38.

Markincus

W.C.

, Whelan Berry

K.S.

, & Gorden

N.S.

(2007). The relationship of social support to the work–family balance and work outcome of midlife women. Women in Management Review , 22(2), 86–111.

39.

Martinko

M.J.

, & Thomson

N.F.

(1998). A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and Kelley attribution models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 20(4), 271–284.

40.

Mavin

(2001). Women’s career in theory and practice: Time for change. Women in Management Review , 16(4), 183–192.

41.

McKinsey & Company. (2007). Women matter: Gender diversity, a corporate performance driver . Paris: Author.

42.

Ministry of Finance and Planning. (2012). Annual report . Colombo, Sri Lanka.

43.

Misuko

(2012). Employees perception on positive and negative factors influencing procedural justice in making promotion decision. International Journal of Business and Social Science , 3(13), 67–80.

44.

Nagvi

(2011). Perspectives of Indian women managers in the public sector. Indian Journal of Gender Studies , 18(3), 279–309.

45.

Neidhart

, & Carlin

(2003). Pathways, incentives and barriers for women aspiring to principalship in Australian Catholic schools. Paper presented at the International Educational Research Conference (AARE-NZARE), Aukland, New Zealand.

46.

OECD. (2009a). Gender and sustainable development: Maximising the economic, social and environmental role of women . Paris: OECD Publishing.

47.

OECD. (2009b). Society at a glance 2009—OECD social indicators . Paris: OECD Publishing.

48.

Olatunji

B.O.

, Wolitzky–Taylor

K.B.

, Sawchuk

C.N.

, & Ciesielski

B.G.

(2010). Worry and the anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic synthesis of specificity to GAD. Applied and Preventive Psychology , 14(1), 1–24.

49.

Parliament of Sri Lanka. (2014, November 8). Proceedings of the House on 08-11-2014. Retrieved March 25, 2016 from http://www.parliament.lk/index.php?option=com_vod_chamber&selectdate=08-11-2014&Itemid=763.

50.

Robbins

, & Coulter

(2003). Management . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

51.

Silva

K.T.

(2008). Beyond the glass ceiling: Participation in decision making in the public domain by Swarna Jayaweera, Chandra Gunawardena and Indika Edirisinghe (CENWOR, 2008). Sri Lanka Journal of Social Science , 31/32(1–2), 65–68.

52.

Smith

D.M.

, Schwarz

, Roberts

T.R.

, & Ubel

P.A.

(2006). Why are you calling me? How study introductions change response patterns. Quality of Life Research , 15(4), 621–630.

53.

Stockard

J.B.

(1990). The woman CPA: Career and family. The CPA Journal Online . Retrieved from http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/old/08570712.htm (accessed on 19 March 2016).

54.

Subramaniam

, Mujumder

N.M.

, Hatta

Z.A.

, & Zakaria

A.F.M.

(2014). Implications of enforced disappearances on women-headed families in the northern province, Sri Lanka. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science , 4(4), 236–243.

55.

Swanson

J.L.

, & Woitke

M.B.

(1997). Theory into practice in career assessment for women: Assessment and interventions regarding perceived barriers. Journal of Career Assessment , 5(4), 443–462.

56.

Tharenou

(1999). Is there a link between family structures and women’s and men’s managerial career advancement? Journal of Organizational Behavior , 20(6), 837–863.

57.

Thomas

D.R.

(2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis . Auckland, New Zealand: School of Population Health, University of Auckland.

58.

Tiao

N.C.

(2006). Senior women leaders in higher education overcoming barriers to success (Doctoral dissertation). Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan. Retrieved March 25, 2016 from http://commons.emich.edu/theses/104.

59.

Tlaiss

H.A.

(2013). Determinants of job satisfaction in the banking sector: the case of Lebanese managers. Employee Relations , 35(4), 377–395.

60.

Tonge

(2008). Barriers to networking for women in a UK professional service. Gender in Management: An International Journal , 23(7), 484–505.

61.

UN Commission on Human Rights. (1999). Report of the working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances addendum report on the visit to Sri Lanka by a member of the working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances (E/CN.4/2000/64/Add.1), Geneva.

62.

Vianen

A.E.M.

, & Fischer

(2002). Illuminating the glass ceiling: The role of organisational culture preferences. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology , 75(3), 315–337.