Original article

Development and Validation of Global Business Review

1­–23
a Scale to Measure Glass Ceiling © 2021 IMI
Reprints and permissions:
Among Women Employees in in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/09721509211050136
the Banking Sector journals.sagepub.com/home/gbr

Jikky P. Shaji1 , Jojo K. Joseph2 and Thomas K. V.1

Abstract
It is generally believed that when compared to men, women have slower career advancement
prospects. Usually, women in the workforce face several obstacles, commonly referred to as glass
ceiling (GC), that weaken their career advancement prospects. The present study aims to develop a
scale to measure the GC obstacles faced by women employed in the banking sector. The scale was
developed and validated through a three-step process: item development, scale development and scale
evaluation. The items were generated through literature review and focus group discussions (FGDs).
The items developed were fine-tuned in consultation with academic experts. The scale was developed
and validated, through a study, covering 411 women employees working in different banks in the
state of Kerala. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) brought out seven dimensions of GC, namely family
responsibilities (FR), discriminatory promotion practices (DPP), employee relations (ER), personality
traits (PT), lack of organizational support (LOS), gender stereotypes (GS) and lack of training (LT).
The scale was evaluated using reliability and validity measures, and it demonstrated adequate reliability,
discriminant and convergent validity. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using
AMOS. Towards the end of the article, there is also a discussion on managerial implications, limitations
of the study and directions for future research.

Keywords
Women bank employees, factor analysis, glass ceiling, scale development

Introduction
In India, women constitute about half (48.1%) of the total population (Catalyst, 2020). The gender gap
in the higher education sector has also narrowed in the country (Pratim, 2019). The share of women
undergraduates and women with M Phil degrees exceed 50%, (53.0 and 69.6%, respectively),
postgraduates account for 45.91% and PhD holders account for 41.8% (Catalyst, 2020). Despite all these

1Research and Post Graduate Department of Commerce, Marian College Kuttikkanam [Autonomous], Kerala, India.
2Deva Matha College Kuruvilangad, Kottayam, Kerala & Research Supervisor, Research and Post Graduate Department of
Commerce, Marian College Kuttikkanam [Autonomous], Kerala, India.
Corresponding author
Jikky P. Shaji, Research Scholar, Research and Post Graduate Department of Commerce, Marian College Kuttikkanam
[Autonomous], Kerala 685531, India.
E-mail: jikki.shaji@gmail.com
2 Global Business Review

developments, the female workforce participation in India is less when compared to that of the male
workforce. As of 2020, women aged 15 and above constitute only about 20.3% of the labour force in
comparison to that of men, which is 76% (World Bank Group, 2020). Subsequently, India is ranked at
108th position (out of 144 countries) as per the global gender gap report, 2017, which is one of the lowest
among Group of Twenty (G20) group of countries (World Economic Forum, 2018).
Lack of safe and secure work environment, restrictive cultural norms, lack of flexible work schedule
(Centre for Social Research, 2009; Mehta, 2020; Ratho, 2020) and gender wage disparity (World
Economic Forum, 2020), among others, were the causes identified for the lesser proportion of women in
the labour force. Studies conducted after the outbreak of COVID-19 reveal that the novel pandemic
situation along with increased unemployment rates kept women at a disadvantageous position in the
labour market (Catalyst, 2020; ILO, 2020; Kamdar, 2020). The share of women at the senior managerial
level is also less when compared to that of men. A recent study conducted in India suggests that the
workforce participation rate is higher for rural women when compared to that of urban women (Mehta,
2020). Men assume the role of the breadwinner of the family, and women are expected to consider family
over career (Verma, 2018). A notable point is that only a less number of women are seeking jobs, which
means that the majority of qualified women are not searching for any (Mehta, 2020).
A study conducted in India by the International Labour Organization (ILO) on managers with children
under the age of 6 revealed that women account for 10.2% and men for 89.8% of the total managerial
share (ILO, 2019). Similarly, according to the reports published by the Reserve Bank of India, in 2018,
females constitute 27.3% of the total employee share of the nationalized banks, 22.2% in private sector
banks and 31.8% in foreign banks. With respect to the category of employees, women constitute 24.7%
of officers, 27.7% of clerks and 17.3% of subordinates (Reseve Bank of India, 2018). Women comprise
about one-fourth (24.6%) of the employee share in India. This is too low when compared to that of the
developed nations. Women represent over 50% of the workforce in the financial service industry in many
countries such as Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Spain and the USA (Catalyst,
2019). The search for reasons that contribute to the low presence of women in the labour force as well as
their low career advancement prospects often lands up in glass ceiling (GC).
The Indian banking sector has undergone drastic changes during the past few decades. The opening
up of the economy in the 1990s paved the way to the commencement of various private and foreign
banks, which led to a rapid expansion of branches all over the country. The work environment has also
changed as a result of an increase in the portfolio of banking products. Banking services have moved
from interactive to digital. Consequently, the nature of banking jobs involves tremendous work pressure.
Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that the Indian banking sector has witnessed the entry of more
women employees into their fold now than ever before. Therefore, it becomes pertinent to research the
GC barriers faced by women in the banking sector, especially since there is a lack of empirical work in
this regard.
This research article is divided into seven sections. The first section has already highlighted the
introductory part. The second focuses on literature review; the third constitutes the objectives of the
study; the fourth states the methodology of the study; and the fifth presents the analyses along with their
results. Conclusion and managerial implications are underscored in the sixth section. Finally, limitations
and future research directions are discussed in the last section.

Literature Review
A literature search was conducted to explore the previous studies published in the area of GC during the
past few years. The relevant literature was generated from databases, including SAGE Online Journals,
Shaji et al. 3

Taylor and Francis Online, JSTOR, Elsevier, EBSCO, Wiley Online Journals and Inderscience. The
keywords searched include ‘glass ceiling’, ‘barriers to women employees’, ‘glass ceiling in financial
service sector’ and ‘women’s career in India’. The search identified 108 articles and four theses in the
relevant area, as well as recent reports published by various national and international organizations. At
first, GC was identified from the literature, and then the antecedents of GC barriers have been summarized.
Women in the workforce face several barriers, which prevent them from pursuing a particular
profession and reaching a senior position in an organization. This phenomenon is commonly referred to
as ‘glass ceiling’. GC barriers can be covert and overt (Agars, 2004; Dimovski et al., 2010; Insch et al.,
2008; Lyness & Judiesch, 2008; Oakley, 2000; Ottu & Inwang, 2013). GC inequality can be clearly
differentiated from other kinds of inequality since it forbids women and ethnic minorities from reaching
higher positions (Cotter et al., 2001). GC acts as a key barrier that prevents the career advancement of
women (Afza & Newaz, 2008; Bombuwela & Chamaru, 2013; Chugh & Sahgal, 2007; Keenawinna &
Sajeevanie, 2015; Verma, 2018). GC researchers have attempted to explore the different barriers
associated with GC, which are summarized in the following paragraphs.
The policies and practices followed by an organization can either act as a barrier to or a facilitator of
career advancement of women (Knutson & Schmidgall, 1999; Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Priyadarshini
& Azeez, 2018). Notable discriminatory practices adopted by the organization that can create GC include
the absence of gender equality policies (Wesarat & Mathew, 2017) with respect to recruitment and
selection processes (Al-Manasra, 2013; Kolade & Kehinde, 2013), remuneration (Britt, 2002; Sampson
& Moore, 2008; Schruijer, 2006; Sharma & Kaur, 2014), performance appraisal (Igbaria & Baroudi,
1995; Sharma, 2016; Sharma & Kaur, 2014, 2019; Wesarat & Mathew, 2017) and training and
development opportunities (Adamson, 2012; Al-Manasra, 2013; Daley, 1996; Ismail & Nakkache, 2015;
McCarthy, 2001; Metz, 2003; Oakley, 2000; Posholi, 2013; Sandhu & Ritu, 2007; Sharma & Kaur, 2019;
Wesarat & Mathew, 2017).
Promotion practices followed by the organization can create GC (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013a; Britt,
2002; Oakley, 2000; Parker et al., 1998). In certain cases, the work carried out by men and women are
evaluated differently. The promotion policies followed by the organization can be unfair (Bombuwela &
Chamaru, 2013), biased (Afza & Newaz, 2008; Bergman & Hallberg, 2002; Mathur-Helm, 2006; Sharma
& Kaur, 2019; Wesarat & Mathew, 2017) and subjective (Liff & Ward, 2001). In some organizations,
accepting an international assignment is a vital criterion for promotion. Women managers are very often
denied such international assignments (Aeran, 2014; Britt, 2002; Datta & Agarwal, 2017; Insch et al.,
2008; Lyness & Judiesch, 2008; Lyness & Thompson, 1997; McCarthy, 2001; Ng & Sears, 2017;
Princess et al., 2015; Rath et al., 2016).
The organizational culture in which an employee works can act as a barrier to women employees
(Knutson & Schmidgall, 1999; Lemons & Parzinger, 2001; Payne, 2005; Princess et al., 2015;
Priyadarshini & Azeez, 2018; Sharma, 2016; Sharma & Kaur, 2019; Vianen & Fischer, 2002; Wesarat &
Mathew, 2017). Barriers related to organizational culture includes inhospitable organizational culture
(Mathur-Helm, 2006; Townsend, 1997), lack of a support system at work (Bergman & Hallberg, 2002;
Dimovski et al., 2010; Posholi, 2013; Sampson & Moore, 2008; Sandhu & Ritu, 2007; Subramaniam et
al., 2016), long hours of work culture (Ogden et al., 2006), fewer career developmental opportunities at
the workplace (Bergman & Hallberg, 2002; Dimovski et al., 2010; Jain & Mukherji, 2010; Lyness &
Thompson, 1997; Sharma & Kaur, 2019), lack of organizational support for work–life balance
(Al-Manasra, 2013; Bergman & Hallberg, 2002; Sandhu & Ritu, 2007) and organizational injustice
(Alshammari, 2016). Lack of senior management commitment to career advancement of women along
with complex organizational structure is an important barrier that creates GC (Njiru, 2013).
4 Global Business Review

The interpersonal relationship that an employee develops at the workplace can act as an aid for getting
promotion. In most cases, men have dominance in building these relationships, and women employees
are sidelined. The relationship with colleagues can act as a GC barrier (Subramaniam et al., 2016). The
major issues in this area include relationship with superiors (Lathabhavan & Balasubramanian, 2017;
McKeen & Burke, 1991; Rath et al., 2016), relationship with co-workers (Subramaniam et al., 2016),
relationship with subordinates (Kilian et al., 2005), male colleagues’ perception of women as inferior
and subordinate (Rath et al., 2016), conflicting relationships at the workplace (Mathur-Helm, 2006) and
lack of respect between workers (Subramaniam et al., 2016).
Another common barrier related to GC faced by women is sexual harassment (Afza & Newaz, 2008;
Bergman & Hallberg, 2002; McKeen & Burke, 1991). Women lack safety and security in the workplace
(Alessandri et al., 2018; Bergman & Hallberg, 2002; Dimovski et al., 2010; Lathabhavan &
Balasubramanian, 2017; Subramaniam et al., 2016). Many a time, the number of women employees is
less when compared to that of men in the workplace. Consequently, when women employees face any
work-related difficulties, they may not have anybody to seek help (Al-Manasra, 2013; Bergman &
Hallberg, 2002; Dimovski et al., 2010). Another barrier is that women simply cannot be themselves at
work (Bergman & Hallberg, 2002).
Women employees face gender discrimination in the workplace (Adamson, 2012; Al-Manasra, 2013;
Bergman & Hallberg, 2002; Jamali et al., 2007; Misra & Sirohi, 2019; Njiru, 2013; Rath et al., 2016;
Sachdeva, 2014; Sharma & Kaur, 2014; Straub, 2007). Differential treatment of women at the workplace
leads to GC (Elacqua et al., 2009). Another barrier is the paucity of qualified women in the pipeline to
be considered for promotion (Elacqua et al., 2009; Gupta et al., 1998; Townsend, 1997). Women
employees need to prove their competence all the time when compared to men (Bass & Avolio, 1994;
Choi & Park, 2014; Mathur-Helm, 2006). In some cases, women are judged more leniently by their
subordinates (Bass & Avolio, 1994), but on the other hand, women have to perform more than men to get
promoted (Al-Manasra, 2013; Jamali et al., 2006; Kolade & Kehinde, 2013; Misra & Sirohi, 2019).
Stereotypical or a negative perception about the abilities and capabilities of women acts as a common
and most researched GC barrier (Agars, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bombuwela & Chamaru, 2013;
Choi & Park, 2014; Gupta et al., 1998; Heilman, 2012; Jackson, 2001; Jain & Mukherji, 2010; Kilian et
al., 2005; Knutson & Schmidgall, 1999; Payne, 2005; Saadin et al., 2016; Townsend, 1997). Commonly
identified stereotypical barriers in GC literature include the following beliefs: managerial positions are
more suited for men than women (Bass & Avolio, 1994), women leave their job to have babies (Liff &
Ward, 2001), they are less committed to their work (Bharadwaj & Nagarkoti, 2012; Choi & Park, 2014),
they are less ambitious than men (Vianen & Fischer, 2002) and they often take subjective business
decisions (Sandhu & Ritu, 2007).
It is also commonly believed that women lack enthusiasm in taking up challenging assignments (Jain
& Mukherji, 2010), visible and challenging assignments (Afza & Newaz, 2008; Azmi et al., 2012; Kilian
et al., 2005; Sharma & Sehrawat, 2014), critical developmental assignments (Britt, 2002), job rotation
programmes (Adamson, 2012) and assignments that increase internal visibility (Jackson, 2001). As a
result of these gender stereotypical beliefs and attitudes, the skills of women are underestimated (Sharma
et al., 2011), a negative attitude towards women is developed (Dimovski et al., 2010; Jamali et al., 2006;
Omotayo et al., 2013; Princess et al., 2015), the performance of women is not fairly judged (Ginige et
al., 2007; Oakley, 2000; Priyadarshini & Azeez, 2018) and the opinion of women is not heard at meetings
(Bergman & Hallberg, 2002; Chary, 2016; Dimovski et al., 2010; Jamali et al., 2006).
Women employees often play the double role of balancing household- and job-related responsibilities.
Family responsibilities performed by women act as a major GC barrier (Adamson, 2012; Flynn et al.,
2015; Gupta et al., 1998; Jain & Mukherji, 2010; Kilian et al., 2005; Kolade & Kehinde, 2013; Lemons
Shaji et al. 5

& Parzinger, 2001; Mathur-Helm, 2006; Njiru, 2013; Princess et al., 2015; Subramaniam et al., 2016;
Tiwari et al., 2019). A study was carried out by Sharma and Dhir (2019) to identify the major challenges
faced by working mothers in India. They identified three broad categories of challenges, namely the
working women’s lack of organizational support, their diffidence and lack of social support. The factors
related to family responsibilities that create GC include the parental status of women (Adamson, 2012),
their childcare responsibilities (Bihagen & Ohls, 2006; Naff, 1994; Stalinski, 2014), their breaks in
career due to childbirth and childcare (Al-Manasra, 2013; Choi, 2018; Lyness & Thompson, 1997;
Sampson & Moore, 2008), their combining of twin responsibilities (Al-Manasra, 2013; Bergman &
Hallberg, 2002; Kumar & Sundar, 2012; Thapar & Sharma, 2017), the possibility of pregnancy (Adamson,
2012; Gupta et al., 1998), the priority given to motherhood rather than career (Smith et al., 2012), the
lack of support from spouse (Bergman & Hallberg, 2002; Rath et al., 2016; Sandhu & Ritu, 2007) and
the lack of support from family members in doing household chores (Sharma & Kaur, 2019).
Family priorities affect the promotion prospects of women employees due to the availability of limited
time to perform office duties (Njiru, 2013), fear of transfer to faraway places (Choi, 2018; Kumar &
Sundar, 2012), limited scope to do overtime work (Afza & Newaz, 2008) and inability to take relocation
decisions (Centre for Social Research, 2009; Gupta et al., 1998; Rathore, 2017; Wesarat & Mathew,
2017). Consequently, very often women find it difficult to strike a balance between work and family
(Akpinar-Sposito, 2013b; Alshammari, 2016; Bombuwela & Chamaru, 2013; Chauhan, 2020; Emmaniel
& Balaji, 2014; Krentz et al., 2020; Lyness & Judiesch, 2008; Mehta, 2020; Mitra, 2019;
Nanjundeswaraswamy, 2019; Njiru, 2013; Ogden et al., 2006; Priyadarshini & Azeez, 2018; Saadin et
al., 2016; Sandhu & Ritu, 2007; Stalinski, 2014).
Human capital variables also lead to GC (Becker, 1985; Harris et al., 2015; Metz & Tharenou, 2001;
Mitra, 2003). Human capital includes education (Azmi et al. 2012; Lemons & Parzinger, 2001; Mathur-
Helm, 2006; Naff, 1994; Schruijer, 2006), experience in the concerned organization (Azmi et al., 2012;
Kilian et al., 2005; Mathur-Helm, 2006; Metz, 2003; Naff, 1994; Schruijer, 2006) and experience in
outside fields (Adamson, 2012). Good personality traits are required by an employee to advance in their
career (Metz, 2003). Most common personality trait-related barriers faced by women employees include
lack of leadership capabilities (Adamson, 2012; Azmi et al., 2012; Heilman, 2012; Oakley, 2000), lack
of managerial skills (Sandhu & Ritu, 2007), lack of confidence (Bombuwela & Chamaru, 2013; Greig
2008; Mathur-Helm, 2006; Posholi, 2013; Sharma & Kaur, 2019), fear of success (Bharadwaj &
Nagarkoti, 2012), challenge aversion (Jain & Mukherji, 2010), lack of competence and managerial
potential (Dreher, 2003), and not being as competitive and ambitious as men (Greig, 2008; Jain &
Mukherji, 2010).
To date, researchers have developed multiple scales to measure the GC (Afza & Newaz, 2008;
Elacqua et al., 2009; Jackson, 2001; Jamali et al., 2006; Metz, 2003). Most of these scales were developed
and tested in the Western context, although a few were also developed in the Indian context. For example,
Jain and Mukherji (2010) conducted a study in the Indian corporate sector to understand the existence of
GC faced by women from the male employee’s point of view. Corporate culture, gender stereotypes and
challenge aversion were the main GC barriers faced by women according to men’s perspective. The scale
developed by Sharma and Kaur (2019) identified three major barriers, namely personal barriers,
organizational barriers and societal barriers, that create GC among women managers, working in various
service sector organizations in India. However, the availability of an updated and comprehensive
validated measurement scale in the post-reform banking sector to measure the GC among women
employees is very limited. Consequently, a research gap emerges, as there is a lack of empirical work in
this regard. The present study fills this gap in the literature. In addition, the validity and dimensionality
6 Global Business Review

of a previously developed scale should be assessed continuously across industry, time, culture and
occupation (Griffin et al., 2004). The psychometric properties of the scale change due to the influence of
these external elements, and this necessitates the calibration of the scales.

Objectives of the Study

The key objective of this article is to construct and validate a multidimensional measurement scale to
determine the GC barriers faced by women employees in the banking sector. The specific objectives are
to test the validity and reliability of the instrument, as well as to identify the dimensions of GC.

Research Methodology
The researchers exercised their judgement in selecting the most appropriate state of the country for
collecting data. The state that has the highest proportion of women employees in the scheduled
commercial banks in the country was identified, as per the reports published by the Reseve Bank of
India (2018). The state thus chosen was Kerala in India. The purposive sampling technique was used to
select the sample. The respondents were identified through two stages of sampling. In the first stage of
sample selection, the banks were divided into three categories, namely public sector banks, private
sector banks and cooperative banks. Thus, the districts that had the highest number of bank branches in
the state were identified, and Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam and Thrissur were selected (SLBC,
2020). In the second stage of sample selection, 10% of the bank branches located in the rural areas,
semi-urban areas and urban areas of the selected districts were identified. The measuring instruments
were given to 700 women employees, and 420 completed instruments were obtained. After the
screening, 411 samples were deemed fit for further analytical procedures, which was indicative of a
59% usable response rate for the study.
To check whether the sample size was adequate, the table suggested by Krejcie and Morgan (1970)
was used. Accordingly, for a population of 35,000–40,000, an adequate sample size is 380. A number of
similar studies have provided reliable results even with a lesser sample size (Misra & Sirohi, 2019).
Hence, the sample size of 411 was found to be adequate for the study.

Scale Development
This study was empirical in nature. Various studies related to scale development were reviewed, (Hinkin,
1995; Özpehlivan & Acar, 2016; Tabouli et al., 2016) to determine the practices followed in developing
and validating the measuring scale. In line with the study carried out by Schwab (1980), a three-step
procedure—item development, scale development and scale evaluation—was adopted to effectively
develop the measurement scale and to validate it.

Item Development
Based on an extensive review literature, 54 items that created GC were identified. Subsequently, focus
group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with eight women employees who had at least 5 years or
Shaji et al. 7

more of work experience in the banking sector. Consequently, they could assess each item based on its
relevance and provide suggestions for modification and incorporation of new items. In light of the FGDs,
a few items were added to the instrument, and a few items were deleted. For example, several members
of the FGDs opined that the career advancement of married women generally depended upon family
requirements. Usually, promotions were linked with transfer to faraway places that often create great
difficulty in looking after the family along with their job, which resulted in work–life balance issues. So,
such items were included under the construct ‘Family Responsibilities’, and the measuring instrument
was modified accordingly. In addition, the guidance of two subject experts was also taken to develop the
conceptual explanation grounded in theory. Therefore, the content validity was established by following
the above-mentioned procedures, namely literature review, FGDs and consultation with subject experts.

Scale Development
The fine-tuned instrument consisted of two parts. Demographic details such as age, marital status,
educational qualification, designation and work experience were included in the first part. The second
part consisted of 32 items under six headings, namely organizational practices, organizational culture,
gender stereotypes, interpersonal factors, family responsibilities and personality traits, which were
measured using the 7-point Likert scale. To attenuate the response pattern bias, reverse-coded
(negatively worded) statements were used. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out for data
reduction and refining of the constructs. The measurement scale was evaluated using the confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA).

Scale Evaluation
The reliability and validity of the scale were evaluated. The reliability using Cronbach’s alpha was
calculated for each construct, in particular, and for the scale as a whole. The exhibition of the construct
validity of a measure was a vital step in scale evaluation. The psychometric property of the scale was
evaluated using the construct validity by assessing discriminant and convergent validities.

Data Analysis
A brief summary of the variables, namely age, marital status, organization type and designation, is
presented in Table 1.
From Table 1, it is apparent that the majority (37.5%) of women bank employees belong to the age
group of 31–40 years. The smallest proportion (12.6%) belongs to the higher age group of 51 years and
above. The other two categories, that is, up to 30 years and from 41 years to 50 years make up 29.2% and
20.7%, respectively. It was found that the majority of the respondents were married (89.1%), and that
unmarried respondents accounted for 10.9%. Table 1 shows that there is almost equal representation for
women employees from the public sector, the private sector and the cooperative banks in the selected
sample size. The sample on the designation revealed that the major category of the respondents fell under
the clerical category (43.8%), followed by the officer category (38.0%). In addition, 12.9% of the
respondents were managers, and 5.4% of the respondents were sub-staff.
8 Global Business Review

Table 1. Sample Description.

Items Fractions Frequency Percentage
Age Up to 30 years 120 29.2
31–40 years 154 37.5
41–50 years 85 20.7
51 years and above 52 12.6
Total 411 100.0
Marital status Married 366 89.1
Unmarried 45 10.9
Total 411 100.0
Organization type Public Sector Bank 140 34.1
Private Sector Bank 139 33.8
Cooperative Bank 132 32.1
Total 411 100.0
Designation Sub-staff 22 5.4
Clerk 180 43.8
Officer 156 38.0
Manager 53 12.9
Total 411 100.0
Source: The authors.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The 32-item scale was subjected to EFA. Through the EFA, it was possible to identify and extract the key
components that explain most of the variance in the instrument among others. Through selecting suitable
options, the items were sorted by size, small coefficients below 0.5 were suppressed and Eigenvalue >1
was the restriction criterion. Upon checking the communalities, three items were found to have an
extraction value <0.5, and these items had low factor loadings under the rotation component matrix
(Varimax with Kaiser normalization). In order to avoid discrepancies, these three items were dropped,
and the factor analysis was further conducted on the remaining 29 items.
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) is a widely used tool to verify the sampling adequacy. KMO tests
suggest the appropriateness of the sample size to run EFA. According to Kaiser (1974), a value greater
than 0.6 is treated as adequate to perform EFA. Values above 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9 are considered fair,
meritorious and marvellous, respectively (Kaiser, 1974). The KMO value obtained is 0.860, which is
considered meritorious. The individual KMO values range between 0.779 and 0.934, which is above the
minimum threshold level of 0.5 (Field, 2009). The extracted value of communalities for 29 items is
between 0.568 and 0.883, which is greater than the acceptable limit. Subsequently, all the items of the
instrument are appropriate for factor analysis. Barlett’s test of sphericity identifies whether there exists
any correlation between the items of the measurement instrument. If there is correlation between
variables, it is possible to reduce the variables, and it will be suitable for running the EFA. The results of
Bartlett’s (8810.448, sig. 0.000) indicate that there exist non-zero correlations, and the values are
significant. Hence, the test result indicates that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix.
By conducting the EFA, upon extraction under the principal component analysis, the total variance
explained under three groups, namely eigenvalues before extraction of factors and after extraction but
before rotation were applied and, after rotation, were generated. Following the Kaiser’s rule (Kaiser,
Shaji et al. 9

Table 2. Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis

Cronbach’s
Dimensions Item Acronym Mean SD Loadings Alpha EV VE CV
Family re- FR1 4.30 2.072 0.922 0.942 7.423 25.597 25.597
sponsibilities FR2 4.19 2.043 0.907
FR3 4.30 2.116 0.914
FR4 4.48 1.986 0.907
FR5 4.63 2.062 0.730
FR6 3.80 1.941 0.902
FR7 3.58 2.024 0.709
Discriminato- DPP1 1.95 1.102 0.905 0.926 5.081 17.519 43.116
ry promotion DPP2 2.18 1.171 0.859
practices DPP3 1.92 1.016 0.875
DPP4 2.07 1.149 0.877
Employee ER1 1.70 0.842 0.908 0.930 3.020 10.415 53.531
relations ER2 1.62 0.782 0.899
ER3 1.74 0.840 0.876
ER4 1.82 0.881 0.848
Personality PT1 1.97 1.176 0.902 0.925 2.667 9.197 62.727
traits PT2 2.08 1.287 0.884
PT3 1.96 1.207 0.879
PT4 2.05 1.239 0.875
Lack of LOS1 2.10 1.108 0.854 0.883 2.076 7.157 69.884
organizational LOS2 2.21 1.061 0.824
support LOS3 2.17 1.093 0.807
LOS4 2.00 1.081 0.795
Gender ste- GS1 2.60 1.174 0.888 0.918 1.748 6.027 75.911
reotypes GS2 2.62 1.746 0.875
GS3 2.58 1.565 0.818
Lack of train- LT1 1.53 0.633 0.859 0.871 1.263 4.356 80.267
ing LT2 1.66 0.688 0.826
LT3 1.59 0.635 0.833
Source: The authors.
Note: SD, Standard deviation; EV, eigenvalues; VE, variance explained; CV, cumulative variance.

1960), there were seven components above the restriction criterion (eigenvalue > 1). An eigenvalue < 1
indicates that the component explains less variance and, hence, should not be retained. Table 2 summarizes
the results of the EFA.
It can be understood from Table 2 that all together, these 29 items under seven components explained
80.26% of the total variance. From the rotation component matrix, under the varimax rotation, it was
clear that each item was loaded to one component only and had high factor loadings. In addition to
eigenvalue one criterion (Kaiser Criterion), the scree plot, which was a graphical measure used to
decide the number of components to be retained, was also considered. Figure 1 presents the scree plot
of extracting the factors. According to this figure, there are three points of inflexion on components
three, five and seven. After that, the line becomes flatter without many bends. As per the Kaiser
10 Global Business Review

Figure 1. Scree Plot.

Source: Result of Research Analysis.

criterion, since the eigenvalues support the extraction of seven factors, the same are extracted (Field,
2009). From the factor analysis, seven dimensions were identified, namely family responsibilities
(FR), discriminatory promotion practices (DPP), employee relations (ER), personality traits (PT), lack
of organizational support (LOS), gender stereotypes (GS) and lack of training (LT). The scree plot
partially proves this extraction.

Reliability of the Instrument

The internal consistency of the instrument for each dimension, and finally for the entire GC scale as a
whole, is calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.70 are considered to be
acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The Cronbach’s alpha value of seven dimensions ranges from
0.871 to 0.942, which points out to a good reliability (Nunnally, 1978). The alpha coefficient for the total
instrument (all 29 items taken together) is observed as 0.889, which indicates homogeneity of the items
in the scale.
Shaji et al. 11

Validity of the Instrument

Discriminant Validity
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), in order to ensure discriminant validity, ‘the square root of
average variance extracted (AVE) of a particular construct should be greater than the correlation shared
by that particular construct with other constructs in the model’. The discriminant validity of the constructs
is presented in Table 3.
Discriminant validity illustrates whether the seven dimensions extracted are distinct among
themselves. The diagonal value represents the square root of the AVE, and the off-diagonal values
demonstrate the inter-construct correlations. The diagonal value of each construct must be greater than
their corresponding off-diagonal values to ensure discriminant validity. It is clear from Table 3 that the
square root of AVE of each individual construct is greater than the inter-construct correlations, thus
providing with adequate discriminant validity.

Convergent Validity
According to Krabbe (2017), convergent validity refers to ‘how closely the scale is related to other variables
and other measures of the same construct’. It is used to assess whether the identified constructs are different
from one another. Convergent validity was assessed using composite reliability coefficient (CRC) and
AVE. For all the extracted dimensions, the alpha value was above the minimum threshold limit (0.7).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFA was performed on seven constructs, consisting of 29 items extracted through EFA, to confirm the
factor structure. The fit indices like root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Tucker–Lewis’
coefficient (TLI), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted GFI (AGFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative
fit index (CFI) and χ2 likelihood ratio statistic was considered to assess the model fit. According to
Bentler (1992), the value of CFI, TLI, GFI, AGFI and NFI should be close to 1.0 to get a perfect fit. Hair

Table 3. Discriminant Validity of the Instrument.

Construct FR DPP ER PT LOS GS LT
FR 0.860
DPP 0.098 0.879
ER 0.047 0.237 0.882
PT 0.053 0.170 0.166 0.884
LOS 0.184 0.221 0.333 0.202 0.820
GS 0.270 0.322 0.210 0.375 0.334 0.860
LT −0.019 0.342 0.353 0.215 0.381 0.161 0.839
Source: The authors.
Note: Diagonal values represent the square root of AVE; off-diagonal values represent the inter-construct correlations.
12 Global Business Review

et al. (2009) recommended a value above 0.90 as considered fit for these indices, whereas, the value of
RMSEA must be below 0.08, as stated by Kline (2005). The value of 0.0 indicates a perfect fit. The
generally accepted chi-square value ranges between 1.0 and 3.0 (Hair et al., 2009). The result of CFA is
presented in Table 4.
Upon conducting CFA, two items with standardized regression weights below 0.70 were dropped in
order to modify the model. These items were FR5 and FR7 under the construct ‘family responsibilities’.
Consequently, upon performing CFA, the chi-square statistics was 669.571 (df = 300 and p = 0.000), χ2/
df ratio = 2.232, RMSEA = 0.055, GFI = 0.896, AGFI = 0.868, NFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.955 and CFI =
0.961. The values for GFI and AGFI were below the threshold limit of 0.90. According to Baumgartner
and Homburg (1996) and Doll et al. (1994), values above 0.80 were considered fit, and hence they met
the requirements. Overall, it can be said that the instrument demonstrated satisfactory moderate fit. The
measurement model confirmed through AMOS is presented in Figure 2. The items developed and
validated, and their code, are presented in Table 5. These extracted factors can be assumed as sub-scales
for measuring GC.

Table 4. Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Standardized Re- p (sig.
Dimensions Items gression Weights Estimate Critical Ratio level) CRC AVE
Family responsibilities FR1 0.906 1.070 29.403 *** 0.951 0.739
FR2 0.932 1.085 31.696 ***
FR3 0.924 1.114 31.110 ***
FR4 0.876 0.989 26.510 ***
FR6 0.904 1.000 *
Discriminatory pro- DPP1 0.948 1.157 22.920 *** 0.931 0.772
motion practices DPP2 0.779 1.011 22.031 ***
DPP3 0.929 1.046 21.918 ***
DPP4 0.786 1.000 *
Employee relations ER1 0.928 1.067 24.471 *** 0.933 0.779
ER2 0.898 0.958 23.245 ***
ER3 0.853 0.978 21.361 ***
ER4 0.832 1.000 *
Personality traits PT1 0.897 1.002 23.719 *** 0.935 0.782
PT2 0.872 1.066 22.645 ***
PT3 0.863 0.990 22.259 ***
PT4 0.849 1.000 *
Lack of organizational LOS1 0.849 1.107 18.080 *** 0.891 0.672
support LOS2 0.821 1.026 17.458 ***
LOS3 0.779 1.003 16.424 ***
LOS4 0.786 1.000 *
Gender stereotypes GS1 0.960 1.326 18.943 *** 0.895 0.741
GS2 0.918 1.293 17.529 ***
GS3 0.793 1.000 *
Lack of training LT1 0.898 1.123 18.943 *** 0.877 0.705
LT2 0.809 1.099 17.529 ***
LT3 0.798 1.000 *
Source: The authors.
Note: *Unstandardized regression weights assumed as 1.
***Significant at p < 0.001 level.
Shaji et al. 13

In addition, a measurement invariance test was conducted to assess whether the measurement of an
item establishes equivalence across the groups (Cieciuch et al., 2014). The test measured the invariance
of the developed scale across different samples drawn from the same population (Byrne, 2009). The CFI
did not change significantly when compared between the samples, that is, the public sector banks, private
sector banks and cooperative banks.

Figure 2. Measurement Model of Glass Ceiling Scale.

Source: Result of Research Analysis.
14 Global Business Review

Table 5. Coding of the Statements (items).

Item Acronym Statements (Items)
Family responsibilities
FR1 To balance family and work–life, women accept a slower rate of advancement (Kumar &
Sundar, 2012; Njiru, 2013; Straub, 2007)
FR2 Breaks due to childbirth and childcare obstruct the career advancement of women (Al-
Manasra, 2013)
FR3 Commitment to family responsibilities affects the career advancement of women (Daley,
1996; Kilian et al., 2005)
FR4 Working longer hours than the regular office time often creates difficulty in carrying out
household duties (Emmaniel & Balaji, 2014)
FR6 The husband’s job/profession acts as an obstacle for the career development of women
(Bellou, 2010)
Discriminatory promotion practices
DPP1 Women have fewer career developmental opportunities at the workplace than men
(Lyness & Thompson, 1997)
DPP2 In the case of promotion, favouritism and hold at the higher levels also count besides
efficiency (Misra & Sirohi, 2019)
DPP3 Women do not receive the same recognition as their male counterparts do
(Morgan et al., 1993)
DPP4 Females have to perform better than the men to get promotion (Elacqua et al., 2009)
Employee relations
ER1 My co-workers treat me with respect (Subramaniam et al., 2016)
ER2 I have a positive relationship with my co-workers (Subramaniam et al., 2016)
ER3 Most employees in my organization are supportive of each other despite differences in
designation (based on FGDs)
ER4 My superiors are supportive and protect me in times of crises (based on FGDs)
Personality traits
PT1 My current job performance is below the required standard (Carmeli et al., 2007)
PT2 I do not possess the skills required to do higher-level jobs (Daley, 1996)
PT3 I lack the required educational qualification to seek higher positions (Azmi et al., 2012)
PT4 I have low self-confidence level (Bhattacharya et al., 2018)
Lack of organizational support
LOS1 The grievance redress system in my organization is satisfactory (Thapar & Sharma, 2017)
LOS2 My organization gives due weight to my suggestions and ideas regarding the various
aspects of work (Mohapatra et al., 2019)
LOS3 My designation gives me enough authority to discipline my subordinates (Sharma & Kaur,
2014)
LOS4 In my organization, women have the opportunity to develop the requisite skills to reach
higher positions (Jackson, 2001)
(Table 5 continued)
Shaji et al. 15

(Table 5 continued)
Item Acronym Statements (Items)
Gender stereotypes
GS1 Women lack the enthusiasm in taking on challenging assignments (Lathabhavan &
Balasubramanian, 2017)
GS2 Women are not sufficiently competitive and ambitious in comparison with men
(Kolade & Kehinde, 2013)
GS3 I lack the experience to take up higher positions (Baker, 2003)
Lack of training
LT1 Women receive equal access to training programmes conducted by the organization
(Khuong & Chi, 2017)
LT2 My organization offers different types of training programmes for the employees
(Metz, 2003).
LT3 Women are given the same work assignments as men (Choi, 2018)
Source: The authors.

Discussion and Conclusion

Studies conducted in India (Central Statistics Office, 2018a, 2018b; Lathabhavan & Balasubramanian,
2017; Verma & Basu, 2019) found a comparatively low proportion of women both at the entry level and
at the higher managerial levels. The COVID-19 situation also widens this gap (Catalyst, 2020; Mehta,
2020). Therefore, it is vital to address gender inequality issues from women’s perspective and to
understand the key challenges they face. This study was conducted to construct and validate a scale for
measuring the GC faced by working women in the Indian banking sector. The measuring instrument was
developed subsequent to literature review and FGDs. Additionally, expert opinion was also taken prior
to the scale finalization.
The scale depicts significant psychometric properties. The KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
suggest the appropriateness of the sample for the extraction of factors. The items constitute adequate
communalities value. The items identified are specific to the Indian context. Consequent to the factor
analysis upon orthogonal rotation, seven factors were identified, namely FR, ER, PT, DPP, LOS, GS and
LT. The factor loadings of all items were greater than 0.70, and the scale had good internal consistency.
All the items were fit for the scale according to Kaiser’s rule. In total, these components explained
80.26% of the variance. In support of the findings, a scree plot was also obtained. The instrument
demonstrated adequate convergent and discriminant validities. The instrument was validated using CFA.
Furthermore, the scale was internally consistent, reliable and valid across the different samples drawn
from the different sectors of banks: public sector banks, private sector banks and cooperative banks.
Therefore, it was confirmed that the scale developed was multidimensional and covered all the important
GC barriers faced by women employees in the banking sector.

Managerial Implications
The validated GC instrument has several practical implications. The instrument can be used by human
resource managers in the banking sector to assess the gender-related problems faced by women employees
16 Global Business Review

that restrict the latter’s career advancement prospects besides impacting upon them economically. With
this knowledge, the management can develop superior policies that foster the career growth of women
employees. Although the scale is developed primarily for the banking sector, the items addressed in the
scale are universal issues faced by women employees in various professional sectors. Hence, this
comprehensive scale can be applied to measure the GC barriers of various service sectors, including
insurance, transportation, information technology and healthcare. Both governmental and non-
governmental agencies can use this instrument for measuring GC, which can provide them insights to
improve the career progression of women. To conclude, the instrument developed integrates the existing
empirical and theoretical studies on which the visible and the invisible GC barriers faced by women
employees are laid down. The research outcome will help the researchers, practitioners and managements,
to measure the opinions of the employees, regarding GC in different sectors.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study is not free from limitations. The sample respondents comprise women working exclusively in
public sector banks, private sector banks and cooperative banks. Foreign banks, small finance banks,
payment banks, etc., are excluded. Further studies can be conducted by including a wider category of
banks as well as non-banking institutions. This study considers the perceptions of GC from women
employees only. The opinions of male employees are completely disregarded, but may be considered in
future. Empirical studies can be conducted on other sectors, including agriculture, industry and defence,
among others. The samples for this study are drawn only from one particular state of India. The state
chosen, however, has the highest percentage of women employees in the country. Utmost care is taken
to include representatives from the rural, semi-urban and urban branches, which is the geographical
situation all over the nation. Furthermore, since the issues faced by women employees all over the
country are mostly similar, the scale may be applicable to all women employees, irrespective of region
or geographical limitations.

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve
the quality of article. Usual disclaimers apply.

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.

ORCID iD
Jikky P. Shaji https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6447-3830
Shaji et al. 17

References
Adamson, H. C. (2012). A quantitative study of glass ceiling barriers to promotion of women in medium-sized busi-
ness. University of Phoenix.
Aeran, A. (2014). Glass ceiling: A probable speed-braker in the production of quality female management profes-
sionals. Indian Journal of Scientific Research, 5(2), 175–179.
Afza, S. R., & Newaz, M. K. (2008). Factors determining the presence of glass ceiling and influencing women
career advancement in Bangladesh. BRAC University Journal, V(1), 85–92.
Agars, M. D. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of gender stereotypes on the advancement of women in organiza-
tions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(2), 103–111.
Akpinar-Sposito, C. (2013a). 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,
488–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.053
Akpinar-Sposito, C. (2013b). The glass ceiling: structural, cultural and organizational career barriers for French and
Turkish women executives. Le 24ème Congrès de l’AGRH.
Al-Manasra, E. A. (2013). What are the ‘glass ceiling’ barriers effects on women career progress in Jordan?
International Journal of Business and Management, 8(6), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n6p40
Alessandri, G., Consiglio, C., Luthans, F., & Borgogni, L. (2018). Testing a dynamic model of the impact of psy-
chological capital on work engagement and job performance. Career Development International, 23(1), 33–47.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2016-0210
Alshammari, A. A. (2016). Glass ceiling and glass cliff effects on women career advancement in Saudi Arabia.
International Review of Management and Business Research, 5(3), 1124–1134.
Azmi, I. A. G., Syed Ismail, S. H., & Basir, S. A. (2012). Women career advancement in public service: A
study in Indonesia. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2012.09.1004
Baker, J. G. (2003). Glass ceilings or sticky floors? A model of high-income law graduates. Journal of Labor
Research, 24(4), 695–711.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling: Women may make better managers. Human Resource
Management, 33(4), 549–560.
Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer
research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161.
Becker, G. S. (1985). Human capital, effort, and the sexual division of labor. Journal of Labor Economics, 3,
533–558.
Bellou, V. (2010). Organizational culture as a predictor of job satisfaction: The role of gender and age. Career
Development International, 15(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011020862
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the bulletin. Psychological Bulletin,
112, 400–404.
Bergman, B., & Hallberg, L. R. M. (2002). Women in a male-dominated industry: Factor analysis of a women
workplace culture questionnaire based on a grounded theory model. Sex Roles, 46(9–10), 311–322. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1020276529726
Bharadwaj, S., & Nagarkoti, U. (2012). Glass ceiling syndrome—A study of Indian women in top management.
International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research, 2(10), 267–275.
Bhattacharya, S., Bhattacharya, S., & Mohapatra, S. (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. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJHCITP.2018100101
Bihagen, E., & Ohls, M. (2006). The glass ceiling—Where is it? Women’s and men’s career prospects in the private
vs. the public sector in Sweden 1979–2000. The Sociological Review, 20–47.
18 Global Business Review

Bombuwela, P. M., & Chamaru, D. A. A. (2013). Effects of glass ceiling on women career development in pri-
vate sector organizations—Case of Sri Lanka. Journal of Competitiveness, 5(2), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.7441/
joc.2013.02.01
Britt, M. M. (2002). Organizational commitment, the glass ceiling and New England Higher Education Executive
Positions. Nova Southeastern University.
Carmeli, A., Shalom, R., & Weisberg, J. (2007). Considerations in organizational career advancement: What really
matters. Personnel Review, 36(2), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710726109
Catalyst. (2019). Quick take: Women in financial services. Catalyst.
Catalyst. (2020). Women in the workforce: India (Quick Take). Catalyst.
Central Statistics Office. (2018a). India in figures. Central Statistics Office.
Central Statistics Office. (2018b). Women and men in India, a statistical compilation of gender related indicators in
India. Central Statistics Office.
Centre for Social Research. (2009). Women managers in Inda: Challenges and opportunities. Centre for Social
Research.
Chary, S. N. (2016). Gender equality: A view from India. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1–4. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1056492616664853
Chauhan, P. (2020). Gendering Covid-19; impact of the pandemic on women’s burden of unpaid work in India.
Gender Issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-020-09269-w
Choi, S. (2018). Breaking through the glass ceiling: Social capital matters for women’s career success? International
Public Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2018.1425225
Choi, S., & Oh Park, C. (2014). Glass ceiling in Korean Civil Service: Analyzing barriers to women’s career
advancement in the Korean Government. Public Personnel Management, 43(1), 118–39. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0091026013516933
Chugh, S., & Sahgal, P. (2007). Why do few women advance to leadership positions? Global Business Review, 8(2),
351–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/097215090700800211
Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Algesheimer, R., & Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Comparing results of an exact vs.
an approximate (Bayesian) measurement invariance test: A cross-country illustration with a scale to measure 19
human values. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 982.
Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vannemen, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80(2),
655–681.
Daley, D. M. (1996). Paths of glory and the glass ceiling: Differing patterns of career addvancement among women
and minority federal employees. Public Administration Quarterly, 20(2), 143–162.
Datta, S., & Agarwal, U. A. (2017). Factors effecting career advancement of Indian women managers. South Asian
Journal of Business Studies, 6(3), 314–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-07-2016-0062
Dimovski, V., Skerlavaj, M., & Kim Man, M. M. (2010). Is there a ‘Glass Ceiling’ for female managers in Singapore
organizations? Management, 5(4), 307–329.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction
instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 357–369.
Dreher, G. F. (2003). Breaking the glass ceiling: The effects of sex ratios and work-life programs on female leader-
ship at the top. Human Relations, 56(5), 541–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056005002
Elacqua, C. T., Terry Beehr, A., Webster, J., & Curtiss Hansen, P. (2009). Managers’ beliefs about the glass ceiling:
Interpersonal and organizational factors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3), 285–294.
Emmaniel, R., & Balaji, A. (2014). Worklife balance of women in banks—A factor analysis. International Journal
of Marketing & Financial Management, 2(1), 25–40.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Flynn, A., Earlie, E. K., & Cross, C. (2015). Gender equality in the accounting profession: One size fits all. Gender
in Management: An International Journal, 30(6), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-06-2015-0048
Shaji et al. 19

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Ginige, K., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. (2007, September 12–13). Gender stereotypes: A barrier for career devel-
opment of women in construction. In 3rd Annual Built Environment Education Conference. University of
Westminster. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/22631
Greig, F. (2008). Propensity to negotiate and career advancement: evidence from an investment bank that women
are on a ‘Slow Elevator’. Negotiation Journal, 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00200.x
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Christensen, F. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of the materialism construct—
Assessing the Richins and Dawson’s Materialism Scale in Denmark, France and Russia. Journal of Business
Research, 57(8), 893–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00290-4
Gupta, A., Koshal, M., & Koshal, R. K. (1998). Women managers in India: Challenges and opportunities. Equal
Opportunities International, 17(8), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610159810785593
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Multivariate data analysis, (7th
ed.). Pearson.
Harris, C. M., Pattie, M. W., & Mcmahan, G. C. (2015). Advancement along a career path: The influence of human
capital and performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(1), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-
8583.12047
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Manangement,
21(5), 967–988.
Igbaria, M., & Baroudi, J. J. (1995). The impact of job performance evaluations on career advancement prospects:
An examination of gender differences in the IS workplace. MIS Quarterly, 19(1), 107–123.
Insch, G. S., Mcintyre, N., & Napier, N. K. (2008). The expatriate glass ceiling: The second layer of glass. Journal
of Business Ethics, 83(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9649-0
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2019). A quantum leap for gender equality: For a better future of work
for all. ILO.
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2020). World employement and social outlook: Trends 2020. ILO.
Ismail, H. N., & Nakkache, L. (2015). Gender differences at work: Experiencing human resource management poli-
cies in Lebanese Firms. Global Business Review, 16(6), 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915597592
Jackson, J. C. (2001). Women middle managers’ perception of the glass ceiling. Women in Management Review,
16(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420110380265
Jain, N., & Mukherji, S. (2010). The perception of ‘glass ceiling’ in Indian Organizations: An exploratory study.
South Asian Journal of Management, 17(1), 23.
Jamali, D., Safieddine, A., & Daouk, M. (2006). The glass ceiling: some positive trends from the Lebanese banking
sector. Women in Management Review, 21(8), 625–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420610712027
Jamali, D., Safieddine, A., & Daouk, M. (2007). Corporate governance and women: An empirical study of top and
middle women managers in the Lebanese Banking Sector. Corporate Governance: The International Journal
Of Business In Society, 7(5), 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710827167
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychology
Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 32–36.
Kamdar, B. (2020, July 1–8). Women left behind : India ’s falling female labor participation. The Diplomat. https://
thediplomat.com/2020/07/women-left-behind-indias-falling-female-labor-participation/
Keenawinna, K. A. S. T., & Sajeevanie, T. L. (2015). Impact of glass ceiling on career development of women:
A study of women branch managers in State Owned Commercial Banks in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of 2nd
International HRM Conference, 2(1), 100–108.
20 Global Business Review

Khuong, M. N., & Chi, N. T. L. (2017). Effects of the corporate glass ceiling factors on female employees organi-
zational commitment: An empirical of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Journal of Advanced Management Science,
5(4), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.18178/joams.5.4.255-263
Kilian, C. M. C., Hukai, D., & Elizabeth McCarty, C. (2005). Building diversity in the pipeline to corporate leader-
ship. Journal of Management Development, 24(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710510579518
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. Guilford Press.
Knutson, B. J., & Schmidgall, R. S. (1999). Dimensions of the glass ceiling in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40, 64–75.
Kolade, O. J., & Kehinde, O. (2013). Glass ceiling and women career advancement: Evidence from Nigerian
Construction Industry. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 6(1), 77–97.
Krabbe, P. F. M. (2017). The measurement of health and health status: Concepts, methods and applications from a
multidisciplinary perspective. Academic Press.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Education and
Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Krentz, M., Kos, E., Green, A., & Garcia-Alonso, J. (2020). Easing the COVID-19 burden on working parents.
BCG. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/helping-working-parents-ease-the-burden-of-covid-19
Kumar, P. A., & Sundar, K. (2012). Problems faced by women executives working in public sector banks in
Puducherry. International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research, 1(7), 180–193.
Lathabhavan, R., & Balasubramanian, S. A. (2017). Glass ceiling and women employees in Asian organizations:
A tri-decadal review. Asia Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 9(3), 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/
APJBA-03-2017-0023
Lemons, M. A., & Parzinger, M. J. (2001). Designing women: A qualitative study of the glass ceiling for women in
technology. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66(2), 4–11.
Liff, S., & Ward, K. (2001). Distorted views through the glass ceiling: The construction of women’s understandings
of promotion and senior management positions. Gender, Work and Organization, 8(1), 19–36.
Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. (2008). Can a manager have a life and a career? International and multisource
perspectives on work-life balance and career advancement potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4),
789–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.789
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), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.359
Mathur-Helm, B. (2006). Women and the glass ceiling in South African Banks: An illusion or reality? Women in
Management Review, 21(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420610667028
McCarthy, S. A. (2001). Portals in the glass ceiling: The role of surreptitious knowledge in the leadership advance-
ment of high potential middle management women. University of California, Los Angeles.
McKeen, C. A., & Burke, R. J. (1991). Work experiences and career success of managerial and professional women:
Study design and preliminary findings. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des
Sciences de l’Administration, 8(4), 251–258.
Mehta, S. K. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 on Working Women. https://indianwomennetwork.in/wp-content/
uploads/2020/08/Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Working-Women_August-2020.pdf
Metz, I. (2003). Individual, interpersonal, and organisational links to women’s advancement in management in
banks. Women in Management Review, 18(5), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420310485087
Metz, I., & Tharenou, P. (2001). Women ’s career advancement: The relative contribution of human and social
capital. Group and Organisation Management, 26(3), 312–342.
Misra, P., & Sirohi, K. (2019). Challenges of women employees in managerial cadre in Indian IT, civil and electron-
ics industry: An analysis. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 13(2), 107–122. https://doi.
org/10.14453/aabfj.v13i2.7
Mitra, A. (2003). Breaking the glass ceiling: African–American women in management positions. Equal
Opportunities International, 22(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150310787379
Shaji et al. 21

Mitra, S. (2019). Women and unpaid work in India: A macroeconomic overview. https://iwwage.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/05/ICRW_NLI_unpaidwk_2019_SM.pdf
Mohapatra, M. D., Satpathy, I., & Patnaik, B. C. M. (2019). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction in
information technology sector. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering,
8(9), 1993–1999. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.i8433.078919
Morgan, S., Schor, S. M., & Martin, L. R. (1993). Gender differences in career paths in banking. The Career
Development Quarterly, 41(4), 375–382.
Naff, K. C. (1994). Through the glass ceiling: Prospects for the aavancement of women in the federal civil service.
Public Administration Review, 54(6), 507–514.
Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S. (2019). Development and validation of job satisfaction scale for different sectors.
International Journal for Quality Research, 13(1), 193–220. https://doi.org/10.24874/IJQR13.01-12
Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2017). The glass ceiling in context: The influence of CEO gender, recruitment practices
and firm internationalisation on the representation of women in management. Human Resource Management
Journal, 27(1), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12135
Njiru, F. (2013). Factors affecting career progression of women in the corporate sector: A case study of Standard
Chartered Bank in Nairobi. University of Nairobi.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.). Mc Graw Hill.
Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female
CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 321–334.
Ogden, S. M., McTavish, D., & McKean, L. (2006). Clearing the way for gender balance in the management of the
UK Financial Services Industry. Enablers and barriers. Women in Management Review, 21(1), 40–53. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09649420610643402
Omotayo, O. A., Oladele, I. O., & Adenike, A. (2013). Glass ceiling and female career advancement: A study of the
Nigeria Police. Anvesha, 6(1), 49–59.
Ottu, I. F. A., & Chris Inwang, W. (2013). Perceived self-efficacy, domestic violence and women’s ability to break
industrial glass ceiling. Advancing Women in Leadership, 33, 177–187.
Özpehlivan, M., & Acar, A. Z. (2016). Development and validation of a multidimensional job satisfaction scale in
different cultures. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1).
Parker, S., Pascall, G., & Evetts, J. (1998). Jobs for the girls? Change and continuity for women in high street banks.
Women in Management Review, 13(4), 156–161.
Payne, D. C. (2005). The glass ceiling ten years later: A study of the professional woman’s perception of success in
Corporate America. Capella University.
Posholi, M. R. (2013). An examination of factors affecting career advancement of women into senior positions
in selected Parastatals in Lesotho. African Journal of Business Management, 7(35), 3343–3357. https://doi.
org/10.5897/AJBM11.521
Pratim, M. (2019, September 24). Women in higher education show steady rise; enrolment in top institutions not
growing. Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/women-in-higher-education-show-steady-
rise-enrolment-in-top-institutions-not-growing/articleshow/71267870.cms
Princess, H., Agwu, E. M., Awele, O. V., & Mercy, A. (2015). Strategic implications of glass ceiling on the pro-
fessional leadership of career women development in the West African Sub-Region. International Journal of
Management Sciences, 6(5), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3122437
Priyadarshini, R. G., & Azeez, P. V. N. (2018). Glass ceiling factors affecting women career advancement in IT
Industry in India. The 3rd International Conference on Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 390, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/390/1/012021
Rath, T. S., Mohanty, M., & Pradhan, B. B. (2016). Career progression of Indian Women Bank managers: An inte-
grated 3P model. South Asian Journal of Management, 23(3), 143.
Ratho, A. (2020). Promoting female participation in India’s Urban Labour Force. Observer Research Foundation,
348, 2.
22 Global Business Review

Rathore, S. (2017). Corporate glass ceiling: An impact on indian women employees. International Journal of
Engineering and Management Research, 7(4), 264–269.
Reseve Bank of India. (2018). Bank group and population group-wise distribution of employees of scheduled com-
mercial banks according to category. https://m.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublcationsVew.aspx?id=19041
Saadin, I., Ramli, K., Johari, H., & Akmar Harin, N. (2016). Women and barriers for upward career advancement—
A survey at perak state secretariat, Ipoh, Perak. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35(October 2015), 574–581.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(16)00070-8
Sachdeva, G. (2014). Glass ceiling converted into glass transparency: A study on the factors making womeneexecu-
tives successful in the indian banking sector. Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research
(JBM&SSR), 3(4), 46–51.
Sampson, S. D., & Moore, L. L. (2008). Is there a glass ceiling for women in development? Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, 18(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.188.
Sandhu, H. S., & Ritu, M. (2007). Career advancement challenges for women executives in the service sector.
Journal of Advances in Management Research, 4(2), 69–78.
Schruijer, S. G. L. (2006). Do women want to break the glass ceiling? A study of their career orientations and gender
identity in the Netherlands. Management Revue, 17(2), 143–154.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organization behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 3–43.
Sharma, A. (2016). Managing diversity and equality in the workplace. Cogent Business and Management, 3(1),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1212682
Sharma, A., Sharma, S. N., & Kaushik, (2011). An exploratory study of glass ceiling in Indian Education sector.
International Journal of Multidisciplanary Research, 1(8), 73–82.
Sharma, R. Dhir, S. (2019). An exploratory study of challenges faced by working mothers in India and their expecta-
tions from organizations. Global Business Review, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919847799
Sharma, S., & Kaur, R. (2014). Existence of glass ceiling for women: A barrier in effective leadership. International
Journal on Leadership, 2(2), 35–44.
Sharma, S., & Kaur, R. (2019). Glass ceiling for women and work engagement: The moderating effect of marital
status. FIIB Business Review, 8(2), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714519845770
Sharma, S., & Sehrawat, P. (2014). Glass ceiling for women: Does it exist in the Modern India?” Journal of
Organisation & Human Behaviour, 3(2), 9–15.
SLBC. (2020). Banking outlets—District wise. State Level Bankers Committee Kerala. http://slbckerala.com/
Default.aspx
Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2012). How are women’s glass ceiling beliefs related to career success?
Career Development International, 17(5), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211269702
Stalinski, S. (2014). Female executives and the glass ceiling: A phenomenological study of Stubborn, Systemic
Barriers to Career Advancement. Saybrook University.
Straub, C. (2007). A comparative analysis of the use of work-life balance practices in Europe: Do prac-
tices enhance females’ career advancement? Women in Management Review, 22(4), 289–304. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09649420710754246
Subramaniam, G., Mohamed Khadri, N. A., Maniam, B., & Ali, E. (2016). The glass ceiling phenomenon-does it
really affect women’s career advancement in Malaysia? Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications
and Conflict, 20(Special Issue 1), 81–89.
Tabouli, E. M. A., Habtoor, N., & Mohammad Nashief, S. (2016). Employee performance scale: Using (CFA) On
Jumhouria Bank in Libya. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 5(6), 735–739. https://doi.
org/10.21275/v5i6.nov164278
Thapar, J. P., & Sharma, S. (2017). Glass ceiling for Women in Indian public sector banks: A study of government
’s initiatives. International Journal of Management and Business Studies, 7(1), 27–30.
Shaji et al. 23

Tiwari, M., Mathur, G., & Awasthi, S. (2019). A study on the effects of glass ceiling & organizational commitment
on corporate women’s turnover intentions. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 18(2), 1–10.
Townsend, B. (1997). Breaking through: The glass ceiling revisited. Equal Opportunities International 16(5), 4–13.
Verma, P., & Basu, S. D. (2019, March 17). At only 3%, Corporate India is still struggling to bring women to
the top. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/at-only-
3-corporate-india-is-still-struggling-to-bring-women-to-the-top/articleshow/68589499.cms
Verma, S. (2018). Examining the new dimensions of career advancement of women employees. Global Business
Review, 21(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918780757
Vianen, A. E. M. van, & Fischer, A. H. (2002). Illuminating the glass ceiling: The role of organizational cul-
ture preferences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 315–337. https://doi.
org/10.1348/096317902320369730
Wesarat, P., & Mathew, J. (2017). Theoretical framework of glass ceiling: A case of India’s Women Academic
Leaders. Paradigm, 21(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890717700533
World Bank Group. (2020). Labour force participation rate, female (% of total labor force): India. World Bank.
World Economic Forum. (2018). The global gender gap report. World Economic Forum.
World Economic Forum. (2020). Data explorer: India. World Economic Forum.