Women’s glass-ceiling beliefs and their perceived career progression: a tale of two countries

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical framework: relationship between glass-ceiling beliefs and perceived career progression moderated by level of education.

Source: the survey conducted in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for the purpose of this study.

Table 1. Profile of respondents.

Characteristics	Frequency		Percentage (%)
	Pakistan	Saudi Arabia	Pakistan	Saudi Arabia
Age
20–29 years	175	83	49.9	34.2
30–39 years	62	103	17.7	42.4
40–49 years	104	45	29.6	18.5
50–59 years	10	12	2.8	4.9
Level of education
Undergraduate	70	114	19.9	46.9
Graduate	133	24	37.9	9.9
PhD	148	105	42.2	43.2
Marital status
Single	172	96	49.01	39.5
Married	179	147	50.99	60.5
Sector
Education	184	136	52.4	56
Healthcare	167	107	47.6	44
Tenure
> 1 year	80	42	22.8	17.3
1–4 years	117	94	33.3	38.7
5–9 years	115	48	32.8	19.7
>10 years	39	59	11.1	24.3

Note: Pakistan (n = 351), Saudi Arabia (n = 243).

Source: the survey conducted in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for the purpose of this study.

Table 2. Measurement model.

Construct	Factor loadings		Composite reliability		Cronbach’s alpha		AVE
	Pakistan	Saudi	Pakistan	Saudi	Pakistan	Saudi	Pakistan	Saudi
Denial			0.840	0.869	0.621	0.703	0.725	0.769
Denial4	0.835	0.905
Denial7	0.867	0.848
Resilience			0.891	0.917	0.888	0.910	0.500	0.527
Resil2	0.766	0.703
Resil3	0.672	0.680
Resil4	0.802	0.719
Resil5	0.707	0.706
Resil6	0.812	0.780
Resil7	0.592	0.764
Resil8	0.518	0.790
Resil9	0.552	0.695
Resil10	0.671	0.771
Resil11	0.574	0.631
Acceptance			0.842	0.852	0.626	0.660	0.727	0.743
Accept1	0.873	0.820
Accept2	0.832	0.902
Resignation			0.678	0.700	0.817	0.639	0.539	0.500
Resig2	0.621	0.623
Resig4	0.717	0.599
Resig5	0.564	0.839
Resig6	0.852	0.854
Resig8	0.871	0.820
Resig9	0.739	0.508
Career progression			0.876	0.854	0.813	0.767	0.640	0.604
CP1	0.830	0.879
CP2	0.797	0.818
CP3	0.792	0.499
CP4	0.780	0.853

Note: AVE = average variance extracted.

Source: the survey conducted in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for the purpose of this study.

Table 3. Mean, standard deviations, correlations and discriminant validity results.

	Mean	S.D	1	2	3	4	5	6
Denial	3.390/2.511	0.619/0.721	0.851/0.877	0.297/0.234	0.596/0.224	0.050/-0.413	0.279/0.658	0.469/0.298
Resilience	3.901/3.995	0.738/0.811	0.264/0.233	0.674/0.726	0.578/0.753	0.792/0.236	0.275/0.314	0.189/0.117
Acceptance	3.344/3.187	0.883/0.628	0.324/0.149	0.413/0.570	0.853/0.862	0.578/0.753	0.315/0.269	0.196/0.163
Resignation	3.584/2.685	0.787/0.670	0.050/-0.413	0.138/-0.109	0.138/-0.109	0.674/0.726	0.216/0.461	0.223/0.332
Career progression	2.847/3.265	1.006/1.012	0.204/0.504	0.340/0.317	0.181/0.176	−0.300/-0.393	0.800/0.777	0.286/0.27
Education	N.A/N.A	N.A/N.A	0.365/-0.252	0.209/-0.151	0.051/-0.145	−0.009/0.327	0.259/-0.246	1.000/1.000

Note: Pakistan/Saudi; significance levels: p < 0.10*; p < 0.05**; S.D = standard deviation.

Diagonal and italicized elements are the square roots of the AVE (average variance extracted).

Below the diagonal elements are the correlations between the construct values.

Above the diagonal elements are the HTMT values.

Source: the survey conducted in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for the purpose of this study.

Table 4. Measurement invariance of composites (MICOM) results.

Constructs	Configural invariance (same algorithms for both groups)	Compositional invariance (Correlation = 1)		Partial measurement invariance established	Equal mean value			Equal variance		Full measurement invariance established
		C = 1	Confidence interval (CIs)		Differences	Confidence interval (CIs)	Equal	Differences	Confidence interval (CIs)	Equal
Denial	Yes	0.993	[0.989, 1.000]	Yes	−0.056	[-0.168, 0.162]	Yes	−0.280	[-0.171, 0.186]	No	No
Resilience	Yes	0.924	[0.975, 1.000]	Yes	−0.286	[-0.165, 0.165]	No	−0.284	[-0.309, 0.325]	Yes	No
Acceptance	Yes	0.995	[0.964, 1.000]	Yes	−0.293	[-0.164, 0.165]	No	−0.392	[-0.218, 0.237]	No	No
Resignation	Yes	0.884	[0.958, 1.000]	Yes	1.058	[-0.168, 0.160]	No	0.244	[-0.205, 0.219]	No	No
Career progression	Yes	0.995	[0.994, 1.000]	Yes	−0.464	[-0.166, 0.159]	No	0.038	[-0.191, 0.209]	Yes	No
Education	Yes	0.995	[0.964, 1.000]	Yes	0.254	[-0.168, 0.167]	No	−0.571	[-0.122, 0.128]	No	No

Note: In Henseler’s MGA method, the p < 0.05 or p > 0.95 indicates at the 5% level significant differences between specific path coefficients across two samples.

Source: the survey conducted in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for the purpose of this study.

Table 5. MGA-PLS structural model results.

Hypothesis	Relationships	Path coefficient Pakistan	Path coefficient Saudi	CIs (bias corrected) Pakistan	CIs (bias corrected) Saudi	Path coefficient differences	p Value Henseler’s MGA	p Value permutation test	Supported
Direct effects
H2	Denial → Career progression	0.036 ^ns	0.347***	[-0.053, 0.127]	[0.274, 0.483]	−0.338	1.000***	0.000***	YES/YES
H3	Resilience → Career progression	0.407***	0.237***	[0.323, 0.507]	[0.124, 0.336]	0.170	0.029*	0.052*	YES/YES
H4	Acceptance → Career progression	0.168**	−0.045^ns	[0.071, 0.265]	[-0.161, 0.053]	0.214	0.008**	0.019**	YES/YES
H5	Resignation → Career progression	−0.356***	−0.187**	[-0.446, −0.254]	[-0.270, −0.063]	−0.169	0.960*	0.103*	YES/YES
Moderating effects
H6	Denial × Education → Career progression	−0.236***	0.096^ns	[-0.337, −0.134]	[-0.005, 0.208]	−0.333	0.999***	0.000***	YES/YES
H7	Resilience × Education → Career progression	0.194***	−0.103^ns	[0.111, 0.297]	[-0.224, 0.015]	0.297	0.000***	0.001***	YES/YES
H8	Acceptance × Education → Career progression	−0.098^ns	0.018^ns	[-0.233, 0.026]	[-0.099, 0.151]	−0.116	0.855	0.307	NO/NO
H9	Resignation × Education → Career progression	−0.090**	−0.023^ns	[-0.171, −0.028]	[-0.137, 0.093]	−0.067	0.785	0.408	NO/NO

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; ns = not significant.

Source: the survey conducted in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for the purpose of this study.