Salary Inequality in the Workplace: Why do Men still Earn More - Literature review Example

Salary Inequality in the Workplace: Why do Men still Earn More? BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Salary Inequality in the Workplace: Why do Menstill Earn More? Introduction Salary inequality is still a recurring phenomenon in the workplace. The United States General Accounting Office reports that in 2001, women only earned three-fourths the salary as their male counterparts (GAO, 2003). The specific rationale for the salary disparity between men and women is not largely understood, however there are many theories indicating why this phenomenon still plagues the female worker. Some explanations include higher-level proficiency in technology usage for men explains the differences, ongoing gender bias within the workforce, and lifestyle differences between the male and female worker. Despite the theories, there is no concrete evidence as to why salary inequality is still a problem, suggesting that the disparity is a social problem with a very hidden agenda to satisfy the needs of a patriarchic work environment. Why do Men Earn More? Allyn (2003) suggests that men earn more than their female counterparts due to the return on investment achieved through education. According to an empirical study, education is geared more to provide men with better understanding of computer systems. Thus, when men and women enter the workforce, men who receive complimentary benefits are assumed to have a better knowledge base associated with technology usage, giving them a salary advantage (Allyn 2003). Under this assumption, salary disparity between the different sexes is a product of the educational system and the provision of knowledge associated with technology. Is this a rational explanation for the aforementioned inequality? If so, one could easily blame the administration in today’s colleges and universities for not creating a diverse curriculum that provides men and women with the same quality learning outcomes. It is likely that many educators and administrators in the teaching environment would strongly argue against Allyn’s study results, suggesting that there are ample and equal opportunities for both female and male students in the schools’ attempts to provide identical learning systems. Many universities, today, make it part of their ethical policies to ensure uniform educational methods that provide equivalent instruction and coaching that facilitates scholarship for both sexes. Thus, if Allyn’s findings are accurate, there must be bias within the educational system that prevents women from attaining the knowledge in technology necessary to achieve equalized pay upon graduation. However, with no concrete research evidence, this is only speculation. Connell (1997) indicates that the salary disparity between men and women is quite simple: it is the product of a long-standing patriarchic society that was built by men and sustained by men, thus reducing opportunities for women to advance equally. Since the majority of executives in the business environment are male, there is the assumption that a patriarchic hegemony (domination) resides at the highest levels of the organization. Any attempts to undo the male-dominated workforce would therefore, under this theory, lead to backlash or even sabotage when women attempt to exert their own supremacy (Connell, 1997). Anyone in society with a thoughtful mind could surely support the notion that the workforce as it is known today was built on male governance. The vast majority of businesspersons in history were male, therefore creating authority and control systems in the business world borne of male-generated policy and procedure. It was quite rare in yesteryear for a woman to expand their education and knowledge in order to attain a position of prominence in the business organization. In this time period, it was commonplace for women to maintain a role as housewife and mother, sustaining the household as a reward for receipt of male earnings. This was the foremost role of women until the 1940s, but this mentality was altered in the 20th Century as households required dual incomes and women found a new type of liberation seeking equal protections under the law. Should society, then, assume that the law and social evolutions related to women’s roles in culture is actually incompatible with the long-standing male-dominated workforce? Connell (1997) seems to exert that existing perceptions of male superiority in the business world cannot be undone as there is now a culture of male supremacy that has been built on centuries of social evolution. Under this assumption, then women would never be able to achieve equality in salary as there would always be a form of gentleman’s club at the highest hierarchies of control in the organization that would seek to prevent women from exerting their own influence. This type of gender bias, though highly subjective, could explain why there is such a significant disparity between male and female salaries in the contemporary workplace. Henslin (2005) takes a different approach to the problem, suggesting that it is lifestyle differences that can explain the gap in salary between men and women. There is a greater chance that female workers will have to, at least temporarily, exit the workforce in order to care for children. Though there are now protections for women that ensure job security in the event of pregnancy, Henslin provides research statistics illustrating that temporary job departure is potentially a significant concern in the workplace. Psychology research informs society that women have a tendency to place more emphasis on relationship development, such as caring for family and children. Venable (2002) provides results of a study conducted by the Center for Policy Alternatives illustrating that 71 percent of female participants demand a job with more flexibility. In this same study, 85 percent of female respondents that work in environments that provide flexible working readily take advantage of these opportunities (Venable, 2002). The research according to the Center for Policy Alternatives would seem to support that women have a propensity to seek workplace flexibility, rather than complying with a rather standardized work schedule. Do men seek this flexibility in equal proportion to women in order to satisfy their own lifestyle needs? Unfortunately, there is no research evidence available that illustrates male-generated perceptions of flex-time and their tendency to seek these opportunities. However, if society is to assume that organizational management maintains concerns that females are going to either abandon their jobs, demand too much flexibility, or otherwise cause disruption to job roles by placing primary emphasis on the importance of family, then it could explain why men earn more than women. Whether this type of concern is ethical or moral is highly subjective and very relative to the individual, however with such concrete statistics illustrating that women have a higher propensity for insisting on flexibility in the workplace than men, it could be the foundation for why salary inequality still exists today. Farrell (2005) takes a very different approach to the issue. This author believes that there is a communication gap between men and women that makes it difficult for females to gain equality in pay. Under this viewpoint, men are more aggressive and dominant (inherently) and therefore are able to utilize their self-confidence to negotiate more satisfying pay structures with management. Gender theory teaches society that men have a tendency to be more assertive while females are usually more passive due to legitimate biological differences and brain chemistries. If society is to run under this assumption, then females are innately unable to muster the forcefulness that is necessary to attain equal pay for equal work. Believing that it is genetic differences between men and women that count for the salary disparity in today’s workforce, then there should be more organizational tolerance for biological dissonance by providing opportunities to open effective lines of communication between women and the human resources division at the organization. Again, however, this is a relative view of the ethical condition in the workplace which might not be supported by all in society. Conclusion There really is no solid answer for why men earn more than women, which makes the situation troubling. It would be disheartening if society and the business world were to believe that there is simply a long-standing patriarchic mentality that has been present since the earliest developments of the modern business model. If it is a societal problem involving male domination, then women might never achieve equality, that is, until they have achieved a level of authority backed by legislation. On the other hand, if society is to believe that the gender pay gap can be explained by educational biases, then women would have very little opportunity to achieve comparable salaries as the foundation of knowledge is already biased before women even enter the workforce. Whatever the genuine explanation, there is clearly a disparity between earnings with men and women. It would be very imperative for understanding this problem if there were future studies conducted that focused on gender bias, using a large sample of male business executives, to understand whether the problem is patriarchic in nature or whether there are other mitigating circumstances that prevent women from attaining salary equality. There simply is no genuine explanation for this problem which is likely why it continues to plague the business world today. References Allyn, M.R. (2003). Computers, gender and pay, The Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 9(2), p.33. Connell, R.W. (1997). Gender politics for men, The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 17(1), pp.62-77. Farrell, W. (2005). Why Men Earn More. New York: AMACOM Books. GAO. (2003). Women’s Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings. General Accounting Office. Retrieved March 16, 2013 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf Henslin, J.M. (2005). Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach (7th ed.). Boston: A&B Publishing. Venable, D. (2002). The Wage Gap Myth, National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved March 16, 2013 from http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392 Read More