Gender Inequality in the Workplace - Research Paper Example

Introduction There are various biases and problems that occur in the workplace, specifically because of divisions that are associated with various concepts. One of the complications that are a part of the business environment is based on the differences in gender. This often leads to a sense of favoritism and bias in the workplace. More importantly, this creates divisions in the ability for gender to move forward within a specific environment because of social and organizational policies. To change this, organizations are required to create strategies and different approaches that create new options based on societal needs and gender equity. This can be furthered with understanding the complications that occur with gender differences and how this leads to barriers within specific organizations. Gender Inequality in the Workplace The first step to recognizing favoritism and bias in the workplace is to define the types of gender inequality that are within organizational environments. Through different research studies (Elliott, Smith, 2004), it has been found that there is an increase in gender inequality through the environment and internal politics of organizations. The main way in which this is seen is through a gap between men and women. In most organizations, it becomes easier for men to move into higher power and authority level positions while women are expected to remain at the same position that they begin at. The most common form of gender inequality comes through networks that are established in the organization, specifically through men’s clubs and associations and exclusive networks that are established with gender as the main component. The social expectations that are related to this create a homosocial production, which leads to men being understood in social and cultural groups and networks, while women remain excluded from the main workspace environment. The result is that men have an easier association with reaching higher levels of power, while women and minorities don’t have the same access to networks (Elliott, Smith, 2004). Not only do social networks define gender inequalities between men and women, but the same social presence is included in the work area. When the networks create gender inequality, it is often followed with barriers and gaps that are in the workplace. This is reproduced in the workplace through teams and environmental processes. The reproduction of inequality is known to become a part of the environment, specifically because the outside networks for men and women are associated with gender. The reflection is then seen in the workplace, where men often become associated with networks that are directly influenced by powers. At the same time, the women are associated with other networks that cause the team to have a specific type of power in the work area. The complexities that arise are not only a reflection of organizational policies, but also are directly related to the commands of society and culture at large, specifically with what is expected through different organizations (Acker, 2006). Organizational Commitment and Gender Differences There isn’t only a gap through the networks and associations with gender through the social and cultural expectations. While this defines the basis for most organizational environments, there is also a difference based on the amount of organizational commitment that is given because of the barriers in gender. The gender gaps and barriers that are created not only reflect in the amount of power one is given, but also creates a different sense of how one should respond to the work environment. The employee commitment to an organization is not only determined by the amount of knowledge or education, but is also dependent on the defined boundaries from an organization. If it becomes a known concept that men will have more access to power related jobs that move them up in the organization, then they will have different types of performance and levels of commitment than women. More importantly, there will be a perception by others that the performance of men is better than that of women, specifically because there is a direct and personal relationship, as well as societal values that are placed on the power structure with men (Eaton, 2003). The reflection on perceived performance and commitment is not only related to the expectations for power positions. There is also a difference that is reflected because of the roles that individuals place in society and outside of the workplace. Corporate citizenship and the way that one is looked at in the community and in society will ultimately reflect how they are perceived in the work place. Those who have a perception of holding social responsibility will also be favored in the workplace. The commitment is then known to reflect the economic, legal and discretionary measures within the workplace. The gap that occurs is based on the commitment of females that is based on family and home, as well as discretionary measures that are different within society. For men, this is based on the contributions to society as well as the ability to commit more to the workplace because of the alternate values that are within society. The concept of citizenship within the organization, as well as the roles in society, then creates different values and belief systems that are associated with gender. This further the gaps and barriers for women employees when looking at different positions within an organization (Peterson, 2004). Workplace Favoritism The perceptions and performance, as well as commitment to organizations then lead to favoritism that is within the different organizations. The largest reflection that occurs within the workplace is based on exclusion and barriers between the different genders. There is a sense of hostility that is then created between those that have a sense of power as well as those that are considered to be a lower – level employee. This is furthered by barriers that often lead to workplace bullying and harassment. Most of the time, it is found that the harassment comes in forms of hostility and by not providing equal opportunity to those in the workplace. This is first divided by the hierarchy that is formed, which is divided by the gender bias and differences in the workplace. This is furthered by personal comments, petty tyranny, unnecessary criticism and monitoring that is not necessary. The hostility and bullying will lead into personal comments, specifically which relate to gender and create a division between those that are in the organization. This is often followed by a change in levels of performance as well as alterations in the environment. As this process of hostility occur, gender divisions and gaps follow, specifically because the attacks associated with different individuals in the workplace are related to social and cultural comments and divisions (Salin, 2005). The boundary that is created with hostility, harassment and other forms of discrimination then leads to a sense of favoritism as a direct result. If individuals have enough boundaries in the workplace, then it ultimately affects the performance that is within the organization. As individuals are faced with discriminatory practices, it leads to an alteration in how individuals work. If a workplace is not hostile, then it is known that other factors, such as demographic composition and societal expectations, will further the perceptions of the gender gap. According to the social identity theory, individuals will classify themselves according to gender, race or ethnicity. The hostility that occurs among employees then becomes a direct reflection of how individuals classify each other and what their association is with others in the workplace. The responses and atmosphere that is created will further this by a sense of favoritism or exclusivity. If an individual holds a specific individual identity and if there is a perception that favors this, then the individual will either be included or excluded into a group. The workplace favoritism that results is ultimately from the perceptions and from the social identity that is a part of the work environment. The performance, evaluations and organizational commitment then result from the perception that one has. The result is that the favoritism over one gender becomes the applicable actions in each group (Chow, Crawford, 2004). The workplace favoritism and the associations with identity are not only related to the basic environment. There are different approaches that are taken in the workplace that are based on neglected topics and beliefs about gender. Most organizations state that they offer equal and fair employment within the work place. However, the social and cultural demands lead to the stereotypes and favoritism among men and women in the workplace. For instance, issues such as women who have to take leave because of pregnancy leads to favoritism among men for them to have power positions because of commitment to the job. Organizational dynamics with leadership then become situational and management becomes favored by men who can offer more to the organization. Women, who are said to represent half of the management and power structures, are also known to have several limits. Many are noted as tokens, which are used in an organization to represent equal diversity while being disregarded because of the power structure and societal expectations. Others are not given notice outside of the stereotype and performances are limited by those who are favored in the workplace because of perceptions and stereotypes. The favoritism that occurs then becomes based on a combination of societal expectations as well as the definition of equality and the lack of organizational policies that give merit to women who are interested in entering the workforce at a higher level or as a part of the power structure. The favoritism for men then leads to a glass ceiling for women, in which they can never show their talent or knowledge because of perceptions and expectations within the workplace (Karsten, 2006). Social and Organizational Policies Most organizations are aware of the gender bias in the workplace and the favoritism that occurs. General policies and different established procedures have been made available for both basic hiring procedures and harassment. The main concept that has been approached is to have a ratio of women that are hired for a specific job and to look at specific education levels and qualifications of both men and women. However, the women that are hired specifically for equal opportunity often are used as tokens or aren’t able to move up in the structure because of power based differences and because of the perception of women. More importantly, the women that aren’t hired for jobs are said to be under qualified. This is often attributed to social perceptions of women and men. Most firms are looking for traits that are male dominant, such as stereotypical traits of assertiveness and decision making processes. While the policies are still in place, there is the inability to reach higher positions or to move through the hiring process unless there is a sense of stereotypical qualities. Even though the policies remain in place, there are limitations that are based on the preferences and qualities of character between men and women (Gorman, 2008). The main policies of organizations that are beginning to be established with the gender inequality in place are based on pressures at a social and organizational level. The first part to this is from the societal view, which is demanding that discrimination be approached. Equal hiring processes, affirmative action and sexual harassment all are being confronted at a social level. Most women that are in the work area are forcing new policies and implementation of a change in a new structure. As corporations diversify into multinational corporations, is also the need to create different policies and procedures for hiring that is inclusive of different cultures and environments. The process and the policies that are being implemented at this level from a social level are then able to provide more diversity and options for women that are changing the policies within organizations (Murrell, James, 2002). The concept of social policies and changes that are confronting the workplace are also moving into initiatives within the organization. Currently, the only policies that are within the work structure are based on direct sexual harassment and bullying within the workplace. However, for this to be valid at a political and organizational level there has to be direct evidence that one is being discriminated against within the workplace. The policies at an organizational level hold the largest gap. The environment, favoritism and power structure can continue to be established with the relevant concepts based on what works most effectively for the organization. The current corporate environment is then able to create occupational segregation and favoritism while excluding women from opportunities that are within the work area. Even though there are only outlines for organizational change from the policies available, few changes are expected to take place within corporations because of the barriers on political and corporate policies. These are not required for a corporation, which allows the social environment within an organization to continue with favoritism through gender (Murrell, James, 2002). Confronting Gender Equity The several problems that are a part of the workplace are based on social merits that are incorporated into the organizational environment. To confront gender equity, social initiatives will need to be taken first. The first solution that is being incorporated is based on new opportunities within society and education that can be incorporated into different business environments. However, to do this, restructuring has to be established in which men and women have equal roles and forms of power. The social agenda and policies that are available will need to be altered based on the amount of fairness that is within each corporation and within society. At the same time, those that are looked at in terms of unfair practices within a corporation will need to be held liable within society. Changes in policies, such as unfair practices based on gender differences in society, including family and pregnancy, can help to change some of the ideologies incorporated into the workplace that are based on gender (Colgan, Ledwith, 2002). Even though social concepts can be incorporated into general policies and rules, gender equity needs to be established in the organizational environment as well. To do this, there has to be a restructuring of the corporation so each individual can have the same opportunities in the workplace. New policies that demand gender equity will help to incorporate this specific factor, while noting the ability for favoritism to be eliminated from the main structure. Currently, wages that are equal among men and women is the main issue, which demands that the organizational structure provides men and women with equal opportunities in the workplace and among power positions. To further this, women that are professionals and that are working in the economy can have specific claims for family and their profession. To do this, the organization will need to structure a system that provides support for both men and women so they can raise a family while working within an organization. This has to be furthered with ideas of dismantling ideas of sexuality for favoritism, which is dependent on restructuring perceptions and structures within the workplace that allow networks to depict who can be in the most favorable position. The idea of equal opportunity would then reflect not only basic pay structures and options. Instead, it would incorporate the idea of workplace dignity and the ability to offer women a fair chance within the power structure and among men. Changing attitudes of both men and women through the positions and power structure would then provide more opportunity and a balance within the workplace (Colgan, Ledwith, 2002). Conclusion The concept of gender equity and inequality in the workplace is one that continues in most organizations. This is no longer based on basic policies that are incorporated into society and organizations. Instead, it is created through an atmosphere in organization’s that creates a power structure that gaps between men and women. From one side, women are considered as tokens when in a managerial position, specifically because it upholds ideals of equality. However, most experience levels of hostility and bullying in the workplace because of societal roles. While policies and political procedures have been established, the societal barriers continue to reflect in organizational structures and provide a gap and sets of barriers between men and women. To change this, organizational restructuring and changes in societal demands will need to be established to present a more equal set of opportunities between men and women in the workplace. References Acker, Joan. (2006). “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations.” Gender and Society (20), (4). Chow, Irene, Ronald Crawford. (2004). “Gender, Ethnic Diversity, and Career Advancement in the Workplace: The Social Identity Perspective.” SAM Advanced Management Journal (69). Colgan, Fiona, Sue Ledwith. (2002). Gender, Diversity and Trade Unions: International Perspectives. London: Routledge Publishing. Eaton, Susan. (2003). “If You Can Use Them: Flexibility Policies, Organizational Commitment, and Perceived Performance.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society (42), (2). Elliott, James, Ryan Smith. (2004). “Race, Gender, and Workplace Power.” American Sociological Review (69), (3). Gorman, Elizabeth. (2008). “Gender Stereotypes, Same – Gender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women: Evidence from Law Firms.” American Sociological Review (70), (4). Karsten, Margaret. (2006). Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in the Workplace. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Company. Murrell, Audrey, Erika James. (2002). “Gender and Diversity in Organizations: Past, Present, and Future Directions.” Sex Roles (45), (6). Peterson, Dane. (2004). “The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational Commitment.” Business and Society(43), (3). Salin, Denise. (2005). “Workplace Bullying Among Business Professionals: Gender Differences and the Role of Organizational Politics.” Pistes (7), (3). Read More