Sources of Inequality between Men and Women at the Workplace - Essay Example

Sources of Inequality Between Men and Women at the Workplace Marini (1990) pointed out “the study of sex and gender is concerned with the documentingthe existence of differences between the sexes and explaining why those differences exist”. This work reviews the literature and seeks to find out what the recent sociological studies have identified as the main sources of continuing inequality between men and women at the workplace? Further, this review seeks to understand how the gendered division of labour in the household and wider social institutions affects the workplace. We use mainly the perspective of sociology although Mueller et al. (2002, p. 163) argued that micro-level theories of social psychology are helpful. Another perspective that was offered was from Ridgeway and Correll (2004, p. 510) who argued that cultural beliefs about gender are the key components that maintain and change the gender system. The International Trade Union Confederation reported in 2009 (p. 16), that the gender mean pay gap in the United Kingdom is 19.8% in favour of males. In the United States, based on the National Educational Longitudinal Survey data, Bobbitt-Zeher found that college-educated men in their mid-20s earn on average about $7,000 more than college-educated women on an annual basis (2007, p. 1). Bobbitt-Zeher (2007, p. 1) pointed out that the gap is still substantial at $4,400 per annum if the men and women have the same or similar credentials, scores on tests, specialization, and degrees from similar colleges. Bobbitt-Zeher elaborated (2007, p. 1) that “gender differences in fields of study continue to disadvantage women.” Further, “gender differences in work-related factors are more important than are educational differences for understanding income inequality among young workers” (Bobbitt-Zeher 2007, p. 1). Bobbit-Zeher cited that several studies have articulated that education may have realized an important role in reducing gender wage gaps over the past few decades. According to Bobbitt-Zeher (2007, p. 3), the following are the sources of gender-income gap: (1) the tendency for certain college majors to be associated with gender; (2) alleged link between standardized tests and gender; (3) the link between gender and amount of education; and (4) the selectivity of the college attended. Cohen and Huffman (2007, p. 681) reported that women representation in management can be a source of gender-wage gap at the workplace. Cohen and Huffman (2007, p. 681) made the conclusion based on statistical results from three-level hierarchical models on data drawn from the 2000 US census. According to Cohen and Huffman (2007, p. 681) the predictions using the models indicate that women representation at the highest management levels significantly affect and reduce wage inequality based on gender. However, the two authors concluded that promotion of women will only have a significant dent in reducing the inequality of wages based on gender if women are placed into the highest management positions (Cohen and Huffman 2007, p. 2007). The study of Levey and Silver (2006, p. 659) discovered the value orientations between genders are neither consistent nor systematic across countries. Further, and even within a country, the distinction between the value orientations of males and females usually disappear if other variables are controlled (Levey and Silver 2006, p. 659). Thus, based on the study of Levey and Silver (2006, p. 659), value orientation differences between gender like attitudes to work, for example, are not a source of inequality between genders in places of work. Budig 2006 has shown that when work is in a self-employment setting, men unambiguously benefit. However, this is not always the case for women (Budig 2006, p. 750). Budig (2006, p. 750) found that although men and women both benefit from self-employment as professionals and that the gender gap between them diminish in that work setting, this is not true in non-professional occupations. Budig (2006, p. 750) found that when self-employment takes place in a non-professional setting, the gender gap in returns exacerbates. In the non-professional work setting, the ability of self-employment to reduce the gender gap and promote gender equity decreases among the self-employed non-professionals (Budig 2006, 750). Thus, self-employment in a non-professional work setting is not a boon for women’s earnings parity with men (Budig 2006, p. 750). Phillips (2005, p. 440) has shown that the organizational genealogy of a firm can be a source of inequality between genders at the workplace. Based on a study on how Silicon Valley firms were organized, Phillips found that when firms are organized by parent firms that historically have women in prominent positions, the female leadership is institutionalized such that the parent firms are more likely to promote women into leading positions (2005, p. 440). In contrast, according to Phillips (2005, p. 440), parent firms that historically had women in subordinate positions such that the subordination is institutionalized, are less likely to promote a situation in which women are placed to be on equal footing with men. In short, based on Phillips (2005), firm genealogy can be a source of inequality between men and women at the workplace. Phillips derived his findings from the results of the fixed effects regression over a time-series cross-sectional pooled data from the census figures of 1979 to 1998. In a study of 20 advanced countries, Mandel and Semyonov (2005, p. 949), has found that gender disparities are apparently less pronounced in countries with developed family policies. Yet, at the same time, they also found that although “mother-friendly” policies enable more women to become economically active, the “mother-friendly” company policies actually exacerbate gender occupational inequality (Mandel and Semyonov 2005, p. 949). The authors concluded instead that the gender gap between men and women should be attributed instead to the egalitarian policies or lack of them in countries rather than to the “mother-friendly” policies of the company (Mandel and Semyonov 2005. p. 949). The Mandel and Semyonov (2005) conclusions were constructed based on a series of hierarchical linear models that combine information from both individuals and countries (Mandel and Semyonov 2005, p. 964). According to Mandel and Semyonov, the true effect of family policies on the gender gap becomes apparently only when cross-country variations are taken into consideration (Mandel and Semoyonov 2005, p. 964). Huffman and Cohen (2004, p. 140) pointed out that prior research shows that women-dominated occupations tend to have low levels of authority and investigated whether the relationship varies whether the occupation is national or local. The authors classified jobs whether they compete in the national or local labour market. According to Huffman and Cohen (2004, p. 141), “the penalty against typically female-dominated occupations is significantly magnified” among national labour market occupations. Huffman and Cohen pointed out (2004, p. 141) that one cannot completely rule out that the possibility that women are channelled into occupations with few opportunities to exercise authority rather than positions having or not having authority. According to Huffman and Cohen (2004, p. 141), the bias against women tends to happen when the job requirement needs more sophisticated skills. At the same time, however, Huffman and Cohen (2004, p. 142) pointed out that they found a smaller gender gap in female-dominated occupations at the national market level. They also found “some evidence that the gender gap is positively related to female representation among local labour market occupations” (Huffman and Cohen 2004, p. 142). Generalizing a bit further, Huffman and Cohen that the type of occupation in which one is employed also affect the gender gap at the workplace (2004, p. 142). Citing that that the Becker model of discrimination of 1957 projected that increased product market competition “will drive out costly discrimination in the long run,” Black and Brainerd examined the impact of globalization in manufacturing industries (2004, p. 540). The authors pointed out that that “because concentrated industries face little competitive pressure, an increase in competition from trade should reduce the residual gender wage gap more in these industries than in competitive industries” (Black and Brainerd 2004, p. 540). In pursuing the hypothesis, the authors compared the change in the gender wage gap differential in concentrated versus competitive industries for the period 1976 and 1993 (Black and Brainerd 2004, p. 540). They interpreted their results to mean that while trade increases wage inequality by reducing the relative wages of less-skilled workers, trade “appears to benefit women by “reducing the ability of firms to discriminate. Based on survey data, Elliot and Smith (2004, p. 365) assert that inequality on both race and gender experience greater inequality at higher levels of power, “but only black women seem to experience this form of inequality at higher levels of power as a result of direct discrimination”. According to Elliot and Smith (2004, p. 365), those with the highest opportunity for success can be white men rather than black women. According to Elliot and Smith (2004, p. 366), there are absolute blocks that serve as obstacles and block women and minorities from higher position of the workplace because they are women and minorities. Browne and Misra (2003, p. 487) found that there is an “intersection of race and gender” in the labour market. This implies that race can moderate or exacerbate the wage differentials between men and women. For Browne and Misra (2003, p. 506), this confirms what sociological research shows: education, research, experience, and skills do not fully explain significant differences in labour market outcomes. For instance, according to Browne and Misra (2003, p. 506), “we cannot claim that men earn more than women when White women outearn Black men” (Browne and Misra 2003, p. 506). Browne and Mira (2003, p. 507)) pointed out that scholars must develop more “middle-range theories to specify the conditions under which intersections of gender and race are exacerbated or neutralized. Charles (2003, p. 267) pointed out an irony in gender inequality that treats occupational sex segregation as a generic indicator of women economic advantage. Charles (2003, p. 267) pointed out that this is ironic because levels of sex segregation are lower in countries identified as “traditional” like Italy, Japan, and Portugal. In contrast, Charles (2003, p. 267) said gender segregation is higher in supposedly “progressive” countries like Sweden and the United States. Charles (2003, p. 267) pointed out that the said phenomena can be understood better if we make an analytical distinction between horizontal and vertical inequalities. Gustafsson and Li (2000) studied urban china for the several years and found that although the gender earnings gap at workplaces in China is relatively small, the earnings gap has increased. For example, fulltime full year workers income ratio of females to males decreased from 81.4% in 1983 but declined to 77.8% in 1991. In addition, women in China perform housework in addition to the work in the farms and other workplaces (Gustaffson and Li 2000, p. 307). Gustaffson and Li (2000, p. 321) has found that the gender earnings gap in China is also associated with education and party membership variables as well as industry type. Jacobs (1996, p. 153) reviewed the literature on gender and education and found that gender inequality is acute in some aspects of the educational system. In particular, Jacobs (1996, p. 153) found that women have good access to education, but do have fare as well in terms of college experience, and are highly disadvantaged in the outcomes of education, Thus, according to Jacobs (1996, p. 153), scholars and researchers should distinguished the three when the subject of gender equality and education is discussed. Igbaria and Baroudi (1995, p. 107) found that although there no significant differences in job performance ratings between genders, the effect of performance ratings on career advancement among males is stronger than among females. Nevertheless, Igbaria and Baroudi (1995, p. 107) stressed that their study indicated that job performance ratings play an important role in advancing an individual’s chances for advancement. Thus, although job performance ratings help women advance at the workplaces, the job performance ratings help men than women more. In formulating “an integrated theory of gender stratification”, Collins et al. (1993) identified several determinants of gender stratification. It follows from Collins et al. (1993, p. 185) that some of the sources of gender inequality at the workplace include political economy factors, tendency to stereotype women as sexual objects, tendency to associate men with institutionalized violence, and factors related to childbirth and mothering and their effects on gender psychodynamic (Collins 1993, p. 187, 201-202). Collins et al. (1993, p. 202) also pointed out that, in the past, erotic politics also played a role in the stratification of genders. For instance, in medieval Japan and in the time of Louis XIV, the royal mistresses were also politically influential. In the modern world, Collins et al (1993, p. 203) mentioned that there are evidence that women in higher-level careers have higher level of extramarital relationships. Thus, it can also be argued that erotic social relations can also be a source of how gender stratification would be realized at the workplaces. The work of Collins et al. (1993), however, focused on the effects of stratification based on gender rather than on the factors that affect stratification based on gender. In the words of Collins et al. (1993, p. 203), sexual affairs become a basis for alliances and “organizational politics comes to overlap with the erotic marketplace”. Carlson (1992, p. 268) revealed that gender and race inequality declined substantially between 1960s and 1970s but the downward trend diminished substantially between 1980 and 1989. Carlson identified that laws play an important role in the reduction of gender gap at the workplaces. However, the research objective of Carlson study was not to identify the sources of inequality between genders at the workplaces but to develop a concept of the occupational consequences of employment discrimination as well as provide measures of the possible outcomes and demonstrate the utility of the measures developed (p. 280). Hyllegard and Lavin (1992, p. 239) pointed out that “gender differences in work complexity are related to the varying distribution of sex-type jobs in the public and private sectors”. In turn, the attainment of complex jobs is “primarily influenced by educational credentials” (Hyllegard and Lavin 1992, p. 242). In other words, Hyllegard and Lavin (1992) pointed out that education and task complexity are among the sources of gender inequity at the workplace. Hyllegard and Lavin (1992, p. 243) cited that work complexity are higher in private sector economy and, therefore, as the private sector increases, the direction can favour males rather than females. Marini (1990, p. 95) pointed out that although gender differences in behaviour and attitude have a biological basis, the existence of variations across countries and history is indicative that social influences are important in defining differences and, therefore, the inequity in the gender roles at the workplace. Marini (1990, p. 95) has stressed that reduction of gender inequality will require the reduction of gender differentiation in the division of labour. However, according to Marini (1990, p. 95), biological and social factors have influenced the division of labour. This division of labour by gender have affected the degree to each gender is able to acquire and control social resources (Marini 1990, p. 95). On the other hand, Martin (1990, p. 339) went further to assert that there is gender conflicts in organizations and the conflicts are merely suppressed. Nevertheless, according to Meyer (2003, p. 351), global economic forces are reducing the occupational segregation and inequality across genders. Thus, based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the literature of sociology has identified the following as sources of inequality between genders at the workplace: 1. Education and aspects of education related to access, experience, and outcome. 2. Gender-differences in work related functions or the ability of a specific gender to handle a specific job complexity 3. Whether work is self-employed or employed; if self-employed, whether the self-employment is professional or non-professional 4. Gender inequality for managerial employees can happen based on whether the level of managerial authority is low or high 5. Whether the job involves a local or a national market 6. Whether a job position has actually many opportunities to exercise authority other than actually having or lacking formal authority 7. Conditions and roles related to childbirth and mothering as well as their effects on gender psychodynamics 8. Political economy variables 9. Tendency to stereotype women as sexual objects 10. Tendency to associate men with institutionalized violence 11. Erotic relationships can also play a role in determining how stratification based on gender would be realized at the level of the workplace 12. Level of power can be a source of inequality between genders: inequality between genders may increase at higher levels of power 13. The race dimension can exacerbate inequality between men and women 14. Company policies and their intended or unintended effects 15. Cultural factors 16. Although job performance ratings help women advance from their ranks, job performance ratings help men more than women in advancing an individual from his or her current job position. Based on the said sixteen points, therefore, how is the work place affected by gendered division of labour in the household and wider social institutions? On this point, the literature is not explicit, but we can surmise the net effect on workplace of the sixteen points is the conversion of the workplace as a venue for the perpetuation of male dominance. If one third of one’s 24 hours a day is at the workplace, then one third of one’s life is exposed to the perpetuation of male dominance in the workplace. If the household is also dominated by the male, then at least two-thirds of one’s life is male dominated. As pointed out by Marini (1990, p. 95), the division of labour based on gender affects how each gender is able to secure and control important resources of society. We can also add that that the division of labour affect how each gender control resources at the workplace and how each gender is able to make decisions at the workplace. Thus, without a gender’s full or proportionate control over the workplace, that gender is not able to fully contribute in raising the productivity of the workplace. As pointed out by Smith (2002, p. 509), gender is one of the impediments to the attainment of authority at the workplace. References Black, S. and Brainerd, E., 2004. Importing equality? The impact of globalisation on gender discrimination. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 57 (4), 540-559. Bobbitt-Zeher, D., 2007. The gender income gap and the role of education. Sociology of Education, 80 (1), 1-22. Browne, I. and Misra, J., 2003. The intersection of gender and race in the labour market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487-513. Budig, M., 2006. Gender, self-employment, and earning: The interlocking structures of family and professional status. Gender and Society, 20 (6), 725-753. Carlson, S., 1992. Trends in race/sex occupational inequality: Conceptual and measurement issues. Social Problems, 39 (3), 268-290. Charles, M., 2003. Deciphering sex segregation: Vertical and horizontal inequalities in ten national labour markets. Acta Sociologica, 46 (4), 267-287. Cohen, P. and Huffman, M., 2007. Working for the woman? Female managers and the gender wage gap. American Sociological Review, 72 (5), 681-704. Collins, R., Chafetz, J., Blumberg, R., Coltrane, S., and Turner, J., 1993. Toward an integrated theory of gender stratification. Sociological Perspective, 36 (3), 185-216. Elliot, J. and Smith, R., 2004. Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological Review, 69 (3), 365-386. Gustafsson, B. and Li, S., 2000. Economic transformation and the gender earnings gap in Urban China. Journal of Population Economics, 13 (2), 305-329. Huffman, M. and Cohen, P., 2004. Occupational segregation and the gender gap in workplace authority: National versus local labour markets. Sociological Forum, 19 (1), 121-147. Hyllegard, D. and Lavin, D., 1992. Higher education and challenging work: Open admissions and ethnic and gender differences in job complexity. Sociological Forum, 7 (2), 239-260. Igbaria, M. and Baroudi, J., 1995. The impact of job performance evaluations on career: An examination of gender differences in the IS workplace. MIS Quarterly, 19 (1), 107-123. International Trade Union Confederation, 2009 (March). ITUC Report. Brussels: International Trade Union Confederation. Jacobs, J., 1996. Gender inequality and higher education. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 153-185. Levey, T. and Silver, C., 2006. Gender and value orientations: What’s the difference? The case of Japan and the United States. Sociological Forum, 21 (4), 659-691. Mandel, H. and Semyonov, M., 2005. Family policies, wage structures, and gender gaps: Sources of earning inequality in 20 countries. Sociological Review, 70 (6), 949-967. Marini, M., 1990. Sex and gender: What do we know? Sociological Forum, 5 (1), 95-120. Martin, J., 1990. Deconstructing organisational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organisation Science, 1 (4), 339-359. Meyer, L., 2003. Economic globalisation and women’s status in the labour market: A cross-sectional investigation of occupational sex segregation and inequality. The Sociological Quarterly, 44 (3), 351-383. Mueller, C., Mulinge, M., and Glass, J., 2002. Interactional processes and gender workplace inequalities. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65 (2), 163-185. Phillips, D., 2005. Organisational genealogies and the persistence of gender inequality: The case of Silicon Valley Law Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (3), 440-472. Ridgeway, C. and Correll, S., 2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender and Society, 18 (4), 510-531. Smith, R., 2002. Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 509-542. Tomaskovic-Devey, D. and Skaggs, S., 2002. Sex segregation, labour process organisation, and gender earnings inequality. The American Journal of Sociology, 108 (1), 102-128. Read More