Some people argue that race is more fundamental to identity than sex and therefore is the primary identifying characteristic and that may be so. Nevertheless, most people find it essential to determine immediately the sex of another person with whom they interact. On the rare occasion when sexual identity is ambiguous or, even worse, in a case of mistaken identity, we are uncomfortable and embarrassed (Nielsen 1978). Men in our society are perceived first as jobholders, second as husbands and fathers; women, no matter what their status as jobholder, will be perceived first as homemakers, second as workers. Many books and articles have been written, are being written, and will no doubt continue to be written about the problems faced by women entering traditionally and historically male-dominated work organizations. Many others, although perhaps fewer, concern themselves with the problems that managers, presumably males, face in managing the army of new women workers entering the labor market.
The competitive global enterprise today encompasses every facet that trade and business covers. From men managers to the potentials of women managers, the diverse corporate ladder is a battle among the sexes. Hence, this paper aims to discuss the reason behind why women rarely occupy a senior managerial position. It also delves on the premise of equal opportunity employment policies with respect to the welfare of women in the corporate workplace.
Women and Sexism
Physically, males on the average are taller, heavier, more muscular, and more aggressive than females and also are more susceptible to illness. After adolescence, males excel in quantitative and visual spatial ability. Females have always been widely believed to excel in verbal ability and verbal creativity, but recent studies suggest the differences are so small as to be meaningless (Hyde & Linn 1988). Also, very little difference has been found for abilities such as intelligence, creativity, or cognitive style. On personality characteristics such as love, sociability, nurturance, dependency, empathy, or emotionality, areas in which males and females are perceived to differ significantly, there is very little evidence that real differences exist (Maccoby & Jacklin 1974).
Discrimination in the organizational setting has been regarded in several studies as its focus of investigation. Majority of the existing literature have studied specific companies and organizations with the existence of prejudice, particularly those instigated by gender biases (Hultin & Szulkin 1999; Martell 1996; Broadbent, Hallock & Hendricks 1998; Larwood & Trentham 1998; Guttierez, Loucopoulus & Payur 2002). It is among the most basic and simplest reason on why women do not occupy much managerial positions in the business world. Sexism, as old as its ancient origin is still prevalent in the society – both conservative and some liberal states.
Basing it from the aforementioned research reports, it could be concluded that managerial occupations remain strongly gender segregated. This segregation of male and female roles has led to separate models for studying work, a "job model" for studying males and a "gender model" for studying females (Feldberg & Glenn 1979). The job model assumes that the job is central to the lives of male workers; it treats the job itself as the primary independent variable. Items like complexity, routineness, autonomy, and working conditions are used to explain performance on the job and job satisfaction, as well as off-the-job behavior, activities, and mental health for male workers.
Segregation in occupational situation is both horizontal and vertical (Rubbery and Fagan 1993). Horizontally, women are concentrated in specified and particular careers while they are vertically concentrated in lower-status works in particularly specified occupations. For instance, this practice is present in cases of functional managers such as majority of personnel, training, and industrial relations manager. Generally, it is supposed that occupational segregation is dependent on a particular segment of labor.
Further, relating on the study of Hultin and Szulkin (1999) gender discrimination is classified into three categories. These categories includes allocative, evaluative, and within-job discrimination. The first kind of discrimination refers to women facing restricted admission to attractive ranks inside a work organization either at the moment of entry or in terms of career progression within the company. On the other hand, evaluative discrimination subsists when jobs executed mostly by women are remunerated less than those jobs of equivalent value that are carried out largely by men. The worth of a job is weighed up by dissimilar characteristics of the work substance that are of significance in the wage-setting procedure, such as demands for credentials and dependability, but there have constantly been considerable and procedural difficulties inherent in the appraisal process. Moreover, within-job discrimination exists to the degree that women are compensated in a lesser amount than men in a given job. This type of prejudice is geared toward individuals and breeds gender gaps inside occupations in a specified organization. The majority of research performed in this field indicates to the fact that within-job discrimination is of partial significance when it comes to amplification of disparities between women and men. A well-established research result is that the gender gap reduces as work-related dissimilarities become finer. These conclusions are not unanticipated, nevertheless, since prejudice within jobs is against the law in most industrialized countries.
Some feminist analysts identified a classification present in some types of work depending on the gender and power of the employees who do the job. They refer it as a social construction in feminism (Phillips & Taylor 1980). This means that there is an actual presence of subconscious discrimination in the working environment of women. From the period of training up to the regularization within the company and the employer, skilled works are mostly expected among male. This assumption was predominantly due to the records of male apprenticeships that involves a significant duration of years. Aside from this, training and on-the-job experience are also included. Meanwhile, unskilled works are preconceived to exist in a typical woman employee. These are works that no longer need to be studied but they naturally occur and most women know how to do (such as cleaning, doing the laundry, and cooking).
As an example, men in Europe earn more than women because every labour market in the EU is gender segregated (Almond and Rubery 1998). There is a common notion from the nature and characteristics of the existing labour supplies and conditions that provide men and women to be assigned in totally diverse jobs. Generally, women are persuaded to work in part-time jobs due to some other responsibilities such as domestic and the like (Hunter et al. 1993). Hakim (1995) asserts that part-time works are expected to be chosen voluntarily by a significant number of women. This is another theory on why women held senior managerial position in an organisation. However, some experts challenge and argue Hakim’s view. Women’s choice, according to them is constrained by the lack of alternatives and weak bargaining position because they have to accommodate domestic responsibility (Ginn et al. 1996).
Hakim’s belief is considered as one of the main reasons on why few women are actively engaged in the higher stages of management. But the circumstances provided by the traditional roles of women that are preexisting in the society also support the extreme opposite side. In management, women are relatively better in terms of management regardless of the roles they play particularly in the personnel and employee relations.
Wanted: Woman Manager
In an article written in The Independent (2003) states that,
“Chief executives and business leaders have been urged to change their attitude to leadership after a study showed that women were more effective managers. Professor Beverley Alimo-Metcalfe, from the University of Leeds, said executives should "get real" after the study of 2,000 health service and local authority staff, presented to the British Psychological Society, showed women were better at inspiring their staff and creating a culture of development. Men hold nine out of 10 top business jobs.”
However, this claim is highly subjected to further debates and studies as to the reason that it is relative in nature of the opportunity. Management styles may be gendered. Rutherford's (2001) study of male and female managers in an airline confirms differences in their approach to management. The research found out that men tend to follow a more command and control style with a distancing of personal self, while women are more communicative and caring, with more emphasis on people skills such as listening rather than mere performance of the task. Women treated more leniently than men, raising the possibility of discrimination (Rollinson et al. 1996). Because of the traditional characteristics of woman, their attributes as leaders are softer than men. Increasing reliance on attitudinal characteristics intensify the problem of management because attitude, behaviour and personality tend to interact with gender and racial stereotypes and lead to discrimination in selection. Emotional labour is not gender neutral as work containing significant amounts is dominated by women (Taylor & Tyler 2000). For example, working as cabin crew is defined as women's work by employers, customers and employees.
Physically speaking, the extent of limitation of women in the workplace is manifested in their stress coping mechanisms. Workers can develop coping mechanisms where stress is within their personal capacity to manage. Otherwise prolonged job stress can lead to burn-out or breakdown, which is more likely to affect women than men (Buick & Thomas 2001). Again, with the biological foundation and nature of women, this limits their capacity to climb a higher position.
Regardless of any perspectives, women are certainly capable of leading and managing an organisation. However, there are unavoidable considerations to be taken at hand such as social, emotional, and physical factors.
Equal Opportunity Policies for Women: the function of HRM
Equal opportunities policies are voluntary, and depend on a business case argument rather than being based on a social case. Business arguments are conditional (Dickens 1994), resulting in selective and partial action in which employers prioritize gender over race. Putting equal opportunities policies into practice is impeded by men's resistance to sex equality (Wajcman 2000). There are circumstances when women can break through the 'glass ceiling' and achieve senior management positions (Maxwell 1997; Knutson & Schmidgall 1999). An organization-based approach is no use to women in highly feminized employment who remain stuck to a 'sticky floor' because it does not lead to “a transformation in access to power and the nature of it” (Dickens 1994, p.15). Hence the economic benefits of equal opportunities need to be articulated at a level beyond the organization, but may not produce desirable outcomes.
With such dilemma, the role of HRM emerges as the tool for the development of policies and practices that will not perpetuate rather challenge gender inequality into transformation. For instance, in terms of securing employee commitment, assumptions about women being less committed than men will affect the shape of the organisation, and determine which jobs are full-time or part-time. The role of HRM in the emergence of women managers is supported by important factors such as abilities, skills, and management functions present within a candidate for the position.
Considering the reasons on why few women occupy senior managerial positions, it is good to study the root of the matter. Delving into an array of researches conducted to investigate on this condition is a great help to identify such causes. All in all, the reason on why there are less numbers of women managers in the corporate world is because of some factors involve in the process of employee management. May it be on the aspect of traditional, historical, physical, emotional, and other elements involved in selection, the theoretical frameworks underlying the subject is dependent on the responsibility of every participant. The recognizable efforts of women employee to reach the position that they deserve must be acknowledge by employers. Meanwhile, the role of labour policies imposed by the government or entitled authorities is also considered to be factors to materialize the objective. Existing laws on the further promotion and acceptance of women in the corporate world should also be reinforced. Thus, the treatment on men workers will definitely be the same to the women.
References
Almond, P & Rubery, J 1998, 'The gender impact of recent European trends in
wage determination', Work, Employment and Society, vol. 12, no. 4, 675-93.
Broadbent, E, Hallock, K, Hendricks, W 1998, ‘Discrimination by Gender and
Disability Status: Do Worker Perceptions Match Statistical Measures?’, Southern Economic Journal, vol. 65, no. 2, 9-13)
Buick, I & Thomas, M 2001, 'Why do middle managers in hotels burn out?',
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 13, no. 6, 304-9.
Burrell, J, Manfredi, S, Rollin, H, Price, L & Stead, L 1997, 'Equal opportunities
for women employees in the hospitality industry: a comparison between France, Italy, Spain and the UK', International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 16, no. 2, 161-79.
Dickens, L 1998 'What HRM means for gender equality', Human Resource
Management Journal, vol.8, no.1, 23-40.
Feldberg, R & Glenn, E 1979, ‘Male and female: Job versus gender models in
the sociology of work’, Social Problems, vol. 26, 524-538.
Ginn, J, Arber, S, Brannen, J, Dale, A, Dex, S, Elias, P, Moss, P, Pahl, J,
Roberts, C & Rubery, J 1996, 'Feminist fallacies: a reply to Hakim on women's employment', British Journal of Sociology, vol. 47, no. 1, 167-73.
Gutierrez, C, Loucopoulos, C, & Payur, R 2002, ‘Insights into Gender
Discrimination in Employment Compensation through the Use of Classification Models’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol.14, no. 3, 14-18.
Hakim, C 1995, 'Five feminist myths about women's employment', British Journal
of Sociology, vol. 46, no. 3, 429-55.
Hultin, M & Szulkin, R 1999, ‘Wages and Unequal Access to Organizational
Power: An Empirical Test of Gender Discrimination’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 3, 8.
Hunter, L, McGregor, A, MacInnes, J & Sproull, A 1993, 'the "flexible firm":
strategy and segmentation', British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 31, no. 3, 383-407.
Hyde, J & Linn, M 1988, ‘Gender differences in verbal ability: A metaanalysis’,
Psychological Bulletin, vol. 104, no. 1, 53-69.
Knutson, BJ & Schmidgall, RS 1999, 'Dimensions of the glass ceiling in the
hospitality industry', Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 6, 64-75.
Larwood, L & Trentham, S 1998, ‘Gender Discrimination and the Workplace: An
Examination of Rational Bias Theory’, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, vol. 38, nos. 1-2.
Martell, R 1996, ‘What Mediates Gender Bias in Work Behavior Ratings?’, Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, vol. 35, nos. 3-4.
Maxwell, GA 1997, 'Hotel general management: views from above the glass
ceiling', International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 9, nos. 5/6, 230-5.
Maccoby, E & Jacklin, C 1974, the Psychology of Sex Differences, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA.
Nielsen, J 1978 Sex in Society, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Phillips, A & Taylor, B 1980, 'Sex and Skill', Feminist Review, vol. 6, no. 7, 13-21.
Rollinson, D, Hook, C, Foot, M & Handley, J 1996, 'Supervisor and manager
styles in handling discipline and grievance, part 2: approaches to handling discipline and grievance', Personnel Review, vol. 25, no. 4, 38-55.
Rubery, J & Fagan, C 1993, 'Occupational segregation of women and men in the
European community', supplement to Social Europe, vol. 3/93, 95-105.
Rutherford, S 2001, 'Any difference? An analysis of gender and divisional
management styles in a large airline', Gender, Work and Organization, vol. 8, no. 3, 326-45.
Taylor, S & Tyler, M 2000, 'Emotional labour and sexual difference in the airline
industry', Work, Employment and Society, vol. 14, no. 1, 77-95.
The Independent, 2003 January 9, ‘Women are better managers, bosses told’,
London, England.
Wajcman, J 2000 'Feminism facing industrial relations in Britain', British
Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 38, no. 2, 183-201.
Woods, RH & Viehland, D 2000, 'Women in hotel management: gradual
progress, uncertain prospects', Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 5, 51-4.
No comments:
Post a Comment