10
The last of the human freedoms is to choose one’s attitudes.
—VICTOR FRANKL
Gendered
Organizational
Communication
Knowledge Challenge:
• How much is the pay gap between women and men for full-time work?
• Should women who choose to become mothers accept some tradeoffs in
their career success?
• What is the glass escalator and who rides on it?
• To what extent are quotas consistent with affirmative action?
Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook since 2008, earned $16.1 million (plus
benefits) in 2013 (Miller, 2014). That same year, she published Lean In:
Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, which urges women to “lean in” to their
careers by aiming higher and working harder and faster (Kantor, 2012). To
lean in, women need to squelch personal insecurities, stoke ambition, demand
raises and perks, and balance work and the rest of life. The book quickly rose
on the bestsellers list, and media dubbed Sandberg “the voice of contemporary feminism.”
But not everyone agrees that Sandberg is the voice of contemporary
feminism. In fact, some scholars and social critics think Sandberg’s message
is decisively at odds with feminist values and commitments. Respected
theorist and cultural critic bell hooks sharply criticizes Sandberg’s ideas as
“faux feminism” (hooks, 2013) because they pertain to privileged white
women’s careers and are irrelevant to most women’s lives and jobs. According
to hooks, Sandberg, like other power feminists, seems unaware of the profound ways in which race and economic class shape women’s lives. hooks
sees Sandberg as advancing a “trickle-down theory: the assumption that having more women at the top of corporate hierarchies would make the work
world better for all women, including women on the bottom” (hooks, 2013).
Additional criticism of Sandberg comes from Ann-Marie Slaughter (2013), an
international lawyer and professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton
who served as director of policy planning at the U.S. State Department
208
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Gendered Stereotypes in the Workplace
209
from 2009 to 2011. Yes, many women are held back by a lack of confidence,
says Slaughter, but that’s not the only or even the most important barrier to
women’s professional success. Deeply gendered organizational policies and
practices create challenges for women that men seldom face and, asserts
Slaughter, these institutional barriers are not going to collapse simply
because women boost their personal confidence and ambition.
Sandberg, hooks, and Slaughter are particularly visible spokespeople in the
heated debate over whether women can “have it all.” Yet they are hardly the
only people who have stakes in the issue and its outcome. Although this debate
has been framed around women, it isn’t about only women; it is also about men’s
lives and success as workers, partners, and parents and about the nature of the
workplace.
In this chapter, we will examine this debate by looking beneath the surface
arguments to gendered stereotypes, practices, and policies that make it
necessary to ask whether it’s possible to be successful both in the workforce
and in personal life. First, we examine gender stereotypes that affect how
women and men are perceived and treated in the workplace. Next, we
consider gendered dynamics in formal and informal networks that can result
in inequitable treatment of women and men. Finally, we consider different
ways to reduce sex and gender discrimination.
Gendered Stereotypes in the Workplace
Social expectations of the sexes infuse the workplace, and they influence how workers are perceived and treated. Often people are not aware of using stereotypes to
perceive others.
Stereotypes of Women
Women in the workforce are often stereotyped into one of four stereotypes, each of
which is deeply gendered: sex object, mother, child, and iron maiden (Kanter,
1977; Wood & Conrad, 1983).
Sex Object This stereotype assumes women’s value is defined by their sexual
attractiveness. Frequently, it leads to perceiving women workers based on their
appearance rather than their qualifications and job performance.
MAGGIE
I worked at Hooters for a while. They had a manual you are given when you are
hired at Hooters. It explains to you their discrimination policy and says they can
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
210
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
discriminate based on age, weight, and level of attractiveness. They also have
makeup and hair policies. Hair must be worn down and it must be done (curled or
straightened), jewelry and tattoos are not allowed. Makeup is required.
The experience that Maggie describes at Hooters is not unusual. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Abercrombie & Fitch, charging the
company for discriminating against job applicants based on race. The EEOC attorney
claimed that Abercrombie & Fitch hired only women who were “white, young, and
physically fit.” The company paid 50 million dollars to settle the case (Hotties,
2012). But is all discrimination illegal? No. Federal law forbids discrimination
based on sex, race, national origin, disability, and religion. There is no law that
prohibits a company from discriminating based on attractiveness. In fact, some
companies argue that attractiveness of staff is a bona fide job qualification. Playboy
Clubs and Chippendales make the case that attractiveness is essential in all staff.
Stereotyping women as sex objects contributes to sexual harassment, which continues to be a problem in the workplace. The sex-object stereotype also underlies
harassment of people who are gay, lesbian, and transgender. Like heterosexual
women, gays, lesbians, and trans people are often perceived primarily in terms of
their sexuality and their conformity—or lack of conformity—to conventional gender roles. Harassment is a means of policing people who dare to transgress conventional identity categories.
MILISSA
Women can use the sex-object stereotype to their advantage. I pay for my education
by being an exotic dancer, and I make better money than any other student I know.
A lot of people think all exotic dancers are sluts, but that’s not true. There’s no difference between me using my body to fund my education and an athlete’s using his
or her body to fund his or her education. Same thing.
We saw examples of treating women as sex objects in the 2008 Presidential
Primary. Some commentators described Republican vice presidential candidate,
Governor Sarah Palin, as “a babe,” and “hot.” When Hillary Rodham Clinton
campaigned in the Democratic Primary, she too was described in terms of her sexuality; however, Senator Clinton was criticized for not being sexy and feminine
enough (Mandziuk, 2008).
Mother In institutional life, the stereotype of women as mothers has both figurative and literal forms. The figurative version of this stereotype is expressed when
others expect women employees to take care of the “emotional labor” for
everyone—to smile, exchange pleasantries, prepare coffee and snacks, and listen
to, support, and help others.
Stereotyping women as mothers is one basis of job segregation by gender, a subtle and pervasive form of discrimination. Approximately 75% of women in the paid
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Gendered Stereotypes in the Workplace
211
labor force are clerks, secretaries, assistants, and other jobs that, like that of
mothers, support and care for others (Beck, 2011). Although at least half of the
paid workforce in the United States is female, women account for only 11 of the
200 highest-paid CEOs, 5% of CEOs and 33% of board members at Fortune 500
companies, and less than 19% of Congress (Miller, 2014; Sandberg & Chávez,
2014). The jobs that most women have—assisting and supporting others—
generally have the least prestige and the lowest salaries (Beck, 2011; Bousquet,
2012). Even when they hold the same titles and positions as men, women continue
to be paid less (AAUW, 2013; Schieman, Schafer, & McIvor, 2013). In fact, a very
recent study reported that women who achieve more in their professions may be
paid less than women (and men) who achieve less (Listen to the Story, 2014).
EXPLORING GENDERED LIVES
If women choose to have children,
shouldn’t they expect to have more limited career opportunities than women
who don’t have children? That’s the
question many people ask when working
mothers complain that they have fewer
career options and are paid less than
men or childfree women. At first glance,
it seems reasonable to think that women
should accept the career consequences
of their choice to be mothers.
But the word choice is misleading. It
obscures multiple ways that what is
often cast as a “personal choice” is actually an outcome determined by structural
factors that are far beyond the control of
individual women.
•
•
•
Women are the only humans able to
carry a fetus so they assume all of the
responsibilities during gestation.
Some workplaces allow maternity
leave but not paternity leave so
mothers are the default primary parents of new children.
Many coworkers hold stereotypes of
woman as mother and man as
breadwinner, making it likely the
mother will be encouraged to take a
Personal Choice or Institutional
Discrimination?
•
•
•
•
leave, downsize to part-time, or quit
altogether and the father will not.
Some organizations are more open to
allowing female employees, but not
male employees, to transition from
full-time to part-time work in order to
have more family time.
Some men subscribe to traditional
views of masculinity and are unwilling
to let family responsibilities affect
their careers.
The United States does not provide universal childcare or even reasonable support for families, which compels women
to provide that support themselves.
Family, coworkers, and friends
encourage women but not men to be
primary caregivers, which leads many
highly educated women to pursue
lower paying career paths (pediatrics,
rather than surgery, probate law
rather than criminal law).
The choice to be a mother is constrained by myriad conditions outside of
a woman’s personal control. And yet, the
perception that becoming a mother is a
free choice is used to justify lesser jobs
and pay for mothers (Kricheli-Katz, 2012).
TAKE A STAND: To what extent do you see the tendency of women to downsize
careers if they have children as a personal choice? What differences do you notice
when you compare this to men’s career choices if they become fathers?
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
212
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
The woman-as-mother stereotype also has a literal form. Today, 71% of women
in the United States who have children younger than 18, work outside of the home
(Bidgood, 2014). These women, as well as women who are perceived as planning to
have children, are often perceived as less serious professionals than male employees
or than female employees who aren’t mothers (Williams & Dempsey, 2014). In
fact, being a mother leads to the strongest form of gender discrimination. Mothers
are less likely to be hired or promoted, they are offered lower salaries, and they are
judged more harshly than non-mothers (Benard & Correll, 2010; Williams, 2013).
In one experiment, two résumés were created for fictitious female job applicants.
The résumés were identical in most respects—successful track record, uninterrupted
career history. The only difference was that one résumé noted that the applicant was
active in the Parent-Teacher Association, a tip-off that the applicant was a mother,
while the other résumé did not mention the PTA. The applicant whose résumé mentioned the PTA was 44% less likely to be hired (Coontz, 2013b). In another experiment, women with children were 79% less likely to be hired than equivalently
qualified women who do not have children (Williams & Dempsey, 2013). Men
who are fathers are not judged as less committed or competent; in fact, fatherhood
tends to improve perceptions of male workers’ commitment and boosts their salaries (Andronici & Katz, 2007; Miller, 2014b; Williams & Dempsey, 2013). In fact,
men who become fathers see an average 6% increase in earnings whereas women see
an average 4% decrease in earnings for each child they have, leading researchers to dub
these the “the fatherhood bonus” and the “motherhood penalty” (Budig, 2014).
Law professor Joan Williams (2010) coined the term maternal wall to refer to
unexamined assumptions held by coworkers and superiors about how women will
behave once they become mothers. For example, a supervisor may assume that
mothers are always available to their children. Based on this assumption, the supervisor may encourage Lynn Hall to cut back on her hours and quit traveling. Later,
when the supervisor is looking for someone with experience in different regions the
EXPLORING GENDERED LIVES
Anne-Marie Slaughter (2012) resigned
from her job as director of policy planning
at the State Department. With her boss,
Hillary Clinton, Slaughter was in DC’s incrowd. It was a dream job for a foreignpolicy scholar like Slaughter. Media held
Slaughter up as a shining example of a
woman who had it all: glamorous, highprestige career and a family. Yet she
couldn’t have it all and she chose family
when her 14-year-old son had some difficulties at home and at school.
Can Women (and Men)
Have It All?
Slaughter’s personal experience along
with her research lead her to believe
Sandberg’s lean in approach errs in holding individual women responsible for
overcoming institutional sexism. Slaughter and others (hooks, 2013; Waber, 2014)
argue institutions should change policies
and practices that discriminate against
women in subtle and overt ways. In
Slaughter’s view, it’s neither fair nor
productive to tell women it’s their job to
win a contest that is rigged against them.
TAKE A STAND: What level of responsibility do you assign to women and
organizations to ensure equitable treatment of all workers?
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Gendered Stereotypes in the Workplace
213
company serves, the supervisor notes that Ms. Hall has not spent time in different
regions and attributes this to her being a mother.
CHARLOTTE
I know the mother role all too well. Before coming back to college, I worked
as an adjuster for an insurance company. In my office, there were eleven men
and one other woman, Anne. I’ll bet there weren’t more than 10 days in the
3 years I worked there that one of the guys didn’t come in to talk with me or
Anne about some personal problem. Sometimes, they wanted a lot of time
and sympathy; sometimes, they just wanted a few minutes, but always it was
Anne and me they came to—never one of the guys. What really burns is
that they went to each other to consult about professional matters, but
they never came to Anne and me about those. They treated us like mothers,
not colleagues.
Child A third stereotype sometimes imposed on women is that of child, or pet—
cute but not to be taken seriously. This stereotype regards women as needing the
protection of adults. “Protecting” women from challenging work often excludes
them from experiences required for promotion and raises, as well as from the personal development that comes with new challenges. In the military, combat duty is
virtually essential for advancement to the highest levels (Hall, 2012), yet women
have been excluded from combat for most of U.S. history. Claiming that the combat exclusion is to protect women against gruesome realities of war is ironic as
women have been maimed and killed in every war fought by our nation. In 2012,
the Army revised its policies to allow women to serve in combat battalions in areas
such as personnel, intelligence, medical, and mechanics.
Iron Maiden If a woman in the workforce is not perceived in terms of one of
the three stereotypes we’ve discussed, she may be perceived as fitting a fourth.
Women who are independent, ambitious, directive, competitive, and sometimes
tough may be seen as “iron maidens.” They are regarded as competent because
they get the job done but unlikable because they are not sufficiently feminine
(Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; O’Neill & O’Reilly, 2011; Williams & Dempsey,
2013). During the 2008 Democratic Primary, polls consistently showed that many
people considered Hillary Clinton experienced and competent but emotionally
cool, aggressive, and ambitious—qualities that violate expectations for femininity.
Because Clinton deviated from the approved feminine style, she was referred to as
“ice queen,” “ball breaker,” and “castrating bitch” (Phelan, Moss-Racusin, &
Rudman, 2007).
It is a compliment to call a male worker ambitious; it isn’t necessarily perceived
as a compliment to call a female worker ambitious.
The four stereotypes we have discussed disadvantage women by defining them
in terms of sex and gender instead of job qualifications and performance.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
214
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
EXPLORING GENDERED LIVES
Joan Williams, who founded the Center
for WorkLife Law at the University of
California, and her daughter, Rachel
Dempsey, coauthored What Works for
Women at Work (2013). In this book, they
identify five patterns of institutional life
that pose obstacles to women’s success
in the workforce:
1. Prove It Again: Unlike men, women
have to demonstrate their competence again and again in order to be
perceived as competent.
2. The Tightrope: Women in the
workforce experience tension
between acting (1) feminine enough
to be accepted but not so feminine
as to be dismissed; and (2) masculine enough to be taken seriously
but not so masculine as to be
judged hard or too aggressive. As
Williams and Dempsey phrase it, the
tightrope is to be perceived as neither a “bitch” nor a “bimbo.”
3. The Tug of War: Women who work
outside of the home often feel they
Strategies for Women’s Success
in the Workplace
have to defend their ways of managing work and life and may feel
pushed to criticize strategies used
by other women.
4. The Maternal Wall: Women who
have children experience pressures
to be at home rather than at work.
In addition, women are perceived as
less committed to their jobs if they
have children.
5. Double Jeopardy: Women of color
face the double whammy of racism
and sexism, both of which can be
woven into organizational policies
and practices. For example, Asian
women report that coworkers and
supervisors expect them to be naturally good in STEM fields and to be
passive.
To deal with these problems, Williams
and Dempsey offer practical advice such
as don’t do “office housework” (taking
notes and serving on social committees)
and minimize talking about children in
the workplace.
TAKE A STAND: Do you find Williams’ and Dempsey’s advice useful? Would you
follow it if you encountered obstacles such as those they identify?
Stereotypes of Men
Within institutional settings, men are also stereotyped in ways that reflect cultural
views of masculinity and men’s roles and that affect how men are perceived and
treated in the workplace. Three stereotypes of men are particularly prevalent in
organizations: sturdy oak, fighter, and breadwinner.
Sturdy Oak The sturdy oak is a self-sufficient pillar of strength who is never
weak or reliant on others. When coworkers communicate that they think it is
unmanly to admit doubts or ask for help, men may rule out consulting others for
advice or assistance. When supervisors discourage men from collaborating and
supporting coworkers, men may feel forced to act independently. One result can
be decision making that is faulty because of lack of important input.
Fighter Cultural stereotypes also cast men as fighters—brave warriors who go
to battle, whether literally in war or metaphorically in professional life. Childhood
training to be aggressive, to “give ’em hell,” and to win at all costs translates into
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Gendered Stereotypes in the Workplace
215
Gendered Wages
EXPLORING GENDERED LIVES
Mark your calendar to celebrate on
April 8. That is Equal Pay Day, which is the
day at which the average woman’s pay
catches up to that of the average man for
the previous year. For example, if Jason
and Janelle both work the same job in
2015, Janelle has to work until April 8,
2016, in order to make the same amount
of money that Jason made in 2015. In
short, women have to work significantly
more days to earn what men do.
Lilly Ledbetter worked 19 years as a
supervisor at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber plant in Alabama. As she approached
retirement, someone anonymously left
her a pay schedule that showed she was
making significantly less than men in the
same position she held. Ledbetter sued,
but the Supreme Court ruled against her
because the law stated that she had to
file her suit within 180 days of the first
occurrence of pay discrimination
(Abrams, 2009; Collins, 2009a). Ledbetter,
of course, had not realized that her pay
was less for all those years. The Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which became
law in 2009, revises the law to state that
wage discrimination occurs whenever an
employee receives discriminatory pay.
Despite this law, inequity in pay persists (Rowe-Finkbeiner, 2014; The Truth
About the Pay Gap, 2014; Waber, 2014).
Women earn less than men even when
they work the same number of hours,
and this difference is manifest across
every level of educational attainment
(Esteves-Sorenson & Snyder, 2012;
Williams, 2013). The difference isn’t fully
accounted for by training, experience, or
performance. In other words, sex discrimination continues to affect what
people are paid for the work they do.
TAKE A STAND: What additional laws might be passed to reduce inequities in
what women and men are paid?
professional expectations to beat the competition and to climb the corporate ladder. There is no room for being less than fully committed to the cause, less than
ruthless in defeating the competition, or less than zealous in ambition. Although
many employed men would like to spend more time with their families (Parker &
Wang, 2013; Philipsen & Bostic, 2010; Schmidt, 2010), many fear that doing so
would reduce their status at work (Miller, 2014; Weber, 2013).
GABE
A man at the place where I work part-time asked for family leave when his wife had
a baby. Our manager gave him two weeks—he had to by company policy—but he
really put the guy down behind his back. I heard him kidding with some of the other
managers, saying did the guy think he was a mother or something? Nobody has
ever said anything when a woman took family leave.
Breadwinner Perhaps no other stereotype so strongly defines and confines
men in our society as that of breadwinner. Within organizations, stereotyping
men as breadwinners has been used to justify paying them more than women.
This stereotype is also why men are expected to put work ahead of family time
(Weber, 2013). Men who take family leave may be viewed as insufficiently
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
216
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
committed to work, and they may not advance as far or as quickly as workers who
don’t make family commitments visible (Coontz, 2013b; Miller, 2014).
Being the primary or sole breadwinner for a family is central to how our society
has historically judged men, as well as how many men judge themselves. Men who
tie their identity and worth to earning power are in danger in an uncertain economy. In 2014, one in six men in prime earning years was out of work in the United
States (Peters & Wessel, 2014). The high number of unemployed men is only partially due to the worst recession in 75 years. It also reflects chronic factors such as
globalization and technological innovation that are changing the workplace and
jobs more quickly than many men can adapt (Peters & Wessel, 2014).
The stereotypes of women and men are out of sync with those who make up the
contemporary workforce. Most women in the paid labor force cannot be easily
pigeonholed into any of the four female stereotypes, and most men in the paid
labor force can’t be neatly classified as one of the three male stereotypes. These
outdated ways of perceiving women and men limit the potential of all workers
and the possibilities for robust and humane professional lives.
Masculine Norms in Professional Life
Because men and not women designed the workplace—from stockyards to
corporations—and laid the blueprint for how the workplace operates, masculine
norms infuse the workplace. For the most part, the norms are not intentional. In
fact, they are generally not conscious and not within individuals’ awareness. Nonetheless, they powerfully shape expectations for conduct in the workplace. We’ll
examine two masculine norms that pervade the workplace.
Traditional Masculine Images of Leaders
The skills required to manage and lead are widely associated with communication
traits that are cultivated more in masculine speech communities than in feminine
ones—assertiveness, independence, competitiveness, and confidence. To the extent
that women engage in traditionally feminine communication, they may not be
recognized as leaders or marked for advancement in professional settings.
The answer isn’t for women to act masculine. As we’ve seen, women who use
assertive and instrumental communication may be branded “iron maidens”
(Bennett, Ellison, & Ball, 2010; Williams & Dempsey, 2014). Coworkers who hold
gender stereotypes may negatively evaluate women—but not men—who communicate assertively and who demand results.
There are some gender differences in how women and men approach work,
including leadership. In general, men find having authority to be more intrinsically rewarding than women. For women, authority is rewarding when it is
coupled with having influence (Schieman, Schafer, & McIvor, 2013). The most
effective leadership style appears to incorporate both relationship-building and
instrumental qualities, which are fostered in feminine and masculine speech
communities, respectively.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Masculine Norms in Professional Life
217
If She’s a He, He’s Better and
Paid Better Too!
EXPLORING GENDERED LIVES
For years, researchers have tried to figure
out whether differences in judgments of
men and women in the workplace are
due to sex biases or other factors. Finally,
a research team came up with a surefire
way to test whether a person’s sex
affects judgments of competence (Schilt,
2007, 2010; Schilt & Wiswall, 2008;
Wentley, Schilt, Windsor, & Lucal, 2008).
They studied coworkers’ perceptions of,
and pay rates for, people who transitioned to a different sex and continued
in the same job. By studying transgender
workers, Schilt and Wiswall eliminated
variables, even personality variables,
other than sex. They found that men
who become women earn, on average,
32% less after they transition.
In one study (Schilt & Wiswall, 2008),
the authors described a particular case:
Susan was an attorney who transitioned
to being a man and took the name
Thomas. Thomas stayed at the same firm
and one of the other lawyers at the firm
mistakenly thought that Susan had left
and Thomas had been hired to replace
her. The other lawyer told one of the
senior partners in the firm that Susan
had been incompetent but her replacement (Thomas) was excellent.
TAKE A STAND: To what extent do you think you would judge a coworker
differently if she or he transitioned?
TARA
When I first started working, I tried to act like the men at my level. I was pleasant to
people, but I didn’t talk with coworkers about my life or their lives. I did my work,
led my team with firm, directive communication, and stressed results. When I had
my first performance review, I got great marks on achieving tasks, but there was
serious criticism of “my attitude.” A number of people—both my peers and staff I
supervised—complained that I was unfriendly or cold. People criticized me for not
caring about them and their lives. I pointed out to my supervisor that nobody made
those complaints about men, and she told me that I couldn’t act like a man if I
wanted to succeed in business.
Let’s also realize that all of us can develop new skills, including communication
and leadership skills, as we navigate new circumstances. Standpoint theory claims
that, as we find ourselves in different contexts that make different demands, we
develop new ways of thinking, communicating, and performing identity, including
gender. If this is true, then as women enter into contexts that include masculine
communication, they should become proficient in new skills. Similarly, as men
interact with coworkers who use feminine communication styles, men should
develop skills in collaboration and support. A study by Patrice Buzzanell and
Kristen Lucas (2006) shows exactly that: Both men and women develop new communication skills that are needed for effectiveness on the job. All of us can develop
communication skills when we find ourselves in positions that require abilities not
emphasized in our early socialization.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
218
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
Traditionally Masculine Norms for Career Paths
The view of a normal career path is out of sync with the needs and identities of
many of today’s workers. Career paths were conventionally defined as linear progressions. A new employee takes a beginning position and works up the ladder by
demonstrating commitment and competence at each level. Career paths are also
typically thought of as being full-time. A serious professional works 50 or more
hours a week.
The assumption that serious careers are linear and full-time reflects social relations of previous eras in which most professionals were men who had stay-at-home
wives to care for the home and children. Today, most women and men work outside of the home. Few people can afford full-time maids and nannies, so the
responsibilities of taking care of home and family are not easily met when both
partners work outside of the home. Organizations with the best chance of thriving
in the future will adapt to the realities of contemporary workers and their families
(Coontz, 2013b; Philipsen & Bostic, 2010; Williams, 2010, 2013). To fit the identities and life rhythms of today’s workers, organizations need to ponder key questions about how they operate:
Do all employees need to be at work by 8 or 9 a.m.?
Must all work be done at the office?
Can employers provide paid family leave?
Can employees take breaks of several months or years within a serious career?
Can employees work part-time when they have young children or other family
members who need attention and care?
• Can organizations (at least large ones) provide on-site day care?
•
•
•
•
•
Beneath these questions lies a gender issue: Women’s careers suffer more than
men’s when there are children or other family members who need care. When heterosexual couples decide to have children, it is usually the woman who accommodates, often by taking time off from work. Most women don’t want to quit work
when they have children, but the inflexibility of the workplace and the inability or
unwillingness of male partners to take half of the responsibility for parenting leaves
women little choice (Coontz, 2013b; Warner, 2013).
Both family and professional commitments fuel our lives. Research conducted
over three decades reports that working mothers tend to be happier and healthier
than stay-at-home mothers (Wills & Brauer, 2012). Equally important, the research
shows that overall children whose parents work outside of the home are as emotionally balanced, socially adjusted, and academically accomplished as children
with a stay-at-home parent.
Although most women who leave paid labor to care for children plan to return
to the workforce in a few years, many run into barriers when they are ready to
return to work outside of the home. Many mothers can’t find jobs when they are
ready to return to work. Either employers prefer to hire women who are not
mothers or the break from work leads employers to perceive mothers as less committed workers (June, 2010; Warner, 2013). Even those who do find jobs often discover that they don’t have access to prestigious career ladders because colleagues
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Gendered Patterns in Organizations
219
and supervisors perceive working mothers as less than fully committed to their
careers (Hayden & O’Brien Hallstein, 2010; Wood & Dow, 2010; Warner, 2013).
Perhaps you are thinking that people who step off the traditional career path
should expect to be less well compensated than those who follow it. If so, we
would expect career losses to be experienced by both women and men who step
out of full-time work for a period of time. That’s not the case. Women, but not
men, experience negative consequences for stepping off the traditional career
track (Carter & Silva, 2010). Men who step off the traditional full-time career
track do not necessarily take cuts in pay or position when they return to full-time
work, but women do.
PERRY
I’ll admit I was against having a woman promoted to our executive board, but I’ll
also admit that I was wrong. I thought Linda wouldn’t fit in or have anything to
add. I voted for a junior male who I thought would fit in with the rest of us executives. But Linda is just superb. What I like most about having her in our group is that
she’s a real consensus builder, and nobody else is. Linda’s first concern always seems
to be finding common ground among us, and she has an absolutely amazing lack
of ego invested in decisions. I’m not sure it’s flattering to admit this, but the guys in
the group, including me, operate from ego. Sometimes, winning a point is more
important than crafting the best decision. Linda moves us away from that mindset.
Outdated norms for work life aren’t a problem only for women. Many men, too,
find them overly rigid and restrictive. Increasing numbers of men want jobs that
allow them to be actively involved in parenting, home life, and communities
(Beck, 2011; Weber 2013). A recent poll found that 72% of men between 18 and
29 want a relationship in which both partners work and both care for the home
and family, but only 30% of men who have that desire manage to achieve it
(Coontz, 2013b). Rigid workplace policies and expectations are the primary reason
most men can’t be as engaged in home and family life as they would like.
Gendered Patterns in Organizations
Organizations have both formal and informal practices. Formal practices include
policies regarding leaves, work schedules, performance reviews, who reports to
whom, and so on. Informal practices include normative behaviors and understandings that are not covered by explicit policies: advising, mentoring, socializing, and so
forth. As we will see, both formal and informal networks entail gendered dynamics.
Formal Practices
Leave Policies In 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was
passed so that U.S. employees could take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
220
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
for new babies or sick family members. In 2010, President Obama announced family leave was extended to workers in same-sex relationships who need time to care
for a partner’s child (Pear, 2010). Since the act was passed, more than 50 million
Americans have taken family leave.
However FMLA isn’t available to all workers. Only companies with 50 or more
workers who work within a 75-mile radius are required to grant family leaves, and
small companies can refuse to give leave to some employees. All told, FMLA covers
only about 60% of employees in the United States (20 Years in, FMLA too weak,
2013). Some individual states, however, do require companies with fewer than
50 employees to grant family and medical leave.
Also realize that FMLA does not require employers to provide pay to employees
who take family leave, although some individual states (five as of 2014) have
passed laws to require paid family leave. Because FMLA does not require companies to provide paid leaves, many workers cannot afford a leave. When time must
be taken for families, it is usually a woman who takes it. The mother stereotype of
women combines with the breadwinner stereotype of men to create a situation in
which it is difficult for men to become full partners in raising children (June, 2010;
Peters & Wessel, 2014).
The United States has the humiliating distinction of being the only Western
country and one of only three countries in the world that do not have a paid family leave policy. As Figure 10.1 shows, of 185 countries in the United Nations most
recent study, 182 offer some level of financial payment to new mothers on maternity leave. The three that do not are Oman, Papua New Guinea, and the United
States (Rowe-Finkbeiner, 2014; Zarocostas, 2014). Further, at least 70 countries
provide paid leave to fathers (Coontz, 2013b; Weber, 2013; Zarocostas, 2014).
U.S. law also mandates fewer weeks of leave (unpaid) than other Western countries
(Zarocostas, 2014).
The lack of support that businesses in the United States provide to employees
forces many workers to choose between taking care of families and earning income.
The lack of institutional support also influences some workers’ career choices. Some
workers are opting out of careers that don’t provide support for families (Moe &
Shandy, 2010; Quinn, 2010; Quinn & Litzler, 2009; Trower & Quinn, 2009).
Work Schedules Rigid schedules are another way in which organizations
reflect outdated career models that assumed men were breadwinners and
women were at home taking care of families. Increasingly, the nine-to-five
model of the workday is giving way to the expectation that 7 or 8 a.m. to 7 or
8 p.m. is normal for “really committed professionals.” Technology further
increases expectations of availability. Obviously, this model—or even the nineto-five model—doesn’t accommodate families with young children. Even if parents
can afford day care, children are sometimes too sick to attend; day care centers
close on occasion, making it necessary for a parent to take responsibility for childcare. Women are more likely than men to take time off to care for children, a pattern that reflects and reinforces gendered assumptions that women put families first
and men put careers first.
Employers in the United States say they can’t afford to provide family-friendly policies such as paid leave and flexible schedules. However, all other developed countries
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Gendered Patterns in Organizations
221
TONGA
WESTERN
SAMOA
NAURU
PALAU
PAPUA
NEW
GUINEA
Less than 14 weeks
Figure 10.1
Data not available
SURINAME
UNITED
STATES
No paid leave:
Paid Maternal Leave around the World [note]
LIBERIA
14–25 weeks
26 weeks or more
Countries with paid leave:
The United States is one of only eight countries, out of 188 that have known policies, without paid leave.
Paid Maternal Leave: Almost Everywhere
The New York Times
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
222
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
manage to provide policies that allow workers to also be good parents. In fact, providing more leave time and flexible working hours can actually save employers money
because doing so boosts worker productivity, increases morale, and reduces turnover,
making family-friendly policies less expensive than training replacement employees
(Beck, 2011; Quinn, 2010, 20 Years in, FMLA too weak, 2013).
Informal Practices
In addition to formal policies, organizations have informal, unwritten understandings that can make or break careers. Through a range of normative practices, some
organizations emphasize gender differences, define one sex or gender as standard,
or extend different opportunities to women and men.
Unwelcoming Environments for Women In some organizations, language and behavior that emphasize men’s experiences and interests are normative
(Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2004). Women are generally less familiar
and less comfortable with terms taken from sports (hit a home run, huddle on
strategy, ballpark figures, second-string player, come up with a game plan, be a
team player, line up, score a touchdown, put it in your court), sexuality or sex
organs (hit on a person, X has balls, X is a real prick, screw the competition, get
into a pissing contest, stick it to them; calling women employees hon or referring
to women generally in sexual ways), and the military (battle plan, mount a campaign, plan of attack, under fire, get the big guns). Intentional or not, language
related to sports, sexuality, and the military binds men into a masculine community in which some women feel unwelcome (Beck, 2011).
EXPLORING GENDERED LIVES
Work-life balance is important for all
workers, yet most of the attention has
focused on the professional class of
workers (Villano, 2011). That’s ironic since
professionals already enjoy many benefits that enhance work-life balance. Most
professionals know their work hours well
in advance; they can come in late or
leave early to deal with emergencies; and
they can take breaks when they wish.
Low-wage workers often have none
of those privileges. They have no flexibility about when they start and stop
work; they often don’t know their work
schedules in advance, so they can’t plan
Work-Life Balance for All
day care and other aspects of their lives;
they can’t take breaks when they please.
Rigid schedules, inflexibility, and unpredictability add substantial stress to lowwage earners’ lives. As many of these
workers, put it, “I’m one sick child away
from losing my job.”
The Institute for Workplace Innovation (IWIN) at the University of Kentucky
is devoted to finding solutions to these
stresses. Its goal is to boost the bottom
line, employee health, and work-life fit. A
full report from IWIN is available at:
http://www.uky.edu/Centers/iwin
/LWPolicyFinal.pdf
TAKE A STAND: Can you identify benefits other than those described above that
most professionals have but that hourly workers do not?
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Gendered Patterns in Organizations
223
The Informal Network Relationships with colleagues create a sense of
belonging and provide access to essential information that may not come through
formal channels. Because men originally organized most workplaces, many informal networks were created largely or exclusively by men, giving rise to the term old
boy network. Hiring and promotion decisions are often made through informal
communication within these networks. For example, while golfing, Bob tells
Nathan about a job candidate; later that candidate stands out later in Nathan’s
mind when he reviews applications for a job.
One reason that informal networks are comfortable is that they tend to be
composed of people who see themselves as being similar—others in the group
are “like me.” The easy camaraderie among members of informal networks can
also create barriers for coworkers who are not like most of the people in a
group. Women may not be invited into networks or not made to feel welcome
if they try to participate. When only one or two women are in a group, they
stand out as different and unlike most of the employees. Only when women or
any other minority group reaches a critical mass does it have sufficient size not to
be marginalized. A sense of being perceived as different is also reported by transgender people and people of color (Allen, 2006; Connell, 2010). In the face of
communication that defines them as outsiders, women and racial and sexual
minorities may avoid informal networks and thus lose out on these key sources
of information and support.
Mentoring Relationships A mentor is an experienced person who guides
the development of a less-experienced person. In the workforce, mentors are usually older employees who help younger employees build careers. A mentor is at
least helpful, and sometimes indispensable, to career advancement. Women and
minorities are less likely than white men to have mentors.
Several factors account for the low number of women and minority workers
who have the benefit of mentors. First, the numbers game works against them.
Lower numbers of women and minorities in senior positions mean that there are
few who might counsel new female and/or minority employees. Men are sometimes reluctant to mentor young women for a variety of reasons: They may fear
gossip about sexual relations; they may assume that women are less serious than
men about careers; or they may feel less comfortable with women than with men.
Similarly, straight workers may be reluctant to mentor junior gay, lesbian, bisexual,
and transgender coworkers because they are less comfortable with them than with
straight coworkers. Not mentoring women and minorities perpetuates the status
quo, in which straight, white men get more help with career advancement than
women, people of color, and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. The
reluctance to include women and minorities in informal networks and mentoring
is not overt discrimination, but it is a powerful form of favoritism that reproduces
privilege by transferring power to people most like those who currently have power
(DiTomaso, 2013).
In an effort to compensate for the lack of networks and mentors available in
existing organizations, some professional women have formed their own networks,
in which women share ideas, contacts, strategies for advancement, and information. In addition to furnishing information, these networks provide women with
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
224
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
support and a sense of belonging with other professionals like themselves. As men
and women become accustomed to interacting as colleagues, they may become
more comfortable mentoring one another and forming sex-integrated communication networks.
Another challenge in professional settings is workplace bullying, which is
repeatedly acting toward a person or persons in ways that humiliate, intimidate,
or otherwise undermine the target’s professional credibility (Einarsen, Hoel,
Zapf, & Cooper, 2010; Fox & Lituchy, 2012). Workplace bullying may be overt
(ridiculing someone’s work in front of others) or covert (spreading rumors), or
both. When persistent, it can interfere with the target’s ability to be effective in
doing his or her job.
Women are more frequently the targets of workplace bullying by both men and
women. Males who bully tend to target men and women in roughly equal numbers. Women who bully, however, disproportionately target women (Fox &
Lituchy, 2012). One reason for woman-on-woman bullying may be that, from the
early years, girls are taught to evaluate and critique other girls (Workplace Bullying
Institute, 2009).
TANGIA
Where I used to work, the boss was always dropping in on the men who held positions at my level, but he never dropped in to talk with any of the women at that
level. He also had a habit of introducing males in our division to visitors from the
main office, but he never introduced women to them. It was like there was a closed
loop and we weren’t part of it.
Glass Ceilings and Walls Many women hit the glass ceiling, an invisible
barrier that limits the advancement of women and minorities (Beck, 2011;
Williams & Dempsey, 2014). Women’s progress is often impeded by subtle discrimination. It might be the stereotype of women as mothers that leads an executive to assume that a working mother would not be interested in a major new
assignment that could advance her career. It might be seeing a woman in sexual
terms so that her competence is overlooked. It might be misinterpreting an inclusive, collaborative style of communication as lack of initiative. These stereotypes
can create a glass ceiling—an invisible barrier—that keeps women out of the
executive suite.
But glass ceilings may be only part of the problem. The term glass walls is a
metaphor for sex segregation on the job, in which women are placed in “pink collar” positions that require skills traditionally associated with women (assisting,
organizing, counseling, human relations). Typically, such jobs do not include
career ladders, on which doing well at one level allows advancement to the next.
In essence, many of the positions that women are encouraged to take have no
advancement paths (Ashcraft, 2006; Coontz, 2013b).
Workplace discrimination—whether subtle or blatant—makes it more difficult
for some people to get hired, get paid fairly, and advance. This is why there have
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Efforts to Redress Gendered Inequity in Institutions
EXPLORING GENDERED LIVES
225
The Glass Escalator
When Michael Alquicira couldn’t find a
job, he went back to school to become a
dental assistant. After serving in the
army, Daniel Wilden enrolled in nursing
school. Unhappy with his job as a data
consultant, John Cook also trained to be
a nurse. So did Dexter Rodriguez. These
men are part of a growing trend for men
to work in occupations dominated by
women (Dewan & Gebeloff, 2012; Zuk &
O’Rourke, 2012).
One reason men are moving into
careers that are predominantly female is
that they advance more quickly and get
paid more than their female peers. The
glass escalator is an invisible advantage
that accelerates men’s success in
female-dominated spheres of work.
Although the glass escalator seems to
help all men in women-dominated
fields, it is most helpful to white men
(Wingfield, 2009, 2013).
TAKE A STAND: Can you think of a reason other than discrimination why men are
paid more and advance more quickly than women in careers predominantly pursued
by women?
been repeated efforts to stop discrimination. Assessing those efforts is the final
topic in this chapter.
Efforts to Redress Gendered Inequity
in Institutions
Five efforts to reduce discrimination in schools and the workforce are equal opportunity laws, affirmative action policies, quotas, goals, and diversity training. Understanding differences among these methods of redressing inequities will allow you to
evaluate arguments for and against them and decide your own position. Although
this chapter focuses specifically on the workplace, these remedies apply to both
professional and educational settings, the two contexts in which efforts to end discrimination have been most pronounced.
Equal Opportunity Laws
Laws prohibiting discrimination began with the landmark legal case Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which was tried in 1954. In that case, the
U.S. Supreme Court overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine that had allowed
separate educational systems for white and black citizens.
Since the Brown decision, the United States has passed other equal opportunity
laws. The two main ones are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), which prohibits discrimination in employment, and Title IX (1972), which forbids discrimination in educational programs that receive federal aid. Other antidiscrimination laws
are Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Women’s Educational Equity Acts of
1974 and 1978, an amendment to the 1976 Vocational Education Act, and the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed in 2009.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
226
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
Equal opportunity laws focus on discrimination against individuals. In other
words, complaints must claim that a particular person has suffered discrimination because of sex, race, or other criteria named in laws. Equal opportunity law
does not ask whether a group (e.g., women or Hispanics) is underrepresented or
is treated inequitably. Instead, it is concerned solely with discrimination against
individuals.
Equal opportunity laws focus on present practices, so historical patterns of discrimination are irrelevant. For example, a university with a record of denying
admission to women is not subject to suit unless a particular individual can prove
she personally and currently suffered discrimination on the basis of her sex.
The scope of Title IX has changed since it first became law. Title IX was weakened in 1984 when the Supreme Court narrowed its application from whole institutions to specific programs that receive federal money. In 2012, the EEOC ruled
that it is illegal to discriminate against a person because the person is transgender
(McKinley, 2012). Most recently, in 2014, President Obama signed an executive
order prohibiting employment discrimination against GLBTQ workers by federal
contractors (West, 2014).
Affirmative Action Policies
President Lyndon B. Johnson used his 1965 commencement address at Howard
University to announce a new policy that would address historical prejudice,
which equal opportunity laws ignored. He said, “You do not take a person who
for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him to the starting
line of a race, and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others.’”
Affirmative action is based on three key ideas. First, because discrimination
has systematically restricted the opportunities of groups of people, remedies
must apply to entire groups, not just to individuals. Second, to compensate for
the legacy of discrimination, there must be preferential treatment of qualified
members of groups that have suffered discrimination. Third, the effectiveness of
remedies is judged by results, not intent. If hiring and admissions policies don’t
result in a greater presence of women and minorities, then they are ineffective in
producing equality.
Some people think that aiming for greater numbers of women and minorities in
companies and academic programs results in excluding better-qualified white
males. Yet, the claim that affirmative action deprives whites of admission to
schools is challenged by a study by William Bowen, president of the Mellon Foundation and former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, former president of
Harvard University (1998). After analyzing grades, SAT scores, and other data for
93,000 students of all races, Bowen and Bok found that eliminating affirmative
action would raise whites’ chances of admission by a mere 1.5%.
Affirmative action has two important limitations. First, affirmative action
policies recognize the limited availability of qualified people from historically
underrepresented groups. Because of long-standing discriminatory practices,
fewer women and minorities may be qualified for certain jobs and academic
programs.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Efforts to Redress Gendered Inequity in Institutions
227
Second, affirmative action aims to increase the number of qualified members of
historically marginalized groups. It does not advocate admitting, hiring, or promoting women and minorities who are not qualified. To understand how affirmative
action policies work, it’s important to distinguish between qualified and best qualified. Consider an example: Jane Evans and John Powell are candidates for the last
opening in a medical school that requires a 3.2 undergraduate grade point average
and a score of 1200 on the medical aptitude exam. Jane’s undergraduate average is
3.4 whereas John’s is 3.6. On the entrance exam, she scores 1290, and he scores 1300.
Although his qualifications are slightly better than hers, both individuals clearly meet
the school’s requirements, so both are qualified. Under affirmative action guidelines,
the school would admit Jane because she meets the qualifications and does so despite
historical patterns that discourage women from studying science and math.
Affirmative action attempts to compensate for the effects of a history of bias by giving preference to members of groups who are qualified despite discrimination. As
Thomas Shapiro (2007) points out, one reason that many blacks are economically
less well-off than Caucasians is that “one generation passes advantage and disadvantage to the next” (p. 133). Thus, whites who owned property in the 1700s passed it
along to their children who passed it along to their children and so forth. Blacks who
were slaves owned no land, so they could not pass it on to future generations.
JOHNSON
I’ve never done anything to discriminate against members of other races, so I don’t think
I should have to step aside so they can have special advantages now. I don’t owe them
anything, and I earned everything I’ve got.
SHERETTA
I get so ripped off when I hear white guys badmouth affirmative action. They don’t
know what they’re talking about. They speak totally from their self-interest and their
ignorance. One thing that white guys say a lot is that they didn’t hold blacks down
in the past, so they shouldn’t be penalized today. To that, I’d like to say they sure as
hell don’t mind taking a heap of advantages they didn’t earn, like good schools and
clothes and financial support. Do they think they earned those things? How do they
think their daddies and granddaddies earned them? I’ll tell you how: off the labor of
black people that they were holding back, that’s how.
Ever since affirmative action policies were enacted, public debate about them
has been vigorous. A key issue is whether people hired or admitted under affirmative action guidelines succeed. A study of medical schools showed that students
admitted under affirmative action were as successful in residencies and careers as
non-affirmative action medical students (Dreier & Freer, 1997). Further, black men
who graduated from selective schools were more likely than their white peers to
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
228
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
become civic and community leaders (Bowen & Bok, 1998). A study of law students (Mangan, 2004). Even though minority students began their professional
study with lower grades and standardized scores, they wound up being just as successful in their careers as white students.
The Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings that clarify and refine affirmative action. In 2003, the Court ruled that race cannot be the deciding factor, but it may
be a factor in admissions decisions because universities have “a compelling interest in a
diverse student body” (In Their Words, 2003, p. 5A). Ten years later, in 2013, the
Supreme Court reaffirmed this ruling with a 7 to 1 decision that racial diversity in college admissions may be a compelling state interest. In a 2013 case involving a Florida
school, the Court tweaked earlier rulings by stating that race could be used as an admissions criterion only if no other measure would ensure a diverse student body. Most
recently, in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that a lower court did not have the authority
to overrule a Michigan law that “bars publicly funded colleges from granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or
national origin” (Mears, 2014). This latest decision empowers voters to enact laws
that ban using race or other factors in admissions decisions (Dunn, 2013).
LAKISHA
I don’t know how anyone can say the playing field is even today. It’s not. I’m the
first in my family to go to college. Actually, I’m the first to finish high school. My
school didn’t have SAT prep courses. My parents didn’t know how to help me with
my homework or apply to colleges. I didn’t have any of the breaks that most students at this college did. So don’t tell me the playing field is even. If it weren’t for
affirmative action, I wouldn’t even be on the playing field!
There is growing interest in revising affirmative action to give preference based
on socioeconomic status rather than race-ethnicity (Kahlenberg, 2010a, 2012).
Supporters of preference based on socioeconomic factors argue that “race-based affirmative action treats the symptoms but not the root causes of an underlying social problem” (Espenshade, 2012, p. 25A). People who are economically disadvantaged face
numerous barriers to advancement in education and the job market. For instance, a
white high school student from a working- or poverty-class family who has a 3.6
grade point average and a 1200 on the SAT has worked against significant disadvantages and, thus, may merit some preferential treatment over more affluent students.
Protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender workers is also underway.
In 2009, President Obama authorized attorneys to begin drafting policy guidelines
that prohibit workplace discrimination against transgender employees working in
the federal government (Rutenberg, 2009).
Quotas
Perhaps the most controversial effort to redress discrimination is quotas. A quota
specifies that a number or percentage of some group that must be admitted, hired,
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Efforts to Redress Gendered Inequity in Institutions
229
When Quotas Raise Questions—
and When They Don’t
EXPLORING GENDERED LIVES
Some people think it’s unfair to reserve
places for women and minorities. They
advocate evaluating all applicants on
individual merit. It’s interesting that
questions aren’t raised about a longstanding quota system that has
benefited white and male students.
Many, if not most, universities have legacy policies, which accord preferential
consideration to the children of alumnae
and alumni, especially alums who donate
generously to the schools. For example,
in recent years, Harvard admitted 40% of
legacy applicants but only 11% of the
total applicants. Princeton had an overall
acceptance rate of 9%, but it accepted
42% of legacy applicants. Legacy applicants had lower SAT scores and grade
point averages than the overall entering
class (Kahlenberg, 2010a).
TAKE A STAND: Do you approve of schools giving preferential treatment to
children of alumni?
or promoted. For instance, a company might stipulate that 30% of promotions
must go to women. If there are not enough qualified women to meet the 30%
quota, then women who lack qualifications must be promoted.
A famous case relevant to quotas was brought in 1978, when Alan Bakke
sued the University of California at Davis’s medical school for rejecting him,
a white male, in favor of less-qualified minority applicants. Bakke won his
case on the grounds that he had been a victim of “reverse discrimination”
because the University of California at Davis violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. However, the Court did not outlaw the use of race as one factor that may influence admissions. It ruled only
that schools may not set aside specific numbers of spaces for minorities.
NICOLA
The quota system is the only thing that can work. The laws aren’t enforced, so they
don’t help, and affirmative action is just a bunch of talk. I’ve watched both my
parents be discriminated against all of their lives just because of their skin color. All
the laws and pledges of affirmative action haven’t done a damned thing to change
that. Quotas cut through all of the crap of intentions and pledges and say pointblank there will be so many African Americans in this company or this school or
whatever. That’s the only way change is ever going to happen. And when I hear
white guys whining about how quotas are unfair to them, I want to throw up. They
know nothing about unfair.
Goals
A goal is different from a quota, although the two are frequently confused. A goal
is a stated intention to achieve representation of minorities or women. For
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
230
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
instance, a company could establish the goal of awarding 30% of its promotions to
women by the year 2020. If the company awarded only 10% of its promotions to
women by 2020, there would be no penalty; the company could simply announce a
new goal: to award 30% of its promotions to women by 2030. There are no penalties for not achieving goals.
Ironically, both quotas and goals can work against women and minorities. The
numbers specified by quotas and goals can be interpreted as a maximum number
of women and minorities rather than a minimum. In our example, the 30% goal
could be used to keep more than 30% of promotions from going to women, even if
40% of qualified applicants were women.
TYRONE
I resent the way so many people at this school assume that any minority
student is here only because of affirmative action or quotas. I’ve heard
people say that if it weren’t for racial quotas, there wouldn’t be anyone here
who isn’t white. One of my suitemates even said to my face once that, since
he hadn’t had a quota to get him in here, he had to bust his butt to get
into this school. I asked him what his SAT score was. He said 1080. I told
him mine was 1164; then I walked out.
Goals and quotas can work against women and minorities in a second way.
When goals or quotas are in effect, members of institutions may assume that
women and minorities got in only because of their sex or race. When this happens,
individual women and people of color are not regarded as capable members of the
school, business, or trade. Regardless of their qualifications, women and minorities
may be perceived as underqualified.
Diversity Training
A final remedy for persistent discrimination—one that is often combined with
one of the other four—is diversity training, which aims to increase awareness of
and respect for differences that arise from distinct standpoints shaped by a
range of factors including race, economic circumstances, ethnicity, sexuality,
and religion. This strategy assumes that many people are unaware of how their
comments and behavior could be offensive or alienating to women, members of
minority ethnic communities or races, and people who have nontraditional gender identities.
An important limitation of diversity training is that it requires strong personal
commitment from participants. Not everyone cares about inequities, and many
people are unwilling to make changes, especially changes that reduce their own
privileges. Thus, efforts to deal with discrimination are evolving. As the United
States continues to become a truly equal society, we are likely to see new ways of
addressing persisting inequities.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Reflection, Discussion, and Action
231
SUMMARY
In this chapter, we have considered a variety of ways in which jobs and careers
intersect with gender. Cultural views of masculinity and femininity seep into the
formal and informal life of organizations and affect everyone who works in them.
Yet, current views of gender and the workplace aren’t the only ones that are
possible. You and your peers will design the workplaces of the future. One of the
challenges for your generation is to remake our institutions so that all of us can live
and work in humane and fair ways.
KEY TERMS
The following terms are defined in this chapter on the pages indicated, as well
as in alphabetical order in the book’s glossary, which begins on page 281.
The text’s companion website also provides interactive flash cards to help you
learn these terms and the concepts they represent. You can access the site at
www.cengagebrain.com.
affirmative action 226
equal opportunity laws 225
glass ceiling 224
glass escalator 225
glass walls 224
goal 229
maternal wall 212
mentor 223
quota 228
workplace bullying 224
GENDER ONLINE
1.
To learn more about efforts to reduce discrimination in the workplace,
visit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s homepage: www
.eeoc.gov
2.
Online search terms: “affirmative action,” “glass escalator,” “Lilly Ledbetter.”
3.
One innovative organization to support people who have historically experienced job discrimination is the National Center for Faculty Development and
Diversity. Learn about its mission, programs and successes by visiting this site:
http://www.facultydiversity.org/
REFLECTION, DISCUSSION, AND ACTION
1.
Have you observed instances of classifying women or men workers into
stereotypes identified in this chapter? How might workers resist being
stereotyped?
2.
Now that you understand distinctions among equal opportunity laws, affirmative action, goals, quotas, and diversity training, how do you evaluate
each?
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
232
CHAPTER 10
Gendered Organizational Communication
3.
Interview professionals to learn how much they rely on informal networks. To
what extent do women and men professionals report that they are equally
welcomed into informal networks in their organizations and fields?
4.
Talk with staff in the admissions office at your school to learn about admissions policies and enrollment of women and men, whites, and students of
color. What is your opinion of your school’s policies?
RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
1.
Peggy McIntosh. (2007). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In
M. Andersen & P. H. Collins (Eds.), Race, Class & Gender (pp. 98–102). Belmont,
CA: Thomson Wadsworth. This classic article makes visible white privileges in
everyday life that most white people do not perceive.
2.
Joan C. Williams and Rachel Dempsey (2014). What Works for Women at Work:
Four Patterns Working Women Need to Know. New York: New York University
Press. This book offers a very accessible description of ways in which discrimination is woven into organizations. It also offers practical suggestions for
overcoming obstacles.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment