Short Reading Response

User Generated

drjgulgewehf

Business Finance

Description

In this week’s reading, you are learning about research in organizational communication. Org comm often deals with workplace situations, but can also encompass religious groups, clubs, or other organizations of which you are part. To that end, please choose one work (or other group) experience you have had and briefly describe it. Then, choose three concepts from the text, define them in your own words, and then describe how you saw this concept apply (or not) to interactions between yourself and your colleagues.

200 WORDS MINIMUM

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

In case of any further edits, ...


Anonymous
Really great stuff, couldn't ask for more.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags