"WORKING GENDER" IN THE NEW ECONOMY: RETHINKING GENDER SEGREGATION IN THE MODERN WORKPLACE

1

“WORKING GENDER” IN THE NEW ECONOMY: RETHINKING GENDER SEGREGATION IN THE MODERN WORKPLACE ABSTRACT Economic, social, and technological forces over the past three decades have pushed organizations away from hierarchical, formal and rule-based modes of organization to ones that place greater emphasis on collaboration, teamwork, social networks, flexible job assignments, “high commitment management,” decentralized decision making, and less highly structured career trajectories. But many of our theories and concepts about the forces that create and sustain gender segregation in the workplace were developed in that earlier era. The distinctive features of work in the “new economy” require us to rethink our understanding of gender segregation at work, and assess the potential efficacy, unique opportunities and challenges these aspects of the modern workplace present for interventions targeted at reducing gender segregation and promoting workplace gender equity. Three interventions - minimizing the motherhood penalty, shift in sex composition within occupations, and advancing women in to corporate board positions – are discussed. INTRODUCTION

Contemporary gender issues in the workplace have a long and thorny legacy at the macro,

interactional and individual level (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004). Among these, occupational or

gender segregation is one of the most significant in contributing to gender gap wage inequities

and gender devaluation (Cohen and Huffman, 2003; Cotter, 1997). To best determine how to

rethink our understanding of gender segregation and how modern-day interventions can

address these inequities, it is necessary first to critically understand the concept of gender,

and contextualize the confluence of forces that promote gender segregation, and subsequently

discuss the potentiality and efficacy of proposed interventions designed to advance the

gender revolution (Cotter, Hermsen & Vanneman, 2012; England, 2010). Though the “new

economy” has brought substantive advancements in gender equality, further action by

organizations is warranted to advance occupational integration and achieve gender parity.

2

Economic, social, and technological forces over the past three decades have pushed

organizations away from hierarchical, formal and rule-based modes of organization to ones

that place greater emphasis on collaboration, teamwork, social networks, flexible job

assignments, “high commitment management,” decentralized decision making, and less highly

structured career trajectories. But many of our theories and concepts about the forces that

create and sustain gender segregation in the workplace were developed in that earlier era. In

what ways do these distinctive features of work in the “new economy” require us to rethink

our understanding of gender segregation at work? What kinds of distinctive opportunities

and challenges to do these aspects of the modern workplace present for introducing

interventions to reduce gender segregation and promote workplace gender equity?

Three organizational interventions – minimization of the motherhood penalty, shifting of

sex compositions within occupations, and the routinization of placing women in to corporate

board level positions – represent significant opportunities to achieve these goals.

Gender and Gendered Organizations

Ridgeway and Correll (2004) define gender as “an institutionalized system of social

practices for constituting people as two significantly different categories, men and women,

and organizing social relations of inequality on the basis of that difference” (p. 510).

Organizational structures themselves are far from gender-neutral; rather, as Acker (1990)

argues, gender differentials are made manifest and reproduced in organizational structures,

reinforced through masculine-dominant processes, and contributing to the marginalization of

women’s work and gender identity as well the pervasiveness of gender segregation.

Organizations are, quite simply, gendered in hiring, promotion, career advancement, and

normative practices.

3

Furthermore, Acker suggests that although organizations are inherently designed to be

gender-neutral with a focus on productivity, efficiency, and fiscal solvency as part of a

command-and-control ideology, the concept of “a job” is implicitly gendered: it “contains the

gender-based division of labor and the separation between the public and private sphere” (p.

149). It is not possible to separate gender from organizational structures, as gender itself is “a

multilevel system for constituting difference and organizing inequality” (Ridgeway and

Correll, p. 510), allowing gender discrimination to be institutionalized (England, p. 150).

Ongoing Gender Inequalities in historical context

What contributes to gender dynamics and inequalities in the labor market? One might

suspect that, given the considerable advancements in gender parity over the last four decades

and trends in labor force participation moving towards occupational desegregation (Blau,

Simpson and Anderson, 1988; Cohen and Huffman, 2003), the underlying factors shaping

gender inequalities in labor markets would be easily-remedied. Sadly this is not the case:

“Hegemonic cultural beliefs about gender act as the rules of the gender system, and these

beliefs have self-fulfilling effects on perceptions and behaviors that give them remarkable

ability to persist in the face of social change that might undermine them” (Ridgeway and

Correll, p. 527). As Reskin (2000) suggests, once scholars were able to denote the prevalence

of employment discrimination, “evidence would find its way to policy makers who would

eradicate this” (p. 319). One might liken the deconstruction of gender imbalances scaling of a

mountainous landscape: the climb to the peak seems readily achievable until it is summited,

whereupon the next, even-higher peak is seen in the distance and the climbing must begin

anew.

Beginning in the 1960s, hallmarks of the “sweeping changes in the gender system”

(England, p. 149) included a sharp increase in women’s employment levels (resulting in a

4

decline in occupational segregation), legislative advances in reproductive rights, increasing

numbers of female college students, and implementation of anti-discriminatory laws (the Civil

Rights Law of 1964; Title VII in 1972) and diversity policies (Dobbin and Edelman, 1991)

designed to level the organizational playing fields. In 2010, women comprised nearly half the

labor force (46.7%), an increase from 46.2% in 1997 and 38.1% in 1970 (Pew Social and

Demographic Trends, 2010-2011). Women now surpass men in college enrollment and

completion (44% vs. 38%, ages 18-24). The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed and signed in

to law in 2009, states that “wage discrimination occurs whenever an employee receives

discriminary pay” allows for individuals to file suit against organizations to receive equal pay

for equal occupations held by the opposite gender (Wood, 2011).

Despite these advances, while we see a sea change in the number of women in advanced

career positions, females comprise 70% of the service sector, positions which are categorized

as traditionally female-dominated such as sales, clerical or administrative occupations and

earn significantly less than male-dominant positions. A 20-30% percent pay gap discrepancy,

on average, continues to exist between men and women for the same occupations, positions,

and titles, one that is not readily explained by skill level or educational differences, with the

women-to-men’s earning ratio presently 82% (for Caucasian women; African American and

Hispanic/Latina women earn considerably less than their white counterparts or men).

Simultaneously, there has been an increase of men migrating in to “non-traditional” gender

roles of primary caregivers and stay-at-home dads, (Department of Labor Occupational

workforce statistics from the 1990s – 2012) although recent studies (Benard and Correll,

2010; Cha, 2010) reflect the continuation of a motherhood penalty on the 68% of women with

children under 18 who work in the paid labor market (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008),

and even normative discrimination (Benard and Correll, p. 617) against women/mothers in

5

the workplace considered high-performers resulting in lower organizational rewards (hiring,

salary, promotion, career advancement opportunities).

In a longitudinal study that examined the impact of legislative actions on sex segregation

in the 1960s and 1970s, “neither legislation nor organizational changes effected much change”

(Bielby and Baron, 1986). Two-thirds of the seventy-five organizations studied remained

completely or almost fully-segregated; any declines in segregation were attributed to job-level

composition changes rather than anti-discriminatory changes in personnel practices (p. 49).

The Reagan era of the 1980s witnessed a significant scaling-back of the U.S. Federal

government’s enforcement of anti-discrimination laws deemed as unconstitutional: the Equal

Rights Act of 1984 was resoundly trounced, the Civil Act of 1964 was actively opposed, and

federal legislation on anti-discrimination against employees with AIDS was defeated

(http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-08-10/news/8801210729_1_aids-risk-aids-virus-

test-for-aids-infection). Though promising, further examination of the Ledbetter and Fair

Paycheck Act (in 2010) may reveal similar unintended negative effects in the future.

Underlying the shifts in labor workforce numbers and legislative labor policies between

the 1970s – 2000s are what Wood (2011, p. 233-234) terms a transition away from “overt,

blatant sex discrimination” towards “more subtle, more indirect, and much more difficult to

name and address” bias, based on deeply-rooted cultural gender beliefs. Gender beliefs, those

“core, defining cultural beliefs” equated to socially-constructed cultural norms, rules or

practices that create a consensual depiction of how to “do gender” in relation to others,

operate implicitly to drive gender ideologies, behaviors, attitudes and actions in social

relational contexts (Ridgeway and Correll, p. 515). Gender, then, becomes a “bias in the way

one enacts [gender] roles” (p. 516), resulting in specific perceptions and expectations in

organizations that reward male-oriented work and concomitantly devalue female-dominant

6

occupations. Cultural and societal beliefs ascribed to women, mothers, and fathers who leave

work for primary caregiving responsibilities, reinforce descriptive and prescriptive

stereotyping (Benard and Correll, pp. 619-621).

With the former, these “widely shared cultural beliefs about different traits and abilities

men and women possess”, ascribe men with inherent, naturally-endowed qualities such as

strength, assertiveness, and leadership skills, and women with communal, nurturing, and

stronger interpersonal skills (p. 619). In the gendered world of organizations, women are

therefore seen as unfit or incapable of holding high-status, masculine positions. The latter,

prescriptive stereotyping, calls in to play the agency-communality model to delineate those

occupations or jobs that men and women should or should not do. Men are expected to be

focused on their individual status and impact within the organization; women, by contrast,

should be communally-oriented and willing to cede individual status for collaborative success.

Violation of these beliefs results in strict penalties for the individual regardless of gender,

although the penalties are significantly greater for women in general. Gender devaluation,

which Cohen and Huffman (2003) define as “assigning less relevance, import or value to

occupations held by women” resulting in economic and career trajectory discrimination seen

through decreased wages, lower salaries, and poorer advancement opportunities for women,

is particularly relevant in a segregated labor market (p. 882). Men tend to benefit more from

gender devaluation, as they “occupy superior jobs in terms of pay and authority relative to

women” (p. 882), with most studies (Johnson & Solon, 2001; Reid, 1998; England, 2001;

Macpherson and Hirsch (1995) finding a gender wage-penalty gap against females in female-

dominant occupations ranging from 5 – 19% (Cohen and Huffman, p. 883).

The cumulative impact of hegemonic gender beliefs are a systematic differentiation and

evaluation of otherwise similar men and women, resulting in inequitable treatment around

7

hiring, promotion and salary decisions. “As a result, the small biasing effects accumulate over

careers and lifetimes to result in substantially different behavioral paths and social outcomes

for men and women who are other similar in social background” (Ridgeway and Correll, p.

520).

A final (though by no means all-inclusive) impact of gendered perceptions of the labor

work force concentrates around the construct of what it means to be an ideal employee (Acker,

1990; Cha, 2010, p. 204), and the perceived incompatibility of women or any employee who

violates normative practices to achieve this designation. Regardless of gender reversals and

gender role redefinitions of feminine and masculine norms, changing divisions of labor, and

the migration away from the traditional male-only breadwinner model towards dual-income

families (Pew Center data, 2010-2011), prescriptive stereotypes reinforce the notion that

“even in double-income families, child-rearing and home are considered responsibilities of

women, even when her earnings exceed that of the male” (Benard and Correll, p. 621). Though

questions may arise as to why caregiving is considered a predominantly female expectations,

as caregivers may be male, the “treatment of caregivers within organizations is directly

related to gender inequality because family responsibility are ‘gendered’ in our culture”

(Kelly, 2005). Studies reflect that women still invest significantly more time on caretaking

and household chores than men: in 1995, women spent 1.8 hours for each hour of domestic

labor men completed and an equal number of hours for caretaking (Bianchi et al., 2000, in

Kelly, 2005, p. 354). A Gallup poll in December 2007 reconfirmed these results, with over half

of 594 married respondents indicating the wife was “more likely” to perform a wide set of

household duties, regardless of age (couples over or under 50 years old). The gendering

evident in the division of labor has held relatively constant since the poll was last conducted

in 1996 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/106249/wives-still-laundry-men-yard-work.aspx).

8

Set expectations that women should invest significantly more time in child care practices

than men violate the “prescription that ‘ideal workers’ should be able to work unconstrained

hours for their employers” (p. 621), as work hours are considered a “proxy for workers’

commitment or professional competence” (Cha, 2010, p. 304). Employees who contribute

greater face-time or visibility in the work environment are perceived as more loyal,

committed to their jobs, and rewarded correspondingly with higher wages; those defunct in

these areas, regardless of the impetus (necessity to provide child or family care, for example),

are penalized. Seismic societal transformations toward the dual-income earner model, given

78% of all married workers are in dual-earner households (Cha, p. 304), are giving the ideal

employee model a run for its money, although gendered roles framing men as primary

breadwinners and women as primary caregivers continue to dominate the occupational

landscape.

Occupational Segregation

It is within this historical context occupational segregation is situated. The construct of

occupational segregation has concerned scholars since the transformation of labor policies

began in the 1970s. It is deemed by many as the key contributor to gender inequality in the

labor force, as segregated organizations and occupations “with a greater share of females pay

less than those with a lower share”, controlling for education and skill requirements

(Levanon, England and Allison, 2009). Until that time, the term segregation was predicated

around the intersectionality of race and employment, and corresponding behaviors exercised

by dominant institutional structures that “facilitate unequal treatment by subjecting groups to

different reward systems” (Reskin, 1993). Gross’ 1968 work introduced the term as relevant

in identifying critical components of discriminatory practices, ingroup and outgroup

delineations, (in Reskin, 1993, p. 242), and associated penalties both across and within

9

occupations and jobs which are particularly impactful on wage-based differentials between

gender, in some cases accounting for as much as 19% of pay discrepancies (England, Reid and

Kilbourne, 1996). Studies comparing occupational segregation levels between the 1970s and

1980s attribute 12-37% of the gender wage gap to the presence of segregation, noting its

position as “an important indicator of women’s status, economic and otherwise, in society”

(Blau et al., p. 30).

Trends examining occupational segregation in the U.S. labor force have relied on the

Duncan Socioeconomic Index of segregation or dissimilarity index which measures the level of

economic inequality within and across occupations, assigning a percentage correlate to the

number of individuals who would need to vacate an occupation in order to increase

integration. Perfect integration is achieved when each group (by gender) hold the same

proportion of positions in an occupation as it holds in the labor force. From 1870- 1900, there

was a noted decline in the amount of segregation, largely attributable to the period of

industrialization in the country which established process and manufacturing-based jobs

suitable to either gender. In the first half of the 20th century, the index remained between 66-

68%, falling in 1960 by 3.1% indicating a movement towards integration, and a marked

acceleration in the 1970s with an 8.5% drop through 1980. The decline resulted from an

increase in women’s labor force attachment, the expanding opportunities in the workforce for

more varied positions, gendered shifts in education with an increase in women entering

college or seeking vocational skills, the technological revolution which facilitated lower entry

access points for women with lesser skills than men, a decline in demands for labor

traditionally considered female, and the inconsistent application of social policies like

affirmative action (Blau et al., p. 33). Consequently women’s representation in the labor force

increased from 30% in 1970 to 60% in 1980, and now stands at 51% (Department of Labor

10

Statistics, 2013). The sheer percentage of women in the workforce – more than half at this

point – would seem to suggest integration has succeeded. Indeed, the Duncan Index shows

the ongoing decline (from 67.68% in 1970, to 59.25% in 1980, and 52.98% in 1990), but the

percentage change (0.73) and the slowing rate of change reflect declines of a considerably

smaller magnitude than what is needed to fulfill integration (Wells, 1999) and “reduce one of

the most visible signs of social inequality” (Bielby and Baron, 1986, p. 27). A closer

examination of the sex compositions within occupations and the workforce itself is needed to

better understand where the highest – and lowest – gains in integration are being made.

Comparisons of levels of sex segregation across decades and occupations are impacted

by three factors, which Reskin (1993) identifies as “fineness of occupational distinctions, the

sizes of occupations, and the sex composition of the labor force” (p. 243). Using Reskin’s

example from 1991, women comprised 45.4% of all employees, and 45.8% of professional

workers, one of four occupational groups (professional, managerial and technical (PM); sales,

clerical and service (SS); skilled (SK) and unskilled blue-collar (US) designated under the

Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) (Watts, 1995). Detailed analysis of two “finer”

occupational categories within the broader professional group reflects that women comprised

37.7% of college and university teachers, and 73.7% of other teachers (Reskin, p. 243), a

disproportionate skew of which the aggregate group data reveals nothing. It is particularly

relevant, then, when analyzing occupational segregation that less aggregation or aggregated

categories serve as conclusive measures (macro or broad occupational level) versus finer

distinctions such as job titles or positions within occupational categories.

Contemporary scholars posit a variety of economic supply-side factors, demand-side

factors, or a combination of both to explain the existence of occupational segregation. Both

theoretical approaches frame segregation as a “rationale response by employers and

11

employees to gender differences in intermittence of employment” (England, 2005). On the

supply-side, those “characteristics and preferences of women and men as workers” (Cotter et

al., 1997, p. 721) include the human-capital explanation favored by Becker (1985), with

women selecting occupations more consistent with work-life balance (household tasks,

childrearing) or those requiring “smaller human capital investments” with “lower wage

penalties for time spent out of the market” (Blau et al., p. 310), resulting in a shorter, less

continuous, non-linear career trajectory and greater pay gap penalties. Supply-side effects

may also be due to “societal discrimination” (Blau et al., p. 310), as women are socialized to

enter traditionally-female pursuits in addition to facing barriers to education and vocational

skill development.

Demand-side theory, conversely, argues the specific aspects of organizations, including

institutional policies, processes, employers’ perceptions of women as less qualified for jobs,

the motherhood penalty, and gender beliefs of employers, coworkers and customers

(prescriptive stereotyping) contribute to the openness with which organizations seek

integration. Empirical evidence has been shown to support both theories and acknowledge

their collusion in producing or reducing segregation; in my view, both are contributing

factors. The influx of women seeking educational development in the 1970s contributed to

employers’ perceptions of women as capable of employment in higher-skill positions;

concurrently women’s perceptions of employers’ support for increased labor attachment and

evidence of lowered barriers of entry drove educational and skill-based attainment.

Considering contemporary interpretations of occupational segregation

Addressing the contemporary landscape of the labor force and the pervasive

positionality of occupational segregation’s impact on gender inequalities requires a deeper

analysis of two factors: first, an overview of organizational initiatives, policies and processes,

12

and changes to the legal and employment practices that have been implemented since the

1980s; and second, an analysis of how characteristics of the modern-day organization require

a repositioning of gender segregation.

In the early 1900s following the Industrial Revolution and continuing through the

Great Depression, rapid urbanization, the repositioning of the city as the cultural center of

economic development, and the exponential growth of manufacturing processes prompted

managerial forces to employ a vertically-oriented, top-down hierarchical classical

management arrangement (Eisenberg, Goodall, and Trethewey, 2006). Scientific management

and bureaucracy were the watchwords of the era; employees were considered members of a

workforce that needed command, coordination, and control, rather than human resources

that warranted guidance, training or development. Weber’s theoretical construct of the

bureaucracy targeted formalization, specialization, and hierarchy achieved through the

strategic use of rules, a fixed division of labor, general operating principles, and a bifurcation

of an employee’s personal and professional life (Scott, 1990).

A paradigm shift following the Depression and the increased productivity of World

War II, coupled with the growth of labor unionization, catapulted the plight of workers to the

front stage among progressive and liberal journalists, academics and industrialists as part of

the human relations/resources movement of the 1930s. Employees were viewed less as

replaceable “cogs in a wheel” and “more as sources of group information and skill that could

be developed through training and education” (Goodall, Goodall and Schiefelbein, 2010). By

the 1960s, the systems thinking theory of organizational development positioned the

organization itself as a networked, interconnected group of individuals and teams, the major

tenet of which drove the idea of co-ownership of ideas, collaboration, and interdependency.

Rather than a bureaucratic approach, systems thinking favored relational development based

13

on common goals, feedback from multiple sources, openness, order and contingency

(Eisenberg et al., p. 72). A subtle shift in the 1980s towards the cultural approach redefined

power as central to an organization’s survival, asserting that a constant struggle for

dominance, status and rewards drove the cultural normative behaviors, attitudes and actions

of management (holders of the power) and those seeking power (the “resistant”; Scott, 1990).

We are now in an era of learning organizations, a term coined by Peter Senge and his

colleagues in 1994, in which companies must enforce a culture of learning from external

(stockholders, stakeholders, customers, media) and internal resources (employees,

organizational narratives) and “reinvent” themselves into relevancy. Open and mindful

communication flows with multiple feedback loops, team learning, a shared vision that unites

employees, and the questioning of mental models which Senge defines as behaviors, norms,

and outdated theories that must be debunked, are among the hallmarks of a learning

organization. The inherent challenge is that organizations must evolve in to this model, and

the modern bureaucratic model, though maligned as a hierarchical morass encumbered by

red tape, in reality emphasizes impersonality, the foundation for equitable and fair treatment

of all employees regardless of gender, race, or other defining characteristics. More

importantly, bureaucracies support hiring and promotion practices based on an employee’s

ability to do the work, or capability to learn specific skill sets. I argue, then, that while

contemporary organizations may be characterized by hierarchy, division of labor, and

authority, it is through these mechanisms that gender equality can be achieved.

The evolution of corporations in to contemporary learning organizations is paralleled

by the development of strategic initiatives at the organizational, institutional and federal

government level designed to reduce discrimination. These initiatives focus heavily on

inclusion, tolerance, and the establishment of institutional and symbolic mechanisms intent

14

on promoting the appearance of equality in the workforce under the guise of “diversity

programs” (Kelly and Dobbin, 1998). Studies of the most frequently implemented diversity

programs show a prevalence for employee networking, manager-to-peer mentoring

initiatives, diversity training designed to indoctrinate employees in appropriate anti-

discrimination behaviors; initiating diversity metrics to measure efficacy of diversity

programs; and increasing promotion and hiring levels of minorities and traditionally-

underrepresented groups. These diversity management strategies are designed to present

organizations as proactive agents of diversity measures (Dobbin, 2009). Interestingly, Kalev,

Dobbin and Kelly (2006) contend relative numbers may or may not make a difference in

developing a diverse workforce: rather, they argue, it is the structural efficacy of diversity

initiatives rather than sex composition or quantity of a specific gender that determine the

overall success of an organization. As we have seen, however, occupational segregation

continues to persist despite the categorical development of diversity initiatives, indicating

that relative numbers (how many individuals of each gender are employed, and in what

occupational categories) do, in fact, matter.

Several recent tomes written by authors (Rosin, Mundy) contending that women are

closing the gap on gender inequality show that substantive progress is being made and

women are heading for an “inevitable economic dominance” (Cohen, 2013). Cohen decries

their conclusions, contending that the battle for gender equality in the workplace be left to its

own devices. Although educational advances have lead to women pursuing “alternate” career

trajectories and infiltrating some high-status careers (lawyers, doctors, pharmacists,

veterinarians), wage gaps remain. Furthermore, education disciplines in the liberal arts, social

sciences are heavily stacked towards female college graduates, while hard sciences,

engineering, and math continue to be dominated by men. Concurrently, although occupations

15

with the largest projected growth are female-dominant, these occupations comprise

approximately 15% of the workforce in 2010, with the top 15 occupations projected to

increase from 22 to 23% by 2020 (Cohen, 2013). As Reskin contends, the relative numbers

and percentages across broad occupational categories or groups are insufficient to truly

capture occupational segregation within each “finer” job title, an argument Rosin and Mundy

fail to understand and account for in their data.

Contemporary solutions

If contemporary organizations seek to redress gender inequality through structural

and institutional changes, they would do well to focus on three areas: 1) awareness and

minimization of the motherhood penalty through a concerted shift towards “stay” policies

rather than “leave” policies (Benard and Correll, 2010 p. 641); 2) a shift in sex composition

within occupations, allowing women to enter a broader range of traditionally male

occupations, and/or the increase of men flowing in to traditionally female occupations; and 3)

the installation of more women in top corporate (board-level) positions, which has a positive

correlation with female managerial representation (Skaggs, Stainback and Duncan, 2012).

External forces, such as the passage of federal law mandating fair and equal wages, and the

use of media to combat gender stereotypes (and not misappropriate data as Rosin and Mundy

have done) and gender-typed occupational aspirations (particularly focused towards younger

adults entering the workforce; Kenkel and Gage, 1983) is also recommended.

Reducing the Motherhood Penalty

According to recent studies, mothers in the labor market fare considerably and

consistently worse than non-parents of both genders. This motherhood penalty, England

(2005) argues directly contributes to segregation against female workers, lack of employment

continuity, and limitation of job choices (p. 280). Even when women demonstrate substantive

16

evidence of employment loyalty and productivity in paid work, the penalty is applied resulting

in detrimental labor outcomes for women, including the potential for career advancement

discrimination through the glass ceiling effect restricting upward mobility and advancement

in to management levels (Benard and Correll, p. 617). With 68 percent of women with

children under 18 work in the paid labor market (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008), there

is significant merit to examining and minimizing the discrimination inherent with employed

mothers.

The effects of the motherhood penalty in action are disheartening. In studies of

professional women (management consultants, attorneys) and pregnant versus non-pregnant

women, mothers undergo status-based discriminatory practices, including being stereotyped

as “less competent, committed, and worthy of salary and other rewards…and less worthy of

hire or extra training” despite equitable performance ratings to non-mothers and male

employees in similar occupations (Benard and Correll, p. 618). The opposite is true for

fathers: having children makes others perceive them as kinder, more expressive, “more

mature, more stable”, thus “more suited for upper management positions” (Coltrane, 2004, in

Benard and Correll, p. 621). Several recent studies “show the presence of children has

positive associations with men’s earnings” (Hodges and Budig, 2010), as a form of a

fatherhood bonus which persists despite adjustments for work hours, effort and other factors.

In a laboratory experiment to test discrimination against mothers, Benard and Correll used

male and female evaluators to evaluate a pair of job applicants for a mid-level marketing

position. Evaluators were presented with a resume, job description and salary range, and in

half the cases associated with low performance ambiguity, a glowing recommendation in the

“candidate’s” file. Under the condition of moderate performance ambiguity, in which no

recommendation was received yet resumes indicated involvement in the local Parent-Teacher

17

Association, mothers were rated as significantly less competent and less committed than non-

mothers, and required to score marginally higher on a test assessing management ability.

Subsequently, mothers were significantly less likely to be recommended for hire. These were

not surprising results; they bear out the same findings as many previous studies.

The results under the context of low performance ambiguity were another matter. In

this case, the evaluator understood both mothers and non-mothers to be either very

competent or not. Findings reflected little status discrimination based on performance.

However, female evaluators showed a significant motherhood penalty interaction across

dependent variables of likeability, hostility, test scores, hiring and promotions categories, a

bias that did not show up for male evaluators. Furthermore, highly-successful fathers were

perceived as significantly less hostile, more likeable and warmer: for highly-qualified

applications, parenthood enhances the positive perception of males, but not females. When

mothers perform equitably to others in the organization, they experience status

discrimination, indicating that “discrimination against mothers is multidimensional and

persistent” (p. 641).

These findings reflect a need at the policy level of organizations to address the issue of

the motherhood penalty. This could include the inclusion of policy statements that indicate a

fully-supportive system for parent employees, including the provision of day care

accommodations, flexible-time working hours linked to caregiver responsibilities (school

drop-off and pick-up times, for example), and the addition of “child caregiver” time similar to

vacation or sick days that can be applied towards caregiver responsibilities (and used as a

differentiator in hiring practices). Rather than signaling motherhood as an anomaly against

18

which organizations must rally, reframing motherhood less as a disability and more as a

natural occurrence in 68% of working women could help reduce discriminatory practices.

Shift in sex composition within occupations Reduction in occupational segregation is predominantly driven by two factors: a

change in sex composition to mediate the sex composition effect, and an increase in the value

or important attached to predominantly female service positions to influence the occupation

mix effect (Blau et al., p. 37). The majority of the decline in occupational segregation is

attributable to the former: 76% in the 1970s with the influx of women in to male-dominated

positions and 68% in the 1980s (p. 38). The successful movement of women in to previously

male white-collar and service occupations than blue-collar categories indicates a marginal

degree towards occupational integration. Continued diminishment of occupational

segregation will “require that women succeed in entering a broader range of traditionally

male occupations and/or a greater flow of men into traditionally female occupations” (p. 55).

Systemic and vocational training and educational practices at the high school and

collegiate level aimed at expanding the occupational aspirations of future workers, in strategic

partnership with organizations, could serve as a starting point to achieve this goal. Data from

a 1983 study by Kenkel and Gage of 466 low-income young women “indicate that at both the

grade and high school levels the vast majority aspired to ‘gender-appropriate’ occupations” (p.

129), which are moderately correlated with actual occupational attainments. Gender-typing in

occupations is pervasive and is heavily based on gender role socialization, which emphasizes

and reinforces certain stereotypical gendered characteristics. Men are expected to be

physically strong, mentally dominant, logical, and breadwinners; women are portrayed as

empathic, nurturing, passive, and suited for more traditionally-feminine careers in the service

19

sector (nursing, teaching) or primary care-giving (Wood, 2011). Insofar as career aspirations

based upon national statistics for that occupation are concerned, researchers Care, Denas and

Brown (2007) have found: 1) Career aspirations are developed during a child’s formative

years (4-5 years old); young males aspire more to gender-typed fields that girls, who select

evenly from traditionally male, female or gender neutral occupations; 2)Both girls and boys

reject more traditionally-female occupations when asked what jobs they would not want; 3)

Girls as young as 4 “have already internalized the belief that women’s work is neither as

valuable as nor as desirable as men’s”. One might conclude, then, that gender role

socialization must be the purview of the very young; early gender role socialization shapes

interests which in turn situate one’s consideration of acceptable occupational choices

(Goffredson, 1981).

A second factor, work goals and perceived potential goal achievement, also determines

career choices (Morgan, Isaac and Sansone, 2001). College-age women tend to indicate a

preference for occupations involving higher degrees of interpersonal goals and high pay and

work status less frequently than men; males identified prestige, power, status, and financial

achievement as instrumental in career decisions. In both cases, the jobs which each gender

self-selects fall within a narrow and restricted range, one which needs to be dismantled

through counseling, career guidance and education if organizations are to attract women to

male-dominated fields and vice versa. “It may help…if women were made aware, through class

work or reading, that there are at least somewhat more favorable social climates in our

society” (p. 136). A counselor “could help young women learn about women who are filling a

variety of important, useful and rewarding occupational roles” (including blue-collar positions

which may fit better with the aspirations and skill abilities of some younger workers; p. 136).

In my view, organizations could, as part of their recruiting practices, establish a consortium of

20

employees to target local communities, high schools and colleges as counselors/educators

tasked with the goal of knowledge transfer and stimulating interest in varied occupations.

Women in corporate board positions

Research by Skaggs et al. (2012) explores the presence and influence of women at the

corporate board level on female managerial representation at what they term “establishment”

level (localized subsidiaries and/or parent-owned divisions/business units) of 81 Fortune

1000 corporations in Texas, finding a positive correlation between the two. Their primary

hypothesis – that the hiring or promotion of women in to executive positions would result in a

parallel increase of female managers at the establishment level- is not supported. Once again,

numbers do matter, as the findings indicated a positive association between female corporate

board presence and managerial odds/diversity when female representation exceeds 15% (p.

943), and an increase to nearly 40% likelihood of women attaining managerial positions at

the representational value of 35% for female board members (p. 943). Fifty-five percent

(55%) of corporate board positions would need to be filled by women in order for females at

the establishment level to have equality to males in managerial representation (p. 945).

Female representation is also more likely in organizations that are classified as “young, large,

and managerially intensive” (p. 936), as well as populated in non-managerial positions by a

larger percentage of women, and is less likely in traditionally male-dominated industries in

manufacturing, building/construction, transportation, utilities and petroleum production.

How does the presence of women on corporate boards impact female

managerial representation? Skaggs et al. posit that the increase of women in high-status

board positions would expand both mentorship and networking opportunities, as well as

mute gender stereotypes (p. 945). This is echoed in Ibarra’s 1997 discussion on homophily, tie

21

strength and range, which validates the power of networks, mentoring, and increased

visibility to vault women to high-status leadership positions, although advancement may also

be thwarted by tokenism, a state in which women lack sufficient collateral networks (strength

in numbers) to become visible and attain leadership ranks. However, there is a numerical

“tipping point” at which the sheer presence of women in sufficient numbers improves

managerial opportunities for all women. Ridgeway and Correll (2004) and Bielby and Barron

(1986) echo this, positing that interventions at the organizational level countering gender

segregation would be more effective in organizations with an already-sizeable female

workforce, and that hiring more women in to a male-dominated environment would result in

increased gender saliency and hegemonic stereotyping. “It seems that until women begin to

infiltrate these industries in greater numbers at both the non-managerial level and top ranks,

their opportunities at the managerial-level will remain limited” (Skaggs et al., p. 946). One

solution, then, is to address structural imbalances and gender composition at the board level,

incorporating significantly more qualified female board members, to reduce gender

discrimination and ultimately occupational segregation through reformed hiring and

promotion practices.

There are some criticisms to this approach. Rather than hailing mentoring and

networks as successful interventions, Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly (2006) examine the results of

widely-implemented organizational diversity initiatives and deem these to be most effective

in increasing managerial diversity (p. 589). Their analysis stems from federal data from EEO-1

reports describing 708 private sector establishments from 1971-2002 in collaboration with

survey data. Although some effects are seen with the first two interventions, they are modest-

at-best, in contrast to organizational change efforts that “establish responsibility” (p. 602) for

the success of diversity expansion. Key elements of this approach include diversity

22

committees, the hiring of designated diversity staff at the leadership level and within

managerial ranks, and the establishment of diversity committees or task forces. Results of

these initiatives impact white women and African-American women the most, followed by

African-American men. In contrast, training programs designed to mandate new behaviors or

decouple old from new, and mentoring and networking initiatives targeted with reducing

individual isolation (or increasing homophily, as Granovetter and Ibarra would suggest), have

limited success.

Kalev’s findings on the limitations of networks/mentoring programs has some merit.

Their analysis, however, is reliant upon EEO-1 reports describing 708 private sector

establishments from 1971-2002 in collaboration with survey data. It is possible that Kalev’s

analysis might benefit from segmentation by industry, gender-dominant type of employer,

and demographic criteria – the “finer” levels of detail that Raskin argues are pivotal is truly

understanding the impact of segregation – as the structure of discrimination is not uniform

across industries, organizations, or geographic regions (Chang, 2000). In my view, a

combination of structural initiatives, including revaluation of managerial representation, the

establishment of networks and mentoring programs, as well as diversity programs comprise

a needed trifecta of solutions.

Rethinking Gender Segregation: Opportunities and Challenges A significant number of contemporary organizations have assumed radically different

organizational characteristics than their predecessors. Modern-day companies established in

the late 1990s and 2000s, particularly those in the technology (Google, Facebook, Yelp) and

retail industries (Zappos) have begun to move away from hierarchical, vertically-integrated

structural forms, and more towards decentralization, cross-agency horizontal relationships,

23

interconnectedness, and consensus building in order to respond quickly to market demands.

“Research has found that the best companies in terms of long-term financial performance are

ones that are able to combine profits, passion and purpose.” (Fast Company, 2010).

Conversely, more traditional companies, in consumer products, finance, manufacturing and

transportation sectors, and media continue to rely heavily upon overly-burdensome

bureaucratic structures, top-down decision making, and centralization of decision-making

within a concentrated hierarchy. Both types have their merits and challenges, particularly in

regards to repositioning gender segregation.

In contemporary organizations such as Zappos, culture and skills are important criteria

in the hiring process. There is a clearly-defined organizational approach to conducting hiring

and promotional practices, anchored by ten core cultural values (Fast Company, 2010). All

employees, regardless of position, complete the same four-week training program as their

customer-service representatives, and if at the end of the first week, the individual decides the

organization is not an appropriate fit, Zappos pays $2000 for time and expenses incurred and

allows them to quit. Tony Hsieh, founder and CEO, notes cultural fit is the critical driver for

success; he calls this “the happiness fit”.

There's a lot of talk about work life separation or balance and so on, our whole thing is about work life integration. It’s just life. And so the ideal would be if you can be the same person at home as you are in the office, and vice versa. And when people actually feel comfortable being themselves, so much creativity comes out of that.

Reframing gender segregation in this type of organization would require taking

advantage of already-established cultural normative practices and core values, and

incorporating knowledge dissemination regarding performance, promotion practices, and

what I am terming “gender awareness/education” through innovative techniques

24

(orientation, training sessions, employee ‘study sessions’ held 3-4x/year during which

gender-based topics are discussed).

More traditionally-typed organizations could capitalize on the centralized command-

and-control aspect to ensure their training, mentoring, networking and diversity programs

were incorporated as part of the performance management and evaluation systems. More

effective mandatory training programs that discuss gender barriers and link performance

evaluation criteria and metrics and organizational rewards (spot bonuses, for example) to

implementing non-discriminatory practices effectively are needed, as employees in

managerial positions set the tone and tenor of the organization’s efforts to combat gender

bias. Recruiting practices should aggressively target young women of high-school and college-

age through a counseling/guidance program established by a consortium of organizations,

and align training, mentorship and networking initiatives to build skills that support upward

career trajectories. “In practice, companies find that multi-pronged approach leads to results.

General Electric initiated an aggressive diversity strategy under former CEO Jack Welch that

included employee networks, regular planning forums, formal mentoring, and recruiting at

colleges popular with minorities” (Time, 2007). The foundations are already there in many

organizations; it is not a matter of inventing the wheel, but rather re-creating and improving

it.

Globalization, the need to focus on profitability and market penetration, and the

current state of economic affairs present significant challenges to organizations, independent

of the inherent challenges occupational segregation brings. Companies are not eager to

increase wage earnings to remedy the wage gap (a decision, I argue, that should be taken out

of the hands of employers and mandated at the federal level), nor are many desirous of

investing effort and resources to revamping anti-discrimination programs (mentoring,

25

networking, diversity initiatives) or creating new ones (education/counseling for potential

future employees, ‘stay’ programs) to combat occupational segregation. In many ways,

segregation benefits companies: from lower wages to non-existent wellness programs

designed to support mothers, to the repetitive engendering of stereotypes that serve

dominant groups (generally white males).

We are at a unique point in the era of diminishing occupational segregation and

continuing to move towards the fulfillment of the post-feminist promise of gender equality, in

which organizations have the opportunity to drive social change for long-term benefits to

society as a whole. Fifty-one percent of the world is comprised of the female sex; it is high

time organizations acknowledged that fact and implemented initiatives designed to minimize

discrimination and more rapidly progress towards occupational integration.

26

Bibliography Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158. Benard, S., & Correll, S. (2010). Normative Discrimination and the Motherhood Penalty. Gender & Society, 24, 616-646. Bielby, W.T. & Baron, J.N. (1984). A Woman’s Place is with other women: Sex Segregation within Organizations. 27-55 in Barbara Reskin (ed.), Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Blau, F., Simpson, P., & Anderson, D. (1998). Continuing Progress? Trends in Occupational Segregation in the United States over the 1970s and 1980s. Feminist Economics, 4 (3), 29-71.

Buchmann, M., & Malti, T. (2012). The future of young women’s economic role in a globalized economy: New opportunities, persisting constraints. New Directions for Youth Development, 135, 77-86.

Budig, M.J. (2002). Male Advantage and the Gender Composition of Jobs: Who Rides the Glass Escalator? Social Problems, 49(2), 258-277. Burk, M. (2005). Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in corporate America and what can be done about it. New York: Scribner. Cassirer, N. & Reskin, B. (2000). High Hopes: Organizational Position, Employment Experiences, and Women’s and Men’s Promotion Aspirations. Work and Occupations, 27(4), 438-463. Cha, Y. (2010). Reinforcing Separate Spheres: The Effect of Spousal Overwork on Men's and Women's Employment in Dual-Earner Households. American Sociological Review, 75, 303-329. Chang, M.L. (2000). The Evolution of Sex Segregation Regimes. American Journal of Sociology,

105, 1658-1701.

Cohen, P.N., & Huffman, M.L. (2003). Occupational Segregation and the Devaluation of Women’s Work across U.S. Labor Markets. Social Forces, 81 (3), 881-908.

Cohen, P.N. Still a Man's World: The Myth of Women's Ascendance. Boston Review, January/February 2013. Correll, S.J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297-1338.

27

Cotter, D.A., DeFiore, J., Hermsen, J.M. etal. (1997). All Women Benefit: The Macro-Level Effect of Occupational Integration on Gender Earnings Equality. American Sociological Review, 62 (5), 714-734. Cotter, D. A., Hermsen J.A., and Vanneman R. (2012). Still Stalled? Occupational Gender Desegregation 1950-2010. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Denver, CO, August 16, 2012. http://www.union.edu/academic_depts/sociology/_docs/still-stalled,-cotter,-hermsen-and-vanneman

Cullen, L.T. (2007, May 7). The Diversity Delusion. Time, 69, 37.

Eisenberg, E., Goodall, H.L., and Tretheway, A. (2006). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint, 5th edition. New York: St. Martin’s. England, P. & Nancy Folbre, N. (2005). Gender and Economic Sociology. In Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by Neil Smelser and Richard Swedberg, Russell Sage and Princeton. England, P. (2005). Gender Inequality in Labor Markets: The Role of Motherhood and Segregation. Social Politics, 12, 264-288. England, P. (2010). The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled. Gender & Society, 24, 149-166. England, P. & Dunn, D. (1988). Evaluating Work and Comparable Worth. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 227-248. Gauchat, G., Kelly, M., & Wallace, M. (2012). Occupational Gender Segregation, Globalization, and Gender Earnings Inequality in U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 26, 718-747. Glauber, R. (2008). Race and Gender in Families and at Work - The Fatherhood Wage Premium. Gender & Society, 22, 8-30. Good Morning America story on salary disparity between mothers and non-mothers, August 22, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/salary-gap-11454926. Hodges, M.J., & Budig, M.J. (2010). Who Gets the Daddy Bonus? Organizational Hegemonic Masculinity and the Impact of Fatherhood on Earnings. Gender & Society, 24(6), 717-745.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106249/wives-still-laundry-men-yard-work.aspx

http://www.fastcompany.com/1657030/happiness-culture-zappos-isnt-company-its-mission

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review 71: 589-617.

28

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kelly, E.L. (2005). Discrimination against Caregivers? Gendered Family Responsibilities, Employer Practices, and Work Rewards. In Robert L. Nelson and Laura Beth Nielsen, eds. Handbook on Employment Discrimination Research: Rights and Realities (Kluwer Academic Press). Kenkel, W.F. & Gage, B.A. (1983). The Restricted and Gender-Typed Occupational Aspirations of Young Women: Can They Be Modified? Family Relations, 32 (1), 129-138. Levanson, A., England, P., & Allison, P. Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics using 1950 – 2000 U.S. Census Data. Social Forces, 88(2), 865-891.

Patten, E., & Parker, K. (2011). A Gender Reversal on Career Aspirations. Pew Social and Demographic Trends. Demographic Trends Report.

Reskin, B.F. (2000). The Proximate Causes of Employment Discrimination. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 319-328. Reskin, B.F. (1993). Sex Segregation in the Workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241-270. Ridgeway, C.L. (1997). Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment. American Sociological Review, 62, 218-235. Ridgeway, C.L. & Correll. S.J. (2004). Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations. Gender & Society, 18, 510-531.

Scott, J. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Skaggs, S., Stainback, K., and Phyllis Duncan. (2012). Shaking Things Up or Business as Usual? The Influence of Female Corporate Executives and Board of Directors on Women’s Managerial Representation. Social Science Research, 41, 936-948.

Watts, M.J. (1995). Trends in Occupational Segregation by Race and Gender in the U.S.A., 1983-92: A Multidimensional Approach. Review of Radical Political Economics, 27 (4), 1-36.

Wells, T. (1999). Changes in Occupational Sex Segregation during the 1980s and 1990s. Social Sciences Quarterly, 80 (2), 370-380.

Wood, J.T. (2011). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture (10th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.