Happy International Women’s Day! In order to #choosetochallenge we need to rethink the organizational system behind unequal class, race and gender practices, called “Inequality Regimes” (Acker, 2006). Because societal inequalities originate in organizations and are linked to society, politics, history and culture, if we want to decrease the inequalities in society, it is necessary to challenge the status quo of current organizational practices. And that belief--- that there is no point in challenging the fundamental gender, race and class nature of things-- is just another form of organizational control, coming from those that have the most affluent and powerful combination of interests (Acker, 2006).
Based on the academic article “Inequality Regimes”, inequality in organizations are “systematic disparities between participants in power and control over the goals, resources and outcomes; workplace decisions such as how to organize work; opportunities for promotion and interesting work; security in employment and benefits; pay and other monetary rewards; respect; and pleasures in work and work relations" (Acker, pg. 443, 2006).
Relationship of class, gender and race in the workplace
“Class is intrinsic to employment” and so “class is defined by inequality; thus class equality is an oxymoron” (Acker, pg. 444, 2006). “It is hidden by the talk of management, leadership or supervision and those who write/teach about organizations from a management perspective” (Acker, pg. 452, 2006). Class is a fundamental part of inequality and highly legitimate as it is a part of a capitalistic society since the advantaged often think their advantage/richness is deserved.
Historically, class associations in the workplace were shaped by gendered and sexualized attitudes and assumptions resulting in biased wage-setting processes and management practices (Acker, 2006). Although gender and class are no longer perfectly integrated, these assumptions still impact women and men in different ways (Acker, 2006).
People of color were completely excluded from the most powerful organizations that were central in shaping class structure in the larger society and thus historically confined to the lowest hierarchical organizational structure or excluded (Acker, 2006).
Contributing Factors to Inequality Regimes
Inequality is Shaped by Organizational Structure: Hierarchy
There is an idea that hierarchical bureaucracies cause more inequalities than idealized flat structures where responsibilities and decision-making is distributed and thus provide, specifically women, more equality. But in reality, women are only able to take advantage of a flat structure if they function like men (Acker, 2006). Thus, the structure might not be as important and instead, it is more about the image of success and successful leadership, which share characteristics such as: strength, aggressiveness and competitiveness - aligning with masculinity (Acker, 2006).
Possible Inputs for Change: This idealized view, that flat organizational structures are key to gender equity, might actually increase the legitimacy and decrease the visibility of inequality regimes and thus slow down change efforts. However, I see hope in the fact that leadership and management perspectives are widening - a possibility for new voices in the field.
Inequality is Based on the Degree of Segregation
Today, men and women are increasingly members of the same occupation. However, research suggests men and women are likely to work in different jobs and firms. What appears to be a reduction in segregation seems only a reconfiguration and differentiation (called an “internal gender segregation of a job category”) (Acker, 2006). Racial segregation persists, is complex and varies by gender (Acker, 2006).
Possible Inputs for Change: The nuances between segregation and reconfiguration create low visibility and high legitimacy in today's workplace. However racial segregation is becoming more visible and less legitimate, which might enable possible change levers when the focus is on race.
Inequality is Produced by Organizing Process
The requirements of work are based on the image of a white man who is totally dedicated to the work and has no responsibilities or family demands other than earning a wage (Acker, 2006). As we have seen during the pandemic, the reality is that women have more obligations outside of work. Thus this image means that “gender, race and class inequalities are simultaneously created in the fundamental construction of the working day and or work obligations” (Acker, pg. 448, 2006). An organization's desire to increase flexibility is in reality reserved to those at high levels of work and not to lower-level employees who might benefit the most from those policies.
Possible Inputs for Change: Due to the Covid crisis, the inequality promoted by the requirements of work is highly visible and legitimacy assessment is complex and possibly impacted by class. However, due to the extremely high visibility of this input, this might be a place to focus on change enablement.
In addition to the requirements of work, the process of job classification systems (systems that describe job tasks and responsibilities, then rank jobs hierarchically and assign wage categories) are historically biased, resulting in an unjust gender, wage gap (Acker, 2006). For example, in many systems, assistants did not get credit for the tasks done for their managers and thus the job evaluation system set lower wages (Acker, 2006). Those in power have been unwilling to re-evaluate the efficacy of job classification systems as a means of defending and upholding the current inequalities regimes.
Recruitment and hiring practices contribute to inequality as gender and race of existing job holders play an important role in the next hire along with using social networks of those in power. Acker (2006) explains, “images of appropriate gendered and racialized bodies influence perceptions of hiring and a great deal of research shows white bodies are preferred and female bodies appropriate for some jobs and males for another” (449).
Possible Inputs for Change: Recruiting and hiring have become highly visible with low legitimacy and thus organizations have begun rethinking this strategy through “diversity” practices. The problem is, that for many organizations, this is the only visible input and tends to be used ineffectively.
Wage setting and supervisory practices are class practices determined by the surplus of workers and management. For example, research has revealed that wage agreements allowed small portions of wage increases set by local managers to reward high performers, which went to men. During interviews, researchers learned that male employees were more visible to male managers than female employees causing the incremental wage increases leading to large wage gaps for the same work (Acker 2006).
Recently, there is a shift in removing middle management and offering frontline employees decision-making power. But this change might have resulted in increased responsibility, it did not increase wages. No increased control over job security. In both cases, they changed the content of the job but the hierarchy was still true (Acker, 2006).
Last, but certainly not least, informal interactions while doing the work re-create gender and racial inequalities. For example, “white men may devalue and exclude white women and people of color by not listening to them in meetings, not inviting them to join a group going out for drinks after work, but not seeking their opinions on workplace problems” (Acker, pg. 451, 2006). Assumptions about good performance might be sexualized and racialized based on historical white supremacy culture and patriarchal dominated norms.
Possible Inputs for Change: Although the “gender wage gap” is deemed low legitimate and highly visible, it still exists. This might be because the wage-setting practices do not address inequalities across levels or in regard to reconfiguration (surgeons (mostly male) should make more than pediatricians (mostly female)?).
Due to the racial justice movement over the summer, informal interactions as a source of inequality regimes have become more visible and less legitimate and possible change lever. However, the focus on “bias training” is not enough to create a paradigm shift.
The Singular Reference Point for Developing Organizational Practices
Since women and people of color were left out of designing organizational capitalist systems, the design of organizations comes from a singular vantage point that is not representative of its workers. These processes and structures are so ingrained in many aspects of individuals from the interpersonal, intrapersonal, organizational and societal norms, that many don’t question these practices and take them for the status quo. But if we want equity and dignity for our communities, then organizations need to assess the history behind their processes, structures and cultures and re-assess the current impact they have on people, organizational values and performance goals. As the legitimacy of white, male power decreases, so does the creation of inequitable regimes in organizations that have been artificially holding them up.
Current Organizational Practice Trends that Could Increase Inequality Regimes.
Globalization, restructructuring and technology could increase to variations of inequality regimes.
The increased contingent and temporary workers have less participation in decisions and less security than regular workers.
Research Studies that Demonstrate Inequality Regimes:
In one study in a Swedish Bank, although under the same job title, tasks offered were based on gender. Men's task brought them in contact with different aspects of the business and groomed them for managerial positions. Women were answering inquiries and tellers and their only contact was with immediate supervisors and they were not groomed for promotion (Acker, 2006).
A study found the sex-type women's jobs were described less clearly (specificity) than sex-type men's jobs. The women’s jobs were grouped into 4 large categories at the bottom of the ranking and men extended over a wide range of wage levels. A new evaluation of the clerical categories showed that different tasks and responsibilities, some highly skilled, had been lumped together. The result, we argued, was an unjustified gender wage gap. Women's skilled jobs were paid less than men's skilled jobs, reducing even further the average pay for women when compared with the average pay of men (Acker, 2006).
For example when consultants found that executive-level rewarded heroic male problem-solving behaviors and disparaged women and failed to reward the day-to-day organization building most often done by women they still contributed the low representation of women in top jobs as a failure of individual women, not to the system processes. “In some organizations, women managers work quietly to do the organizational housekeeping, to keep things running while men rise to heroic heights to solve spectacular problems” (Acker, pg. 447, 2006). “ Women managers and professionals often face gendered contradictions when they attempt to use organizational power in actions similar to men” (pg. 447) by violating conventions of relative subordination (Acker, 2006).
Research suggests that “the use of family-friendly policies, primarily by women when they have young children, or the use of part-time work, again primarily involving women, may increase gender inequalities in organizations. Such measures may reinforce, not undermine, the male model of organizing by defining those who conform to it as serious, committed workers and those that do not as rather peripheral and probably unworthy of promotion or pay increase” (Acker, pg. 457, 2006)
Reference:
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20, 441–464.
Comentarios