The Gender Gap

Addressing the Gender Gap in the Workplace

BY

GAIL DAWSON, PH.D

And

JUDY NIXON, PH. D.

Ph: 423-425-4160

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

College of Business Administration

615 McCallie Avenue

Chattanooga, TN 37403

ADDRESSING THE GENDER GAP AND STEREOTYPE THREAT IN THE WORKPLACE

When the topic of recruitment is discussed, several aspects come to mind. Hiring the right people probably is the most vital function that could determine the success or failure of an organization. It's no secret that exemplary employees mean profit and detrimental decisions create problems that consistently stay with the company. Sometimes those problems are linked to discrimination against race, but others could be a reflection of occupational segregation by gender. Occupational segregation by gender is thorough, pervasive and one of the most important and enduring aspects of labor markets nationwide.

Historical Perspective

Despite real advances since the early 1980's, in the earning ratio and in measures of occupational segregation, various women have become frustrated with the fairness of the labor market and have supported a campaign to alter the rules that govern it. According to a 1993 survey of 1,233 women and 710 men, 62 percent of the women have faced gender bias in their current positions. Sixty- nine percent has experienced language demeaning to women in their current jobs. A national study by the Families and Work Institute revealed that 39 percent of the women managers rated their opportunities for advancement as "poor" or "fair" compared with 16 percent of their male counterparts (Swiss, 1996). One might ask, "What do these figures have to do with gender gaps"? The surveys reflect that in light of the fact that equal opportunities across occupations are improving, the labor markets are still missing vital components.

First and foremost, in order to resolve a problem, one must start with the root of the problem. The number ofwomen in the paid labor force has advanced steadily since the early 1800's, and from World War IIits climb has been rapid. In 1900 fewer than one in five workers were women, while almost half are today. Yet occupational segregation by gender has diminished only slightly since 1900, and the ratio of female to male earnings remained stable from the 1950's to the early 1980's. Women have entered the labor force in unprecedented numbers but have not been treated as equals to men (Goldin, 1990). This is the reason why occupational segregation by gender has an important negative effect on how men see women as well as how women see themselves by reinforcing and perpetuating gender stereotypes. This, in turn, negatively affects women's status and empowerment and consequently many social variables such as mortality and morbidity, poverty and income inequality (Anker, 1998).

With the establishment of white-collar work from the early twentieth century, not only did women extend the period of their employment, but also most had the skills to enter any beginning position. With the replacement of intellect for strength and the increase in education, starting salaries between males and female achieved equity. The ratio of beginning wages in office work for males to that of females was one to one by 1940, but the ratio in manufacturing around 1900 exceeded two to one. Many of the new white-collar jobs had long promotional ladders, unlike those in manufacturing, and most women despite, their increase in work experience would not remain on the job long enough to receive promotions. As a result, employers instituted policies to bar women from certain jobs and men from others. Women's jobs were two types: dead-end positions, such as typist and stenographer, and employment that involved promotion but relatively short ladders.

Although most men began at rather low-level jobs, such as mail boy and messenger, their earnings increased with time more than women's did because they were promoted to considerably higher positions. The denial of access to these ladders, despite the long tenure for many women, produced the large measures of "wage discrimination.” The gender gap in earnings between men and women narrowed because of increased returns to education and decreased returns to strength, but the residual difference in earnings is harder to explain on the basis of differences in attributes (Goldin, 1990).

The gender gap in earnings narrowed, but occupational segregation has had and continues to have a negative effect on labor market efficiency and labor market functioning. When most women are effectively excluded from most occupations, human resources are wasted and consequently income levels are reduced, as many of the most skilled people are excluded from working in the occupation where they would be the most productive. The segregation of men and women into different occupations negatively affects the education and training of future generations. Decisions by parents, teenagers and schools regarding how much education to provide girls and boys, as well as which fields of study they should pursue, are based to a significant degree on labor market opportunities. This means that women' s restricted labor market opportunities and lower pay for "female" occupations help perpetuate women's inferior position in society and the labor market into the next generation, thereby also preserving this important source of labor market inefficiency and inequality (Ankar, 1998).

Naturally, most of the research literature on occupational segregation by gender is embedded within a dissection of male-female pay differentials and the fact that "female" occupations have lower pay when compared to "male" occupations. Some authors even go so far as to say that occupational segregation is mainly of interest as a subject because of its effect on the female pay gap. While the proportion of the male- female pay differential virtually to gender segregation of occupations is hotly debated in the research literature, there is general agreement that it is one of its most important determinants. The low pay and incomes for women workers that accompany occupational segregation are becoming an increasingly important contributor to poverty and inequality in society as a whole. It is important to keep in mind that a high percentage of women head households in the world and that this percentage is increasing. It is also important to keep in mind that women generally spend a higher proportion of their income on children and family necessities as compared to men (Ankar, 1998).

When speaking of poverty and inequality, specifically, African-American and Latino women are the ones facing the greatest risk. Not only are these groups faced with occupational segregation due to gender, but they are also faced with racial discrimination. Women of color are increasingly responsible for supporting their families at a time when all individuals at the bottom of the income distribution are slipping further behind those at the top. The economic prospects for African American and Latinos women who have few marketable skills are especially bleak, as shifts in the industrial mix of the economy and the rising demand for highly educated workers pulling wages and employment rates downward for the unskilled. As a result, it is not surprising that African-American women are relatively scarce in studies of race and rising inequality in the labor market.

A literature search on race, gender and economic inequality exits within the interdisciplinary fields of African American studies, but these contributions have not been systematically incorporated into policy debates or writings on the impact of industrial restructuring on labor markets (Browne, 1999).

Since the mid-1970s, the economic position of young African American women, measured in terms of both earnings and employment, has declined relative to that of Caucasian women. This erosion occurred in all regions and for all educational groups but is most pronounced among college graduates and to a lesser degree, among women in the Midwest with a high school diploma or less education. The first dissolution analysis shows the significant contribution, first, of changes in the distribution of and the relative payoff to education and second of changes in employment structure to the erosion of African American women's relative earnings. Declines in institutional factors, union membership and the minimum wage, also stand out for their disproportionate effect on African American women, regardless of region or level of education. For college-educated women, occupational distribution and declining unionization appear to have been the greatest contributors to the decline in earnings, although the decomposition explains only one-third of the relative declines for this group. In the Midwest, African American women's increasing concentration in low-paying industries and declining unionization taken together explain more than half of the relative decline. The decomposition is most successful in explaining the declining wages in the Midwest; it reveals the source of 86 percent of the erosion of African-American women's earnings. This verifies that while we do not have the data to test directly, there are a number of credible explanations why African-American women may have been less successful than

Caucasian women in shifting from sectors that have typically employed them. Loss of employment in these sectors pushes African American women into sectors with fewer rules and regulations regarding hiring and promotion (Browne, 1999).

After taking a look at the journey of not only women, but also ethic women, it may be tempting to conclude that racial ethnic women differ from Caucasian women simply by the addition of another variable namely, race. Itwould be a mistake; however, not to recognize the dialectical relation between Caucasian and racial ethnic women. Race, gender, and class interact in such a way that the histories of Caucasian and racial ethnic women are intertwined. Whether one considers the split between the family and outside institutions, or productive and reproductive labor, the situation of Caucasian women has depended on the situation of women of color.

Caucasian women have gained advantages from the exploitation of racial ethnic women, and the definition of Caucasian womanhood has to a large extent been cast ill opposition to the definition of racial ethnic women. Marxist- feminist theory and the internal colonialism model both recognize Caucasian men as the dominant exploiting group. However, it is equally important to emphasize the involvement of Caucasian women in the exploitation of racial ethnic people and the ways in which racial ethnic men have benefited from the even greater exploitation of racial ethnic women (Blumberg, 1991).

Women are very much aware of the consequences of occupational segregation by gender. They feel the effects not only ill the workplace, but also a trickle effect to the homes. One might ask, "Since women know there is a serious problem, why isn't more done to prevent it?" Sandra Bartlett, a real woman, but the use of a pseudonym used for protection, gives her explanation. When Sandra was hired for her first job at an insurance company in 1961, women were required to sign in every morning. If they were late, they had to sign in with a red pen and men were not required to do the same. Given the fact that the newspaper ran separate ads for male and female candidates, Sandra considered herself lucky to have landed a job as an underwriter. Those were the days when interviewers without hesitation and without legal repercussions would tell her, "I'm sorry, you passed all the aptitude test, but we're going to hire a man instead of you because women have babies (Swiss, 1996)."

Many of the senior managers she met told her that the rules of work were clearer back then, when bias was openly sanctioned in their organizations. Today's moral subtle discrimination can make it more difficult to identify and thus to remedy. As one engineer suggests, "For the most part, gender discrimination is not overt. A person comes to realize it's there, lurking behind the doors of the men's room when one overhear comments made between men in the office (Swiss, 1996)."

Like Sandra, many women have, in the past, silently watched the gender tracking that often begins as soon as they walk into their first job. As the years go by, they wait in frustration for the CEO's equal opportunity message to filter down to line management; however, it seldom does. Those who hold the most direct power to change workplace standards are either so comfortable with them that they truly do not see their exclusionary effect on women, or they simply find the prospect of change too difficult or too threatening. The threat and even the reality of litigation for discrimination and sexual harassment has done little to change accepted corporate behavior. It has only pushed it underground a bit (Swiss, 1996).

To answer the question of why women do not speak up? The answer has everything to do with economic survival. Most successful women realistically cannot make waves and risk career jeopardy. They have already faced enough turbulence in their daily work lives. As one bank president observed, "Women learn not to complain because it's considered whining and it can only hurt their careers. But they live with a lot of frustration (Swiss, 1996)."

Current Employment Data

Many women can relate to Sandra, but as time progress, so does the need for change. According to the US Department of Labor, the number of white males in the labor force has dropped to 39.4 percent, down from 48.9 percent in 1976. More than 72 percent of new entrants into the workforce are women and minorities and more than half of the already existing US workforce are women and minorities. White males currently make up only 45 percent of America's workforce, so it is this group that will be most pressed to change attitudes and behaviors. In March 1991, the US Census Bureau released figures from its 1990 national census. During the last decade, the Asian- American population has more than doubled, and the Hispanic population has grown by

53 percent. Caucasians continue to decline as a proportion of the population, with only 6 percent growth, while the number of African-Americans increased by 13 percent and Native Americans (American Indians) by 37.9 percent. More than a third of the nation's growth during the decade of the 1980's from nearly 227 million to almost 249 million, came from immigration. That growth, primarily from Asians and Hispanics, is for the first time reflected in all regions of the country (Walton, 1994).

Legal Remedies for Gender Occupational Segregation

As a result of the changes taking place in our society, several clauses have been added to Acts that were enacted in the Civil Rights of 1964. In 1991, additions were made to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. The 1991 law is basically a series of amendments to the 19641aw; however, it does contain some provisions unique to it. The Unlawful Employment Practice section contains a comprehensive statement regarding unlawful employment practices. Specifically, it is unlawful for an employer

1. "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individuals, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin"; or
2. "to limit, segregate, or classify his employers or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual' s race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

These two statements are the foundation of civil rights law. The are very broad and inclusive, applying to virtually all staffing practices by an organization. There are also separate statements for employment agencies and labor unions (Heneman, Judge & Heneman, 2000).

Since these laws have been enacted, will there be a total elimination of occupational segregation by gender? Although the number will continue to decrease, elimination is impossible. Men and women should be free to choose their occupation, and employers should have considerable freedom in hiring. This means that there will never be the same percentage female in each and every occupation; however, it still remains that female and male workers are very unequally distributed across occupations worldwide. The "female" occupations are very sex-stereotyped in terms of characteristics and skills. It is clear that effective freedom of choice is missing for many men and women in the world. This means that equality of opportunity in the labor market is missing, and changing this should be the policy objective (Anker, 1998).

Both the research and the popular literature are mainly concerned about the gender segregation of occupations because this is felt to be an important aspect and detem1inant of women's disadvantage position in the labor market and society. Thus, occupational segregation by gender is almost always seen as a "female" subject by researchers, policy-makers and laypersons alike, with higher segregation seen as indicating a worse situation for women. While it is true that a higher level of occupational segregation by gender is generally associated with a poorer labor market for many working women, since it is generally associated with a reduced range of "female" occupations, gender segregation of occupations is not always bad for women or for men. One positive aspect of occupational segregation for women is that it helps protect some women from competition from another large group of workers (men). In recent years, this has been a valuable advantage, since job growth has been fastest in areas of the labor market where women's occupations are concentrated. In contrast, many countries have experienced job losses in production occupations where men dominate (Anker, 1998).