Women in the Workplace
Barbara A. Gutek
Most women have always been ‘‘at work,’’ but traditionally, fewer women than men haveengaged in paid work. In 1890, for example, women made up only 17 percent of the US labor force; by 1980, women were 44 percent of the US labor force. In 1985, 54.5 percent of the US women 16 years of age and older were employed (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1988: table 627). In 2000, over all, 63.9 percent of Americans age 16 and older were in the labor force, including 57.5 percent of all women 16 years or older. In the Scandinavian countries, typically, 75 percent or more of adult women are in the labor force. In general, during the 1970s and 1980s, women increased their share of the labor force in most countries of the world (United Nations, 1991), although the rate of increase has slowed in the past decade or so. Furthermore, in all areas of the world today, women in the prime childbearing years (25–44) are more likely to be employed than either younger or older women (United Nations, 1991: table 6.8). This represents a change in most of the industrialized countries where, in the past, women of prime childbearing years were less likely than either younger or older women to be employed.
The topic of ‘‘women at work’’ as a coherent subfield is less than 25 years old and it is interdisciplinary, involving researchers from management, psychology, sociology, economics, etc. It is worth noting that the research tends to focus disproportionately on women in non traditional jobs (i.e., management and the male dominated professions) and women at higher organizational ranks (managers and executives). Likewise, the research focuses disproportionately on women who are white and middle or upper class. These features characterize research on work in general, not just women at work.
In all of the research, gender figures prominently, and women and their experiences are either overtly or covertly compared with men. Sex difference is a common theme in the re search and encompasses both differences be tween men and women and differences between the treatment of men and women. Women tend to work in ‘‘women’s jobs,’’ jobs defined in a particular time and place as appropriate for women. Although there are some consistencies across countries, cultures, and organizations (e.g., jobs involving children tend to be labeled women’s jobs), examples of one job being a ‘‘man’s job’’ in one country, culture, or organization, and a ‘‘woman’s job’’ in another are common. This is true, for example, of medicine, sales, and clerical work.
Women’s work is characterized by horizontal and vertical segregation. Horizontal segregation means that women and men work in different occupations. In 1970 in the US about 55 percent of women worked in the 20 most female dominated occupations (Jacobs, 1989: table 2.4). Sex segregation is most often measured by the index of segregation (also known as the index of dis similarity, D) which tells the percentage of one sex who would have to change jobs so that they would be distributed across jobs the same as the other sex. In the US, sex segregation has declined from about 76 in 1910 to 62 in 1981 (Jacobs, 1989), and it has done so, not because more men are working in jobs traditionally held by women (they are not), but because women have moved into traditionally male jobs such as law, medicine, management, and the professor ate.
Vertical segregation means that men and women are located at different places in the hierarchy in their work. Women tend to be located in lower level positions in their occupations and in their organizations, whereas men are found in jobs throughout the hierarchy. Women are said to face a glass ceiling, in that they are rarely found above certain hierarchical levels. Like horizontal segregation, vertical segregation is also decreasing, except at the top.
In general, the research on women at work fits into one of three categories: sex differences, problem focused, and changes initiated to alleviate problems.
One type of research focuses on differences and similarities between the sexes. Among the topics covered are the following: differences in masculinity and femininity and their implications; differences or similarities in management style or leadership style; sex differences in career choices and career interests; and differences and similarities in achieving style. Early research focused on traits or characteristics believed to be associated with women more than men, such as fear of success. A few areas are notable for the lack of expected sex differences. For example, while there is an active debate about whether men and women exhibit different leadership styles, the extant research suggests that men and women in leadership positions exhibit few differences. And despite the fact that women’s and men’s job experiences tend to differ, they tend to report similar levels of job satisfaction, and in recent years, job commitment.
A large body of research on women at work focuses on problems faced by women. These topics include the following, listed with some researchers and theorists in each field: biases in selection, placement, performance appraisal, and promotion (Nieva and Gutek; Swim et al.); sexual harassment (Fitzgerald; Gutek; Pryor; Terpstra and Baker); obstacles to achievement, advancement, and attainment of positions of leadership (Larwood; Morrison); lack of mentoring (Ragins; Fagensen); sex discrimination (Heilman; Crosby); the pay gap (England; Olson; Konrad); stereotyping (Fiske; Borgida); lack of job mobility (Brett); conflict between work and family responsibilities (Pleck; Brett; Davidson; Cooper). Research starting in the late 1970s on the problems faced by tokens (women who are numerically rare) (Kanter; Laws), including the problems faced by women when there are few women in top management positions in the organization (Ely), continue to be relevant.
A third type of research focuses on the success or failure of attempts to alleviate problems faced by working women (see, for example, Ely, Foldy, and Scully, 2003), including the impacts of laws and other programs aimed at providing equal opportunity, addressing affirmative action, establishing the comparable worth of jobs, and eliminating sexual harassment. But laws are not the only approach to alleviating problems faced by working women. In general, the type of solution sought depends on the way the problem is defined. Nieva and Gutek (1981) listed four models of problem definition and some problem solving strategies that follow from them. They are: the individual deficit model, wherein the problem is defined as problem people; the structural model, wherein organizational structures and policies hamper women (see Kanter, 1977); the sex role model, wherein social roles and role expectations and role stereotypes hamper women; and the inter group model, wherein men and women are viewed as opposing groups fighting over a limited amount of desirable jobs, power, and influence. They conclude that the most commonly proposed solutions fit the individual deficit model. Women are given opportunities to overcome their ‘‘deficits’’ through training and self help materials targeted at them. Examples include dressing for success, assertiveness training, and how to write a business plan or obtain venture capital. Increasingly, men too are targets of training aimed at sensitizing them to issues like sexual harassment and sex discrimination.
Overall, the topic of women at work has attracted a lot of research attention over the past 20 years or so. Recent major reviews of the literature can be found in Ely, Foldy, and Scully (2003) and Cleveland, Stockdale, and Murphy (2000). While the field is not bereft of theory, much of the research continues to be descriptive, an approach well suited to a topic that is fraught with misperceptions and misinformation.
Bibliography
Cleveland, J., Stockdale, M., and Murphy, K. (2000). Women and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender Issues at Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ely, R. J., Foldy, E. G., and Scully, M. A. (2003). Reader in Gender, Work, and Organization. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gutek, B. A. (1993). Changing the status of women in management. Applied Psychology, 43(4), 301 11.
Gutek, B. A. and Larwood, L. (eds.) (1987). Women’s Career Development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jacobs, J. (1989). Revolving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women’s Careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Nieva, V. F. and Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and Work: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Praeger .
Statistical Abstract of the United States (1988). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., and Meyers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 409 29.
United Nations (1991). The World’s Women: Trends and Statistics, 1970 1990. Social Statistics and Indicators, Series K, No. 8. New York: United Nations.
US Bureau of Census website: www.census.gov/Press- Release/www/2002/dp_comptables.html