SEX SEGREGATION, STEREOTYPING, DISCRIMINATION

1
SEX SEGREGATION, STEREOTYPING, DISCRIMINATION
THE EARNINGS GAP
2
GROUP WORK

• Meet in groups to discuss article on sex
  segregation gender differences in wages.
• Relate to your experience
• In terms of wages, which theoretical perspective
  do you agree more with?
• Do you agree with Jacobs prediction for the 21st
  century?

3
SEX SEGREGATION

• Theoretical perspectives
• Focus on individual
• Focus on actions of employers
• Focus on the labor market
• More examples of sex segregation

4
GENDER STEREOTYPING

• Role status incongruence
• Role conflict
• Career immobility
• Power differences
• Differences in training development
• Feedback differences
• Job segregation

5
DISCRIMINATION

• human capital
• job segregation
• Internal labour market
• status attainment
• distribution of authority
• part-time work

6
VARIOUS STUDIES OF DISCRIMINATION

• Impact of authoritarianism
• Effect of postponement of hiring decision
• Attractive males favored for management
  positions.
• Preference given to those possessing masculine
  skills.
• Performance evaluations biased against women in
  male dominated professions.
• Influence of proportion of women applicants  

7
RECENT CASES

• 2001 Suit against Wal-Mart in the States (72
  of employees are women but only 33.3 of the
  managers) lost suit concerning discrimination
  against the disabled
• 2000 MIT acknowledges discrimination against
  female professors

8
EARNINGS GAP
9
SOME STUDIES ON EARNINGS GAP

• Pay lower for women when similarities between
  males females are the same
• Labor market mobility?
• Significance of sex segregation on earnings
• Education yields greater economic returns for men
  than for women.
• More wage equality with governmental jobs than in
  private sector.
• Equal pay for work of equal value
• Authority gap in wages
• How does Canada compare?

10
AVERAGE EARNINGS BY SEX (CANADA)
11
CONNECTING MACRO MICROLEVEL RESEARCH

• EXAMINED TASK CHARACTERISTICS
• CONCLUSIONGender bias in performance appraisal
  salary allocation increases as tasks become more
  variable, complex interdependent.

12
ANN HOPKINS (A)
13
BEGINNING COMMENTS

• Corporations sometimes demand certain types of
  behavior in order to insure a good fit between
  employees their community.
• Ann Hopkins denied promotion for behavior that
  many male partners at Price Waterhouse exhibited.
• Hopkins projects yielded large profits for the
  firm, but she was frowned upon by her superiors
  because she did not behave as a lady partner
  should.
• Here we see how fit can become an obstacle to
  the pursuit of diversity to the provision of
  fair opportunity to members of an organization.

14
WHY WASNT ANN HOPKINS MADE A PARTNER?

• SKILLS?
• RELATIONS?
• DISCRIMINATION?
• PROCESS?

15
HOW WOULD YOU VOTE?
16
WHY WASNT ANN HOPKINS PROMOTED?

• Was she unfairly treated?
• What is the distinction between clubiness and
  corporate fit?
• Were the partners ignoring the financial
  interests of the firm when they denied her?
• What do you think of the promotion process?

17
WHY DIDNT THE COMPANY RAISE THESE ISSUES SOONER?

• Did the company really have an interesting in
  making Hopkins a partner?
• What do you make of Thomas Beyers behavior?
• Should he have been straight with her?

18
IF YOU WERE ANN HOPKINS, HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO
BEYER?
19
ANN HOPKINS (B)

• Price Waterhouse was guilty, but not because
  there was anything wrong with emphasizing
  interpersonal skills or fit in its partnership
  criteria.
• The problem the firms partners allowed
  themselves to be influenced by gender stereotypes
  the firm made no effort to minimize the
  potential for sex stereotyping.

20
IF YOU WERE A PRICE WATERHOUSE EXECUTIVE IN 1985,
WHAT STEPS WOULD YOU TAKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PROCESS WORKS BETTER IN THE FUTURE?
21
WHAT COULD YOU DO?

• Highlight examples of gender discrimination/sexual
  stereotyping in the transcripts from Hopkins
  performance review.
• Eliminate the short form.
• Raise the weight of its clients opinions.
• Role of partnership mentor needs to be better
  defined more uniformly played by the partners.

22
OTHER THINGS TO DO?

• Everyone in a junior or senior management
  position be required to attend a charm school!
• Require partners to undergo sensitivity
  training to make them more aware of both
  implicit explicit discrimination
• Remove photos from the review folders
• Make partners aware of the legal implications of
  their actions statements.

23
CONCLUSION

• Large economic institutions can have characters
  of their own that fit more closely with the
  personalities styles of some employees than
  with others.
• People in positions of responsibility have an
  obligation to ensure that fit problems are not
  influenced by stereotypes.
• There is a fine distinction between getting it
  right and getting it wrong.

24
ASSIGNMENT FOR 9/7/2003

• Organizational, Group Interpersonal Process
• Topic Gender Bias Influence in Selection
  Promotion
• Case of the Mismanaged Ms.
• Exercise Management Training Program