How Gender Has Impacted the Workplace

Gender is a fundamental factor operating in the workplace today. Women have made significant advances to challenge the status quo in the workplace and social settings since the 1960s. Immediately after World War II, less than a third of the women were in the employment. However, women soon began to join the workforce in large numbers. Their participation increased significantly from the 1960s through to the 1980s and started to decline in the 1990s. The peak of women’s involvement in the labor force was 1999 at a 60% participation rate and fell to 57.2% in 2013, which is relatively higher, particularly among women with children (Krause, 2017).

The current rate of women’s participation in the workforce is also comparatively low, at 49% compared to 75% that of men, a difference of 26% points, and some regions, particularly in low to middle-income economies, experiencing a gap of about 50% points (Krause, 2017). However, on overage, developed economies such as the US have a nearly equal number of women in the workforce as men. Data by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that women constitute about 45% of the total workforce as of 2014 (Krause, 2017). Despite a significant number of women joining the workforce since the 1960s, women’s participation in high-level organization leadership and decision-making remains significantly low. Studies have pointed to systemic gender inequalities and discrimination in employment, characterized by occupational segregation and pay gaps between men and women with similar qualifications.

Section 1: Occupational Segregation

In their study, Holst and Wiemer (2010) noted that women are still significantly underrepresented in the top management of both public and large private organizations, despite their growing number in the labor force. Holst and Wiemer argued that many women in public and large private organizations are not found in a similar organizational structure. A significant majority of women accomplish non-managerial roles, while involvement in the first and second levels of management is mainly low. Despite women constituting 46.5% of the US workforce as of 2005, only less than 8% of the country’s top managers were women, even though the figure was much higher for Fortune 500 companies (2010). Several reasons are cited as to why women are underrepresented in the workforce, including the glass ceiling, organization barrier, and society’s culture on the role of women and men.

Glass Ceiling and Women Underrepresentation in the Workplace 

Often cited as the primary reason why women are underrepresented in the top-level management positions in both public and large private organizations in the glass ceiling. Glass ceiling is the informal barrier to opportunities in the work setting, barring a protected group of the labor force, women in particular from rising to senior positions. Azmat and Boring (2020:760), in a study, argue that the fraction of women in the top management positions are often gender-specific. For instance, publishing and printing services, transportation equipment selling, securities, healthcare services, airline services, and food service industries have the highest proportion of women in the senior-level management and executive positions at 15.8%, 15.7%, 14.8%, 13.8%, and 13.6%, respectively.

On the contrary, semiconductors, energy, and petroleum, waste management, long trucking, aerospace engineering, freight delivery, package and mails, and pipelines sectors have the least number of women in the executive level management, 1.3%, 2.8%, 3.6%, 3.8%, 3.8%, 3.8%, and 3.9% respectively (Azmat & Boring, 2020). While the data can be attributed to female career preferences, it can be linked to educational choices determining one’s career. Some researchers argue that women’s academic selections explain the significantly low number of women in science, tactical, and engineering areas. According to Noonan (2017), women in the US only constitute 25% of the Ph.D. holders in science and math and less than 17% in computer information science and engineering. The statistics indicate that education facilitates the glass ceiling.

Organizational Barriers

Other scholars have argued that organizational barriers or corporate culture are primarily to be blamed for the underrepresentation of women in senior-level positions. Administrative barriers denote the organizational-level factors impacting the disparity in employment and promotion of women and men (Ellemers 2014). While the barriers vary depending on the organization, they can significantly prevent women employees from advancing to the executive level management. One of the most commonly cited barriers to women’s career advancement is the selection process adopted by companies. Azmat and Boring (2020) argue that a pool of women in professions such as computer information and engineering, semiconductors, energy and petroleum, waste management, long trucking, and aerospace engineering that are qualified for promotion in executive-level management are few, explaining the reasons why most women are not promoted. About 80% of the surveyed firms cited lack of fundamental skills and like experiences in the said areas as the primary factors in the management’s decisions not to consider women for promotion. However, other firms have a large pool of women qualified for science and engineering positions but still do not consider such women for elevation to executive ranks (2020). The overall rationale is that most executive and senior management positions are occupied mainly by men who believe in promoting fellow men than women.

Workplace relationship with bosses, female core workers, and mentors is another organizational barrier preventing women from rising to executive ranks. Study shows that most workers tend to bond through the same interests. However, because few women are in administrative roles, most women face challenges in finding female mentors. Maatz and Hedgepath (2014) assert that most women in fields considered male-dominated areas are often inhibited in the job setting due to fewer female mentors. The majority of people prefer mentors of a similar gender since they understand their everyday challenges. Women’s needs from a mentor also differ from those of men. For instance, women mainly need more encouragement, illustration, and more tasks to complete. Men are often reluctant to mentor women since they consider them as emotional and less skilled in problem-solving (2014). There is also the fear of workplace sexual harassments allegations.

Leadership style and stereotyping also form part of the organizational barriers that prevent women from being promoted to the senior leadership role. Ali and Anwar (2021) find that past perception concerning competence, leadership skills, and asserts still hinder women’s ability to succeed in senior-level management. Most firms relate male characters to organizational success and goal realization. Features such as aggressiveness, task-oriented, and assertiveness are leadership abilities mostly considered masculine and essential for an organization’s success and achievements. Women are also stereotyped as modest, selfless, quiet, and nurturing, simple traits that most people perceive as non-executive (2021). Organizations look for leaders to execute organization goals, take criticism, positive and negative, and do their best for the firm at all costs.

Leadership techniques are closely linked to general stereotypes and perceptions of a woman as a leader. The early 1990s studies mostly concluded that men are more task-oriented leaders while emerged as social leaders most often. Because of the demands associated with leadership positions, men became the most preferred leadership positions because of their task-oriented tendency. However, as time passed, the women’s social leadership approach started gaining acceptance in some scenarios. Overall, cross-cultural studies have pointed out a universal pattern of gender differences in leadership quality inventory, including the Big Five Inventory, including openness, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Women most report higher agreeableness and neuroticism, while men report higher levels of conscientiousness and extraversion (Ali and Anwar 2021). The gender-based differences in personality characteristics are significant in healthy, prosperous, and egalitarian cultures where access to opportunities favors men and women.

Section 2: Pay Gaps Persist

Over half a century after enacting the Equal Pay Act and issuing the American Women report on October 11^th, 1963, women continue to earn less than men in almost every profession. The pay gap has elicited passionate discussion in the public domain as pay is an essential element of everyday life, allowing people to support their families and take care of themselves. The American Woman report explores the pay gap in the labor market, highlighting that women in the 1960s earned only 59% of their counterpart male employees in similar positions and qualifications. The subsequent years saw women’s earnings stride towards their male counterparts, almost bridging the gap.  As of 1983, women earned about 64% of what male employees were paid, and by 1993, women were paid about 72% of what men pocketed. Nearly 30 years after the 1963 Women Report, the pattern seemed to have installed some hopes for the working groups to close the pay gaps completely. However, the trend change over the past few years. The pay gap has persisted in the labor market, with men continuing to earn more than women. Women in the workplace are presently paid about 78% of what men earn (Maatz & Hedgepath, 2014). Figure 1 is a two-view of the future gender gap in the job market.

Figure 1: Overview of Gender Pay Gap 1960s-1980s

Source: (Maatz & Hedgepath, 2014: 7).

The graph shows women’s average yearly earnings as a proportion of men’s yearly median earning for those working full-time between 1961 and 2011, and the projected pattern in almost 100 years to come. The pay gap has a severe repercussion on women than men and their families. According to one study by Maatz and Hedgepath (2014), college-graduate women in full-time employment earn close to over half a million dollars less than what men with similar qualifications deserve in their lifetime. Educational level, occupational segregation, family and caregiving duties, impediments in the selection and hiring process, and promotion were crucial factors contributing to the pay gap (2014). Unfortunately, several of these factors still operate today in the 21^st century, even though progress has been made over the years.

The rule is that earnings increases with the level of education for both women and men. The phenomenon, in part, explains the decreasing pay gap over the years between men and women. However, while education as a tool effectively bridges the pay gap, it is not very effective in tackling the gender pay gap existing today. The gender pay gap exists between women and men in every level of educational attainment, whether a diploma or doctoral, but more significant in women and men without a high-school diploma. Women with PhDs earn about 80% of what men at a similar level make (Maatz and Hedgepath 2014), indicating a nearly closed gender pay gap.

Conclusion

A significant number of women have joined the workforce since the 1960s. However, women’s participation in high-level organization leadership and decision-making remains significantly low. This study reveals systemic gender inequalities and discrimination in employment, characterized by occupational segregation and pay gaps between men and women with similar qualifications. Women in many professions are less likely to get promotions than men, and they also continue to earn way low wages compared to male colleagues with the same qualifications.

References

Ali, Zahid, and Imran Anwar. 2021. “Gender Discrimination In Workforce And Its Impact On The Employees.” 5:177-191.

Azmat, G., & Boring, A. (2020). Gender diversity in firms. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(4), 760-782.

Ellemers N. 2014. “Women at Work: How Organizational Features Impact Career Development.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1(1): 46-54. doi:10.1177/2372732214549327

Holst, E., & Wiemer, A. (2010). Women still greatly underrepresented on the top boards of large companies. Weekly Report, 6(7), 45-53.

Krause, Susan. F. (2017). Leadership: Underrepresentation of women in higher education. Northcentral University.

Maatz, Lisa, & Hedgepath, Ann. (2014). Women and work: 50 years of change since the American women report.

Noonan, R. (2017). Women in STEM: 2017 Update. ESA Issue Brief# 06-17. US Department of Commerce.