Different Positions Within Organisational Hierarchies example essay topic

Define - used or done or held in accordance with rules, convention or ceremony Precisely what is meant by this term may vary from one writer to another, but includes reference to the formal design of an organisation, perhaps conceptualised as a chart showing job titles, with specific responsibilities arranged into hierarchies of accountability and command. Reference will also be made to the formal. Documented rules and procedures that are understood to govern organisational practice within these hierarchies. We know that women and men tend to occupy different positions within organisational hierarchies. On explanation for the persistence of this is that once segregation has been established it becomes very difficult to the break the pattern. This argument is made by Kanter, a US business consultant and academic, in her book Men and Women of the Corporation (1977), which was one of the first detailed empirical studies of gender and organisation and remains widely cited today.

Kanter begins with an observation about numbers; at the time of writing, 96 per cent of mid senior managers in the US were men, and in Indsco (the pseudonym she gave to the organisation she studied) women comprised only 2 per cent of the officials and managers but 87 per cent of the clerical and office workers. The explanation for this, she argues, lies with historical factors which are no longer relevant in today's world. Namely, she continues, it is the fact that men were the first to colonize the bureaucracies which expanded in the US from the late nineteenth century onwards. Women were relative latecomers, only entering bureaucratic employment as opportunities in domestic service contracted during the first two decades of the twentieth century. The increase in women's presence was dramatic: in 1870 the US census takers recorded just seven female stenographers (typists); by 1920 the census recorded 500000 women doing the same job.

As women entered business organisations they moved into routine clerical work because, Kanter argues, management had already been established as a masculine role - that is, something which men, and not women, carried out. This she claims was simply a function of the need for the newly emergent and rapidly expanding occupation of 'management' to create a 'spirit of managerialism' that gave ideological coherence to the control of a relatively small and exclusive group of men over a large group of workers and also differentiated to viewpoint of managers from that of the owner-entrepreneurs. (Kanter 1977 a: 20) Just as the managerial role makes men behave in ways which reinforce male dominance of management positions, Kanter argues that women's segregation into routine clerical positions, with few possibilities for promotion, causes them to behave in ways which ensure that they stay there. At Indsco great status was conferred on those who moved up the ladder. But for those who did not the message was clear; 'You do not mean much to your company unless you get the chance to move on' (1977: 131). In this context Kanter argues that if you give people opportunities then their ambitions and their capabilities soar.

If opportunity is denied they perish. Using this argument Kanter claims that women struck in dead-end jobs start to appear disinterested in their work, unmotivated and more inclined to familial and domestic concerns. All these are claims which have been made by those who believe that women and men have fundamentally different orientations because of their distinctive genetic make-up. But Kanter's point is to refute these claims. It is not that women display these tendencies because they are women, but rather because they are stuck in dead-end jobs.

A rather different argument about the relationship between gender and organisational structures suggests that, far from a contingent outcome of history, gendered organisational structures are actively sustained by men in their own interests. In this argument, it is not simply gender-neutral organisational imperatives which maintain the historic imbalance between women and men across the hierarchy but the mobilisation of male power. Ress ner (1987) in her study of Swedish government bureaucracies argues that bureaucratic hierarchies should also be seen as patriarchal structures and that men dominate not only as managers but also as men. First, attention is drawn to the methods of recruitment and selection. Since the 1970's most Western countries have implemented legislation which makes it illegal to specify a preference for either a male or a female in recruitment and selection of staff. However, even where they appear to be entirely gender-neutral, procedures in this area of organisational practice have been shown to impact differentially on women and men.

In some organisations, 'informal' recruitment still takes place. This means that word of mouth is used to make people aware of a vacancy and / or that appointments are made without the establishment of formal job specifications, selection criteria or interview. While it can still be claimed that the 'best person for the job' is being sought, regardless of sex, this type of recruitment can restrict who even knows about the job to a select band and may allow full rein to any prejudices or stereotypes which managers might hold (Collinson et al: 1990). However some would argue that informal recruitment is not a properly bureaucratic mode of practice - since it is governed by overt rules and procedures - and that it is precisely in its informality that discrimination is allowed to flourish. By contrast, it is suggested, formalizing recruitment and selection - establishing proper bureaucratic structures - will ensure that individuals are treated on their merits alone (Webb 1991). Such claims for bureaucratic formalisation have been widely used by equal opportunities campaigners for many years.

Nonetheless, there is still a substantial body of evidence to unsettle this faith in formalisation. Even where jobs are openly advertised, decisions made about where to advertise might mean that women - and other groups- are less likely to see the advertisement. Connected to this, the advertisement might imply preference for one sex or the other, for example by using a photograph which shows only men performing the task. Even where these prejudices are eradicated, the job requirements might persist in favouring men over women.

Many examples have been uncovered of hidden assumptions in adverts and selection criteria which have precisely this effect. For instance, qualifications may be asked for which, in fact are totally unnecessary to perform the job. If these are qualifications which men are more likely to hold (for example higher-level qualifications in design and technology) the process of recruitment will discriminate against women. (Sculler 1992).

Even where women and men are recruited to the same posts, recruitment practices may contribute to gendered careers. Studies of British high-street banking organisations make this point particularly well. Up until the 1970's, banks recruited women and men to separate clerical posts. The grades, payment and promotion opportunities were quite distinct. In particular, the ceiling for women's grades stopped before management level. Following the attentions of the Equal Opportunities Commission (Crompton and Jones 1984) banks revised recruitment so that women and men were both recruited to identical clerical posts.

However, the common practice of recruiting women with lower-level qualifications gained at 16 years old, and men with higher level qualifications gained at 18 years old, established a tiring system whereby women were denied access to study for Institute of Bankers qualifications and automatically discounted for promotion to senior positions because of their lack of qualifications. Thus, even where the same clerical positions were held by both sexes the structuring of recruitment in these organisations meant that the jobs held very different opportunities for the two sexes. As Crompton and Jones concluded, in their influential study White Collar Proletariat (1984), the office proletariat is not a homogenous mass but is structured by sex. Indeed, Morgan (1986) argues that the maintenance of boundaries between workers can be interpreted as one aspect of the exercise of power inside organisations.

In the 1970's the Labour government introduced two major pieces of legislation aimed at women workers: the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The Equal Pay Act (EPA) makes it unlawful to discriminate between men and women with regard to pay and other contractual terms and conditions. To be covered by this legislation women had to be engaged in identical or broadly similar work, to men or prove, through a job evaluation study, that their work was of equivalent value to that done by men. The Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) applies to training, education, the provision of services and the disposal and management of premises as well as to employment. The act makes it unlawful to practice either direct discrimination or indirect discrimination against either sex or against people on the grounds of marital status. For instance, were a job advertisement for a clerical assistant to state that all applicants should all be six feet tall, this would constitute indirect discrimination because more men than women would be able to meet the requirement because more men than women would be able to meet the requirement and there is no justifiable reason for specifying this criterion (Straw 1989).

The SDA allows sex-specific recruitment to only if sex can be established as a 'genuine occupational qualification' for that job. This is the only instance of discrimination still allowed in law; any other 'positive' discrimination for either sex remains illegal in Britain. Examples include female social workers to work with women who have been beaten by their husbands or where the job holder has to be a man because of pre-existing legislation preventing women from certain work (for example, health and safety, overtime, night shift legislation). The latter example is important because it illustrates the premise that, at the time it was introduced, the SDA did not take primacy over pre-dated legislation. Rather the earlier legislation was taken as binding (this was changed in 1989). The SDA also established the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).

As well as producing research publications and campaigning for chance, the EOC has the specific power to issue notices against employers found to be discriminating against women (and men) requiring them to desist and to take legal proceedings if employers fail to respond. It is widely believed that this legislative 'equality package' marked a milestone in the history of the efforts to challenge workplace gender inequalities. Symbolically the government had legitimated women's claims for equal treatment. This alone can be interpreted as a significant exercise of power, redefining dominant and socially acceptable meanings and identifying the state as a guarantor of women's equality.

However, there is a widespread consensus that the challenges apparently offered by the original legislation have, in practice, been severely limited, and this has prompted some to take a cynical view of state action on equality. The legislative interventions described above enshrine some basic rights for women workers, but organisations were only required to ensure that that they did not break these laws and, as we have seen, this has had limited effect in challenging the gender inequalities embedded within work organisations. However, in Britain it was always hoped that legislation would prompt extended voluntary initiatives (Dickens 1989). Although such actions were rare at first by the late 1970's a few British local authorities had begun to take some action.

Initially these were highly politicized interventions, originating with feminists organised within urban, left-wing Labour Parties, who successfully pressurised for the establishment of women's committees and equal opportunities committees (Halford 1989 a). Most of these initiatives employed women as bureaucrats, for 'femocrats' to devise and coordinate policy across the organisation. Throughout the 1980's the number of these initiatives expanded rapidly, beyond the pro-feminist urban left, and by 1988 as many as 69 per cent of all local authorities had made some policy commitment to equality for women workers, although many of these involved no specialist staff or budget (Halford 1989 b). The early 1980's also saw the beginnings of organisational intervention in a few other British organisations (the BBC, the Inner London Education Authority, Littlewoods, Barclays Bank, London Weekend Television (Straw 1989, Stamp and Roberts 1986) but it was the second half of the decade that such organisational interventions really began to take off. In 1989, a survey by the British Institute of Management revealed that as many as 30 per cent of employers had equal opportunities policies (Dickens 1989).

In 1991 the British government-backed organisation Business in the Community launched the programme Opportunity 2000 to provide an organisational umbrella for employers wishing to pursue proactive equality interventions. Broad goals - principally relating to improving the numbers of women across organisational hierarchies - were encouraged by Opportunity 2000 and affiliated employers established their own commitments within these guidelines. The aim was to establish a bandwagon effect, whereby peer pressure would spread commitment across the organisations. First, and most popularly, there have been interventions which aim to improve women's access to job and particularly to improve women's chances of building hierarchical careers.

Such policies are partly premised on notions of 'fairness' and giving women an 'equal chance' to occupy positions of organisational power, both seen as end goals in themselves. But there is also a hope that more women in structurally powerful positions will, as a consequence, transform organisational life. Kanter (1977) for instance strongly advocates a 'critical mass' argument, claiming that once enough women are in managerial positions then the mechanisms which maintain masculine dominance will cease to operate. In other words once women 'have' power, sex will cease to be a significant feature inside work organisations. In order to achieve this, common policies include new recruitment and selection procedures designed to ensure that women know about jobs; that they feel encouraged to apply; that there are clear job descriptions and person specifications; that sexist questions are not asked; that all candidates are asked the same questions; and that all interviewers have undertaken sexism awareness training. Personnel departments may also monitor applications and appointments to see if there are systematic sexist biases in outcomes.

Training has been another policy to enhance women's career opportunities including women only assertiveness training, support for vocational part-time study to improving chances of promotion to enable women to move into traditionally male occupations. Finally job re-evaluation schemes have been used to upgrade women's work, sometimes resulting in new promotion opportunities. Linked to this, some employers have also introduced new posts or new grades enabling workers previously segregated into an area of work with a short career ladder to link into other longer career ladders. One way of measuring the success of these policies involves setting targets for increasing the numbers of women in non-traditional and senior positions and monitoring the gender composition of organisational workforces.

Targets have been highly controversial since many believe they entail appointing or promoting women even if they are less suited than men to particular posts The second category of interventions involve enhanced organisational support for workers' responsibilities outside the workplace, particularly around childcare, and are sometimes referred to as 'family friendly' policies (Rees 1992). Here, staff are no longer conceptualised in the abstract, as a set of skills or capacities (Acker 1992) but acknowledged to be rooted in complex familial relations. On the basis of this, expectations of staff may be modified and there is a re-evaluation of the place of the organisation in accommodating the private with the public. These policies became more widespread towards the end of the 1980's but, perhaps because they are expensive for employers, they are less common than those initiatives described in the category above. The third category of organisational intervention involves challenging sexism inside the organisation.

This is about changing sexist attitudes towards both female and male workers. Equal opportunities training is provided by some employers in a bid to challenge perceived assumptions about women, or men. In some organisations this is voluntary, in others it is compulsory for all those involved in interviewing job candidates and taking promotion decisions, while in others still it is compulsory for all staff. This issue of sexual harassment will frequently be one subject in this training. That is encouraging awareness of what constitutes harassment and how to tackle it. Although sexual harassment is covered by the SDA, cases have proved difficult to pursue under this legislation (Stockdale 1991), and a few organisations have established special grievances and complaints procedures.

The fourth and final category of organisational challenges promises more fundamental disruption to the gender ing of organisation and to gendered power relations within organisations. 'Changing the culture of the organisations' entails questioning fundamental aspects of 'organisation', such as ways of working and how hierarchies are constructed and may include investigation of the ways gender is embedded in everyday practice and in the cultural assumptions and expectations beneath this. Here, 'culture' is understood as something which an organisation 'has' (rather than 'is') and is something which can be manipulated to desired ends. In some local authority initiatives officers pioneered collective working, which some claim is more suited to women's ways of being and more compatible with feminist politics (Ferguson 1984, Brown 1992); re-evaluating expectations of systematic overtime (Kanter 1989); or reconsidering established norms for managerial posts, such as geographical mobility (Collinson et al 1990).

Such changes have been more widespread than one might immediately imagine, although not so much because of pressure to improve women's opportunities as because of new models of organisation and management (which emphasises, for example, the need for flexibility, innovation, flatter structures and protecting workers from burnout) which have been sweeping management textbooks and training programmes (Peters and Waterman 1982, Kanter 1983). Some have suggested that women will do especially well within these new paradigms (Skinner 1988, Maddock 1993), although there also appear to be grounds for caution (Jewson and Mason 1994, Halford and Savage 1995). The diversity of the challenges described above demonstrates that there is no single, coherent or cohesive form of resistance to organisational gender inequalities. Not only may challenges take place on an individual, collective, legislative or organisational basis, but embedded within these categories are several understandings of equality and how organisations might achieve equality. Researchers, involved in deconstructing the different models embedded within challenges to gendered organisations have commonly identified two broad approaches which are usually labelled the liberal approach and the radical approach (Jewson and Mason 1986), Forbes 1991, Meehan and Sevenhuijsen 1991, Aitken head and Life 1991).

In an influential article Jewson and Mason (1986) lay out an ideal type model which distinguishes 'liberal' conceptions of equal opportunity from radical conceptions. The liberal approach to equal opportunities merges liberal understandings of gender, of organisation and of the way power relations operate inside organisations. While individual skills and abilities are understood to be independent of sex the problem is that some prejudiced individuals behave as if sex was an important factor.