- Abstract
- Introduction
- Literature review
- Gender Wage inequalities
- Neoclassical Explanation of Segregation
- Theory and Measurement of Authority
- Race and Gender Differences in Job Authority.
- Micro theories
- Macro Structural Theories
- Meso-Level Theories of Discrimination
- Conclusion
- References
Abstract
This essay surveys the sociological approaches and Neo-Marxian theory in relation to gender inequalities in the work place. In sociological aspect, we look at the how theoretical foundations, measurements, job authority and social inequality affects gender inequalities in the work place. The focus of this study is to examine how race and gender are the determinant factors in selection of workers, their consequences on income levels and job classes and how their stimulated gender inequalities in work places.
Introduction
The conceptualization of job authority as traced back in the early theoretical treaties of Max Weber and Karl Mark critically examined social inequalities in the work places. Marx’s theory examines the quantitative assessment of work inequality as rooted in class relations and class conflicts. In this research, we explore the working of these two pre-hire techniques; sociological theory and neo-marxian theory in relation to how they sought men and women into different jobs. The research settings are suitable for identifying and empirically isolate the social theory process alleged to sort men and women into different jobs. The research therefore analyzes unique data obtained in recruitment during process starting with a number of applicants who were undergoing job placement at a customer service center of a bank.
Literature review
The term segregation denotes to the fundamental process in social inequality. The groups to which individuals are sorted become the dominating factor for differential treatment. Segregation therefore facilitates the unequal treatment by divided groups into different reward systems.
Fernandez and Sosa (2003, p.3), examines the gender segregation in work places and labor markets. In their study they conclude that men earn more than women despite control of human factors. In socialization theory argues that man and women undertake different jobs because of gender differences or stereotypes which make them self-select into gender-typical jobs during job hunting. You will find that men will go for more masculine jobs and women to feminist kind of jobs. Sociologist theory also suggest that the disparity in gender segregation is the employers’ preferences and biases during pre-hiring screening since women and men specialize in different areas. Social network also directs men and women to different job openings.
On sociological aspects, findings from the research carried out at a call center reveals that women applicants in the work force choose jobs whose skills do not retrograde over time. Another disparity occurring in social networks is where gender segregation of jobs is displayed by gender differences in supply side process. Social network is the tendency of people to associate comfortably with people of the same sex which has led to classification of men and women into different jobs during job search. In this context, we see that social networks lead applicants to be more gender biased than even the employers themselves (Fernandez & Sosa 2003, p.10).
While there are a number of jobs sexes can choose from, the call center as a whole attracts mostly female applicants. Gendering is evident here at the first step of signing up where about 62.0 female applicants were seen queuing then after 65.8 female applicants successfully matched the requisition. Therefore the high percentage of job requisition contributes to the feminization of the call center.
Another model that segregates gender in work places is that of pattern of assignment to job requisition in relation to sociological theories. In a study conducted to predict assignment to a job requisition in the social network, the sexes of the applicants were coded as a dummy variable on measurable values of 1 representing female applicants and 0 for male. The applicants were screened for the number of times they had applied for the same position. The people who had applied only once were coded 0 while people who applied more than once were coded 1. The research also included two variables to record how much competition the applicants were exposed to in the day of application. Another variable was employed to measure the demands the total number of jobs opens on requisition day.
These variables were used to address the role of social networks in gender inequalities in work places. Dummy variables were used to determine whether applicants were referred by employees. Results were classified in three models; 1,2 and 3. In model 1, 52 percent of female applicants were more likely to be placed on queues than their male counterparts. The co-efficiency on repeat applicants showed that persistence is rewarded because applicants who applied more than once were more likely to be assigned to a queue.
This model also revealed that competition was an important factor as the more applicants that applied that day, the less likely they were to the queue assignment. This meant that applicants had only 2% chances of being assigned to a queue. The results also revealed that employee referrals cases were most likely to be placed than non-referral cases (Fernendez & Mors, 2008, p.8).
Model 2 explores the effect of steering by different sexes. The results showed disparities in both sexes in interaction of steering in a way that women were more likely to be placed on the queue than men. Models 2 and 3 gathers evidence of steering among external applicants, as reports indicated, female applicants were less likely to be placed on the queue as compared to male applicants. These results show us the effects of sex and recruitment among external applicants. Looking within the set of applicants assigned to a queue, it is evident that male and female applicants are not assigned to the same queues in the same proportion as they first applied. In sociological theory, we see that there is a significant relationship between sex and the requisition to which applicants are assigned (Fernendez & Mors, 2008, p.9).
Actually, sorting applicants among queues has significant impacts for gender stratifications. Queues vary from organizational level to remunerations. Among these job requisitions, 78% of them were grouped under salaried classification while 22 percent on job performed on hourly basis. While most of the salaried jobs were on requisition, majority of the applicants were on hourly jobs. Also, male and female applicants were not assigned salaried and hourly queues in equal percentages.
The results revealed that about 7.5 percent of applicants for salaried exempt jobs were females and male percentages double at 14.3 percent. In external applicants, the sex skews showed greater disparities where the percent of male applicants to exempt job was three times more that female applicants. Job requisitions also define the pay grades since applicants on hourly basis were classified into 9 grades while salaried applicants were grouped on six levels.
This call center had drawn out company goals that enabled equal compensation program. In keeping with their stated goals, the company sought to offer competitive compensation package according to the market rates. The salaries assigned to this employment grades were determined by periodic wage surveys in accordance with the local area. According this evidence, applicants for exempts jobs are usefully assigned requisition with the lowest job grades and the top level (1-4) of the range a well (Fernendez & Mors, 2008, p.10).
In exempt job classifications, there is evidence of gender inequality as supported from the decreasing percentages of female applicants as the queue increases. Women applicants were placed on the bottom of the requisition state range of levels 1 representing 72.1 percent, levels 2; 50.9 percent, level 3; 46.4 percent and levels 4; 36.4 percent while men received the higher corresponding figures.
This pattern shows that female employees receive discrimination for hourly, non-exempt jobs. Across the 9 hourly job levels without considering the top or the bottom of the stated job requisition, women applicants were more likely to be placed at the lower salary levels than on the higher tier jobs. The disparities in the pattern of disproportional allocation of male applicants to higher status and salaried jobs compared to female candidates to lower status, paid on hourly basis have clearly distinguished the consequences of gender stratification (Fernendez & Mors, 2008, p.10).
Gender wage inequality
In gender wage inequalities, reports indicate that males and females are grouped into distinct jobs at the time of queue assignment. And as the candidates pass through the screening process, interviewers additionally sort candidates resulting to further gender bifurcation which favors male over females in allocation of job status such that men are more likely to be hired in the higher status while women on the lower status positions.
On further analysis, we examine the actual wages as reported by Fernendez & Mors (2008, p.17) which indicated that female employees were paid $3101 less than the male hires. In model 1 we examine the impacts of actual wages to hires on sex, recruitment and application of behavior. Evidence from the survey indicated that female hires were being paid lower than their male counterparts after the other variables are controlled. Model 1results showed that the magnitude of gender wage inequality at the hire stage is very high.
On statistical segregation, employers reservations about sexes is based on assumed differences in strength or their ability tolerate in adverse working conditions or the belief that women are likely to be absent from work and affect turn over rates due to their nature of domestic roles. These reservations have made employers assign men and women different jobs which are discriminating statistically. For example, employers assign male individuals more physical demanding jobs than women to jobs that demand social skills.
Both socialization and neoclassical-economic perception on gender segregation reveals that workers occupation outcomes are connected to their preferences. Socialization theory shows us the different preferences workers develop before reaching adulthood, while neo-classical economics (neo-maxis) assume that in order for sexes to maximize their lifetime earnings, their select themselves into different occupations, awarding themselves the differing adult roles (Reskin, 1993, p.17).
Neoclassical explanation of segregation
Neo-maxims theory traces sex segregation to women expectations to that of family which restricts them to labor markets. In educational level, men are more likely to finish post graduate study as compared to women although job requirements require similar skills. In labor markets, women median of education is negatively associated with divisions in the work places. The theory goes on to argue that women attending college have increased chances of entering male dominated occupations and females in high school were not affected by the movement between sex-typical and sex-atypical jobs.
These results reveals that neoclassical theory tend to assume women involvement in family responsibilities such as child bearing that explaining what causes gender segregation. The theory goes on to argue that women underrepresentation in occupations that call for advance education requires them to acquire over-qualification status in order to compete successfully for male domineering jobs (Reskin, 1993, p.18).
Neoclassical theory argues that women are more likely to be attached to a job that pay higher and which does not penalize intermittency which leads to gender segregation. Women opt to work fewer workers per year than men and they are more likely to be employed on part time basis. So women seeking jobs are more likely to be drawn to jobs that offer that kind of a package. Also, women with children are more likely to do paid work at home (Reskin, 1993, p.19).
Neo-Marxian theory argues that job authority is a division of discreet phenomena that lends itself to the study of class analysis. He also argues that job authority to be gradational and is categorized into status group that divides sexes into different categories. Marx theory defines authority as the “probability that a command with a given specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons”. He distinguished power and authority where he explains that power is tied to the individual personality and authority associated with social roles. In sociological aspect, job authority is associated with income.
Therefore its this disparities in income levels that brought about inequalities in the work place. Job authority coveted work place resources. Race and gender majorly contribute to income inequalities in American Society and cross-nationally (Smith, 2002, p.3).
Under sociological theory, job classes are categorized into two resources categories namely; control over human resources and control over organization resources. These two categories brought about the several types of organization theory including ownership, suctioning authority/ span of responsibility, managerial authority and supervisory authority. In ownership, the control takes over in form of control over means of production or control over labor power of others.
Researchers argue that ownership is separate from authority as seen in post-industrial societies. Sanctioning authority includes the ability to influence the pay or promotion of others whereas span control represents the number of people under direct supervision. Managerial authority explains organizational policy decisions, purchases, budgets or services. And hierarchical authority position refers to individual’s form location within the organizational structure hierarchies.
Finally, the supervisory authority determines whether an individual supervises any one of his employees. This authority however fails to distinguish between nominal supervisory status and the exercise of real authority although we have numerous types and various dimensions of authority. Because of these contradictory explanations, researchers have approached this study from different angles in trying to examine the rise of race and gender disparities in authority (Smith, 2002, p.4).
Theory and measurement of Authority
Darhrendorf argues that the differences in job authority in terms of dynamics of class relations and conflicts in modern society in contrast to Marx theory. Marx theory explains the relationship between class formation and class conflicts where disparity is evident between those who own the means of production with those who don’t. Dahrendorf, a sociologist researcher opposes Marx theory by explaining that class conflicts were brought about societal changes arising from the development of industrialization.
He argues post-modernization led to the separation of those who own the means of production with those who exercise control over the means of production inform of legitimate authority in both organizational resources and human resources. In his argument he continues to explain authority to be the determinant factor of class divisions in industrialized society where conflicts determines the manner in which authority is spread unequally in our society. Since conflicts represent two opposing groups, authority is further divided into two dichotomous terms; those who exercise authority (employers) and those who are subjected to it (workers).
These categories are important in explaining the manner in which authority is measured in quantitative analysis of job inequality. This construction explanation has important implication in the manner in which authority is measured in quantitative analysis of inequality in job classification. Sociological theory predicted that post-industrialization in work places would increases conceptualization of authority in terms of various dimensions of hierarchies and multidimensional configurations (Smith, 2002, p.4).
Race and Gender Differences in Job Authority
Job authority is categorized in either supply side or demand side. Demand side explains the level of individuals what is known as micro-level theories, the society (macro structural level theories), industrial levels (meso level theories, occupations, organizations and job levels (Ritzer, 2007, p.351).
Micro Theories
Macro theory explains how race and gender affects individuals in job authority levels in relation to occupational segregation and wage discrimination. Human capital and status attainment were drawn from classical economics which seeks to explain the behavior and characteristic of individuals in the form of investment that were believed to lead to authority. According to this theory, women and minorities were given less authority compared to their male counterparts.
Women were believed to have less training, experience and education or they were discriminated for the reason that they had less seniority or intermittent labor force attachment. These reasons have increased the likelihood of attaining authority in work places. This theory assumes that human capital and status attainment were determined by strategic decisions or aspirations that drive career choices of individuals.
Within the context of authority, these approaches explain why women drop out of contention positions as compared to men because they don’t value workforce authority as men do. Further, phrases such compensation differentials and mommy track explains that women are most likely to assume family responsibilities and opt out of jobs so easily. This phrase explains the idea that women’s preference as denoted from gender-role socialization and rational choices they make which may drive them to self-select themselves out of contention for positions of authority because of the attached family responsibilities (Smith, 2002, p.10).
Macro Structural Theories
Structural theory explains the inequality in the distribution of authority and in earnings return to individual attainment model levels. This theory argues that the unequal distribution of human capital affect women and minorities since they had differential access to positions of authority in work places since they were located in the most marginalized structures of the economy. This structure typically explains the reason to authority differences are regions. Regionally, women and minorities are more likely to have authority in economic structures where they exist in large numbers (Ritzer, 2007, p.351; Smith, 2002, p.10).
Meso-Level Theories of Discrimination
Meso-level theory of discrimination explains the idea that group members who occupy certain positions of authority at work have concentrated their interest in maintaining their hegemony over such positions and they do so by discriminating candidates who differ from their gender identity and racial grounds. On the sociological level, the theory explains the idea that political and social elites maintain power and privileges by keeping opportunities to themselves or similar others.
This structure classifies social disclosure into two categories of exclusion; women and minorities were grouped into the kind of industries they work in, jobs they do and work settings. The results revealed that even if women were exposed to most powerful positions, they were still not likely to exercise power as compared to their white male counterparts. Statistical evidence in relation to discrimination reveals that gatekeepers and use race and gender in discriminating against whom they hire and promote in their organization (Smith, 2002, p.13).
Conclusion
Several theories examined in the literature review above reveal several implications for understanding of gender segregation. It distinguished between sociological factors and neo-marxis theory among various gender segregation processes that are said to occur during recruitment.
In Sociological theory for instance, we examined social network which explained that networks strongly link workers to serve on discriminatory grounds which groups men and women into different job categories regardless of their educational grounds. Networks play important roles in labor queues to which candidates are assigned, with referral individuals being more likely to be assigned to labor queues as compared to non-referral candidates. The process of sorting candidates into labor queues of people in competition have contributed majorly to the gender wage stratification in companies. Gender inequalities in work places has been over the years been the major obstacles in attainment of authority.
References
Fernandez, M. Roberto., & Sosa, L. (2003). Gendering the Job: Networks and Recruitment at a Call Center. MIT Sloan School of Management, p.1-31.
Fernandez, M. Robert., & Mors, M. louise. (2008). Competing for jobs: Labor queues and gender sorting in the hiring process. MIT Sloan School of Management, vol. 37, pp. 1-20.
Reskin, B. (1993). Sex Segregation in the Workplace. Annual Review sociology,. vol. 19, pp. 1-32.
Ritzer, G. (2007) (7 ed.). Modern Sociological Theory. McGraw -Hill.
Smith, R. A. (2002). Race, Gender, and Authority in the Workplace: Theory and Research. Annual reviews Sociology, vol. 28, pp. 1-36.