    |
||
      |
 |
The following article was published in the Charleston Post & Courier's Business Major, a featured monthly column in the Business Review Section on December 28, 1998. Inequality versus diversity at workBy DOROTHY P. MOORE Special to the Post and Courier It's not present in all organizations, but it exists in many. It isn't sexual harassment, although harassment can be a symptom. It may not affect all employees in an organization, though usually only the small number who somehow make it into the hierarchy by consistently "playing the game" escape the worst effects. It may not reach the level of discrimination because the actions fall just below the legal threshold. It is not readily apparent to upper management because upper management often operates behind a well-shielded facade. There are few complaints because people have learned - usually through personal experience - that they will be better off by keeping quiet. It erodes the work environment and harms productivity because it has become more important than getting the job done. What we are talking about here is unequal treatment, the disadvantages conferred to employees, even if it costs the company income and profit. The increasing diversity in the workforce makes it a major concern. In 1997, labor force participation rates increased to an all-time high for both white women (59.9 percent) and black women (64.0 percent) age 20 and over (Council of Economic Advisors, 1998, Table B-40). The category addressed here consists of women who endured exclusionary organizations until they could take it no more. Fifty-seven 57 percent of women in the 1998 Catalyst and National Foundation for Women Business Owners (NFWBO) survey left private sector organizations because of the glass ceiling or unhappy work environments. In interviews we heard many of these environments described. "The three people who owned the company were all ex-service people and they ran the place like boot camp," said a Chicago entrepreneur. "It did not really matter what kind of job you did if you were not plugged in to that network." After the company hired an ex-marine colonel who did not like women, another entrepreneur said, two talented women were passed over for promotion in two rounds. I then applied. The new boss not only ignored my application; he then placed people in the job who had neither the experience nor interest I had. A former manager remembered that, after she had been prevented from doing her job by a macho colleague, her boss, whom she admired, took her aside and explained: "`X' is a male chauvinist pig. He sees you as a threat to him and his power." We heard stories from women who had frightened the men bossing them. "The person that I worked for had a real problem because I did more than the five people he had in the job prior to me," said a New Orleans entrepreneur. "Instead of exciting him, it scared him." "There were no women in management," said a Chicago entrepreneur, "It really didn't make a difference if you saved the company a million dollars, and I did." There were many tales of men who don't take female managers seriously. "All of the promises that had been made about promotions and partnership never came across," said one entrepreneur. Another recalled, "A guy they hired after me didn't do nearly as much as I did. Now I was to train him and he was making a higher salary." One entrepreneur was told that because she was married she should consider her pay "pin money." Isolated incidents? Not really. One entrepreneur in every five in our study cited a conversation in which they had been told they should be satisfied with less pay because they were women. This is a story many husbands and brothers could tell about sisters and mothers. A large number of women remembered that they were never allowed to forget that they were somehow "special." "I was the pioneering female," said a Philadelphia entrepreneur, "the only one for many years. The higher I went up, the more I experienced the resistance." Another Philadelphia entrepreneur recounted the too-familiar tale of "having what you say ignored or dismissed until it's later said by a man, in which case it was then determined to be a brilliant idea." From a Cincinnati entrepreneur, formerly an attorney in a large law firm: "there were partners who would never give me an assignment because I was a female. I wanted Litigation and that department didn't take females." A substantial body of research findings is consistent with the above stories. Ninety-seven percent of the 250 women executives in a 1987 study agreed with the statement that "women have to work harder to reap the same rewards -- the same salary, authority, status, perks, and bonuses." A 1994 study reported that two-thirds of women said they had experienced one or more episodes of discrimination. Salary discrimination was the most frequently reported, followed by bias in promotion and assignment of job responsibilities. And despite a decade of lurid headlines and huge dollar payoffs by companies who did not get the message until too late (Chevron, $2.2 million, Mitsubishi, $34 million), some women still experience real sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. For the women who later became successful entrepreneurs, the experience would carve a deep lesson for their personal management styles. As owners they would become formidable competitors for the organizations they left behind. Catalyst and NFWBO (1998) found that 58 percent of the women entrepreneurs consciously worked to show their respect for employees, 23 percent created flexibility and 11 percent exercised a more inclusive management style than the employers they left behind. The real losers were the organizations that no longer had the benefit of their talents. Smart companies have taken steps to prevent this talent loss. First, the CEO and upper management have to take a real interest in seeing that the organization treats everyone justly. This means dealing with the "This-is-the-way-we-have-always-done-it" syndrome. Action is required, meaning that vague speeches about "fairness" voiced by the CEO and close representatives at infrequent appearances at company meetings and platitude-rich memos won't get the job done. In fact, these symbolic actions can be worse than doing nothing. They may fan the flames of organizational dissatisfaction by calling attention to inequalities and encourage lower level managers who are discriminating to continue because they have not been called to account. Second, organizational policies must be well written, clear, detailed and explained to employees in terms they understand. The list includes not only policies on sexual harassment but also those for hiring, promotion, bonuses, the assignment of responsibilities, and all the rest. The standards and criteria in these documents must be job-related. The selection procedures must be bias-free. The policies must be enforced. This means consistent monitoring by higher authorities to insure that company policy is really what it says and not just something to be winked at. Third, in organizations where the disparate treatment has become ingrained and the differential treatment of women and minorities is systemic, the culture has to be changed. Managers who previously responded to complaints by pretending not to hear, blaming or investigating the victim, rationalizing or minimizing the action, and otherwise acting defensively have to be induced or forced to change, overruled and straightened out or removed from their responsibilities. In preparing for the diverse workforce this is just the first small step. No exceptions. Too difficult? Not when compared with the benefits of a more productive workforce. And really cheap when compared with the in-house and external legal costs and dollar settlements firms face when they don't comply with EEO guidelines. For Questions/Comments about this site, contact moored@citadel.edu. Site designed by Jackye Cocoros. |