There is a definitely a gender gap that exists within the workplace, as evidenced by the numbers of women versus men in top tier jobs, at the present. However, I didn’t feel like Eagly and Carli or Browne effectively looked at all angles of this statistic. For example, though women have increased to holding over 40% of managerial positions at present, only 50 years ago this percentage would’ve hovered around zero. In that time, how much turnover has occurred in these top tier positions at these top tier companies? CEO’s might stay around for 10 years, so say 5-6 openings in that 50 years. Right now, 40% of eligible candidates are women, but for only one opening per company? In that 50 year time span, there may have only been 10-20% qualified women candidates for each position. Also consider that most of the top companies trade each other’s qualified candidates around, that is, a person that works for a serious competitor is going to be given more weight as a candidate than someone who works for a subpar company, when hiring from outside the company, which hasn’t been a major practice over that time period. I am not naïve enough to believe that social barriers don’t exist for women, but could it be, as Browne points out, that more women in general, who are undoubtedly capable of making their own sound decisions, are choosing to go down paths that don’t lead to being the CEO of a fortune 500 company?
I especially took issue with Eagly and Carli’s idea that women should be accommodated to allow them to have certain advantages over men in getting to these positions. Should women who have families be given more opportunities or time to be considered for advancement? Should women who take time away from a career be offered more consideration for having done so? Should the norm of long hours be changed to accommodate them? Should employees be required to “shore up” social capital practices for women? Personally, it seems like these authors have strayed from advocating women’s equality. I would think that a position that came with special accommodations would be hollow, that women would want to earn that position given the same situation as men. I take no issue with the idea that, all things being equal, women should be given the same opportunities as men, and that to some in the older generation, gendered bias does exist. But I do think that change takes time, and that it is happening every day. I do not think that change means unequal treatment one way or the other. Personally, as a man, I don’t expect extra time for having a family unless the company idealizes family values, and if I want to network socially, I take/have an interest in the same things as those I want to socialize with. Women are every bit men’s equals, and should be treated equally.
Do women even want a position that comes with special accommodations? Do they want equal treatment before equal numbers or vice versa?
Is bias against women in the workplace something more exclusive to the older generation that runs these major companies now, primarily, and therefore subject to change as the younger generation takes over? Or is it something that will perpetuate societal standards at work and needs to be actively dealt with?
No comments:
Post a Comment