Gender
Society, while it has evolved in terms of its laws and policies, infrastructure, as well as formal discussion forums, works behind closed doors filled with gender based biases and prejudices. We, as a society, have yet to come full circle in the evolution of gender equality. When the next generation comes around, the previous generation has it's influence upon the new, and subtle biases and prejudices continue. However, as the next generation practices and teaches gender equality based on professional qualifications, capabilities, experience and potential, the concerns of gender discrimination will begin to fade into the background of yesterday.
Moss Kantor (2010) has done her homework, and represents the workforce with respect to women's advancement and pay quite accurately. When the subtle acts of gender discrimination occur under the guises of gender equality, and expectations of female performance are effecting performance, it becomes a clouded research bed with false results. I agree with Moss Kantor (2010) in terms of female representation, because on the surface, Equal Opportunity (EO) is a policy, and must be adhered to. However, the decision points and limitations on advancement and pay are determined within the organization, and not without.
I believe some organizations where family values are a focal point employees' home life is taken seriously by higher as favorable in promotions, while other organization, though valued, may take away chances of promotion. Moss Kanter (2010) states what women value will determine their pipeline, or path of promotion within the organization. If family is most important, a part-time job may be chosen, pushing the idea of promotion to top positions out of reach.
I agree on her discussions about transparency and compensation, but I feel if transparency is incorporated thoroughly and consistently with integrity, compensation is more likely to follow, under normal conditions. I feel Moss Kanter (2010) and Yukl (2013) are on the same page, however, Yukl (2013) goes into the complexities of determining where gender discrimination can come into play, and how difficult it is to get true research results showing such. In terms of conducting such research to determine where true gender discrimination lies, testing criteria must be absent of the possibility of bias and prejudice, leaving results based only on skills, capabilities, performance, and experience. The subtle nuances of differential behavior influenced by performance expectations would be difficult to filter out. I would recommend a broad and diverse testing ground to occur under normal conditions absent of any known testing.
I agree with both based on my own personal experiences with discussions of, and witness to, gender discrimination, as well as patterns of human behavior. Understanding where we came from as a society, organizational performance behavior, coupled with cognitive tendencies based on up-bringing, I feel Yukl (2013) and Moss Kanter (2013) bring much to the discussion table on true considerations of gender discrimination. The struggle now, outside of having these discussions for the purpose of organizational awareness, is alleviating gender bias and prejudices throughout the workplace. Perhaps a closer look at gender discrimination and inequality at home will assist in the analysis of such within the organization. Another point of consideration would be that of transgender perception as it relates to gender discrimination in the workplace.
References:
Moss Kanter, R. (2010, April 2). Women, ambition, and (still) the pay gap [Video file]. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhquUOlBuOY&feature=youtu.be&t=5s
Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment