Race, Gender, and Workplace Power - Tulane University
#1600-ASR 69:3 filename:69303-elliott
Race, Gender, and Workplace Power
James R. Elliott
Ryan A. Smith
Tulane University
The City University of New York
Survey data support hypotheses regarding differential access to workplace power among
women and minorities relative to white men. Specific findings indicate that, relative to
white men, all groups encounter increasing inequality at higher levels of power, but only
black women seem to experience this form of inequality as a result of direct
discrimination. Further analysis indicates that network assistance is more a response to
this form of discrimination than an indirect cause. Finally, analysis shows that most
groups attain power through homosocial reproduction, but what differs is the opportunity
to engage in such reproduction, wherein white men excel. These findings imply that while
women and minorities face lower odds than white men of achieving higher levels of
workplace power, the reasons for this disadvantage vary among respective groups and
thus will likely require different remedies.
taining to hiring have declined (Myerson 1997).
ower, defined as ¡°control over resources,
These patterns suggest that workplace power
people, and things¡± (Wolf and Fligstein
constitutes a central battleground in struggles for
1979), is an essential aspect of social stratifiequalizing opportunities in coming years¡ªa
cation (Bendix 1956; Braverman 1974;
Delivered
to : fueled by rising expectations of
possibility
Dahrendorf 1959). In this study we focus
on oneby Ingenta
Of Oregon
Library numbers of women and minoriunprecedented
dimension of power: authority andUniversity
control over
Sat, 30
Sep 2006ties
15:55:56
now employed in the formal economy.
others in the workplace. Weber ([1914]
1968)
Another reason for investigating racial and
conceptualized this dimension of power as a
gender inequalities in workplace power is that
form of ¡°legitimate authority¡± because it derives
despite the popularity of the ¡°glass ceiling¡±
from organizational positions that people occumetaphor, surprisingly little, direct research
py rather than from the people themselves. We
exists on related assumptions. For example,
concentrate specifically on how race, ethnicity,
numerous quantitative studies document ascripand gender affect the likelihood of attaining
tive inequalities in workplace power, but few
successively higher levels of such authority.
examine whether these inequalities increase at
This issue merits attention for several reasons.
higher levels of power, and none adequately
Despite significant progress in the socioecoaccount for factors that ethnographic research
nomic status of working women and minorities,
contends are important, namely, the ascriptive
data analyses at the city, state, national, and
contexts in which positions of power are embedcross-national levels continue to document race
ded and the networks that supposedly play key
and gender inequalities in workplace power (see
roles in the allocation of these positions to parSmith 2002 for a recent review). Moreover, fedticular individuals. Conversely, ethnographic
eral reports indicate that discrimination claims
research is insightful, but it only comes from a
pertaining to promotion have risen steadily in
few, select case studies (e.g., Kanter 1977).
recent years, while discrimination claims per-
P
Direct correspondence to James Elliott, Tulane
University, Sociology Department, 220 Newcomb
Hall, New Orleans, LA 70118 (jre@tulane.edu). The
authors thank Charlie Brody, Beth Rubin, Sanders
Korenman, Neil Bennett, and anonymous reviewers
for their helpful comments on prior drafts.
To view additional data and/or results that supplement this article, please see the ASR Web site
(.
html).
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2004, VOL. 69 (June:365¨C386 )
#1600-ASR 69:3 filename:69303-elliott
366 ¡ª¨CAMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
Consequently, it remains uncertain just how
group competition is likely to be greatest among
generalizable the claims from these studies are
incumbents of roughly equal credentials.
and the selection biases they might reflect.
Finally, prior quantitative studies on ascripBACKGROUND
tive inequalities in workplace power focus either
A popular explanation for ascriptive inequalion race or gender, but not both (for notable
ties in workplace power invokes the metaphor
exceptions, see McGuire and Reskin 1993;
of a glass ceiling, which was first popularized
Tomaskovic-Devey 1993). This conventional
in a 1986 Wall Street Journal article that
approach is problematic because it reinforces the
described barriers women often face as they
erroneous assumption that racial stratification
climb corporate ladders. In 1995, the United
and gender stratification are mutually excluStates Department of Labor issued an official
sive systems that we can somehow sum to
report on this subject, noting that during the
understand differences among non-white-men.
interim decade, observers had extended the term
By contrast, we view racial, ethnic, and gender
two ways: first, to include racial and ethnic
stratifications as having fundamentally similar
minorities in addition to women; and second, to
causes, and how these causes overlap to produce
refer to all management and decision-making
different outcomes for different groups remains
positions, not just to top-level positions at large
a decidedly empirical question. In taking this
cor porations (Federal Glass Ceiling
approach, it is important to move beyond excluCommission 1995:iii). A core idea invoked by
sively black-white comparisons to consider
the metaphor is that while employers might let
Latinos, not only because Latinos constitute
women and minorities into low positions of
the largest and fastest growing panethnic group
authority, they are much less likely to let them
in U.S. society, but also because recent research
into high positions that involve greater control.
indicates that employers of all ethnoracial backWhile we do not explicitly test for corporate
grounds tend to prefer Latinos over blacks when
glass
filling positions in their organizations (Moss
and
Delivered by Ingentaceilings
to : in this research, we do examine
whether
women and minorities have an increasTilly 2001; Wilson 1996).
University Of Oregon Library
ingly
difficult time, relative to white men,
In the present study we address these
shortSat, 30
Sep 2006
15:55:56
accessing jobs with greater organizational
comings in prior research through an examinapower. Recent research along these lines has
tion of authority attainment among white, black,
taken one of two general approaches. The more
and Latino men and women. Our objectives are
restrictive approach views this type of inequaltwofold: (1) assess the extent to which inequality in terms of an absolute barrier that blocks
ity in workplace power increases among women
women and minorities from higher positions
and minorities, relative to white men, at higher
of workplace power because they are women
levels of power; and (2) examine the mechaand minorities (Jacobs 1992; Morrison and
nisms of allocation responsible for this form of
Glinow 1990; Reskin and McBrier 2000; Reskin
inequality for each group. In pursuing these
and Ross 1992). Taken literally, this perspective
objectives, we focus specifically on power posiimplies an invisible barrier below which women
tions under the supervision of others. One reaand minorities attain a modest degree of workson for this focus is that workplace power is not
place power (e.g., supervisory authority) and
limited to the upper echelon of Fortune 500 corabove which they do not (e.g., managerial conporations; it is found in all places of employment.
trol). A less restrictive approach views increasWhile popular reporting on the glass ceiling
ing inequality as a form of disadvantage facing
often obscures and even trivializes the phenomwomen and minorities, relative to white men,
enon, it is critical to general understanding
which intensifies at higher levels of workplace
because even seemingly mundane jobs are not left
power.
to run themselves, as the lack of autonomy in
This second approach to conceptualizing
most low-skill positions attests. Instead, people
increasing inequality has two important impliare selected to fill positions of power throughout
cations for empirical assessment. First, inequalall levels of the workforce. And mid-level posiity is presumed to occur not in a single, absolute
tions not only constitute the most common form
step, but rather over several steps of increasing
of legitimate authority, but they also represent
positions wherein vertical and horizontal intermagnitude relative to white men. Second, and
#1471-ASR 69:2 filename:69303-elliott
RACE, GENDER AND WORKPLACE POWER ¡ª¨C 367
as such, a declining share of women and/or
differences in gender inequalities and find no
evidence in the United States that women¡¯s likeminorities in positions of higher power offers
lihood of advancement, relative to men, declines
necessary but insufficient evidence of increasat successively higher levels of power (see also
ing inequality. Instead, sufficient evidence
Yamagata et al. 1997). Their small sample sizes,
requires decreasing probabilities of advancehowever, prevent the authors from showing
ment, relative to white men, at higher levels of
increasing inequality for racial minorities at
power. To illustrate, Table 1 depicts nonsuphigher levels of power, particularly women of
portive and supportive evidence for increasing
color. On this subject, studies by Cotter et al.
inequality in a simple three-level hierarchy
(2001) and Morgan (1998) are instructive, albeit
(worker, supervisor, manager). In this table, the
indirect. Both studies use longitudinal data to
¡°white-black ratio¡± is the key statistic because
examine wage inequality in individual careers
it summarizes black men¡¯s probability of
but they reach different conclusions about the
advancement, relative to white men, at two sucpresence of increasing racial and gender disadcessive levels of power: first, from worker to
vantage, relative to white men, at later stages.
supervisor; and second, from supervisor to manFor example, Cotter et al.¡¯s analysis of data from
ager. In the panel labeled ¡°lack of support for
the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics reveals
increasing inequality,¡± the relative ratio of
increasing wage inequality for white and black
advancement for black men decreases from 2.5
women, relative to white men, but not for black
to 2.0 with movement up the hierarchy. By conmen. From this evidence, the authors conclude
trast, in the panel labeled ¡°support for increasthat increasing inequality in wages in individing inequality,¡± the relative ratio for black men
ual careers is more reflective of gender than
increases from 2.5 to 4.0. This difference in
racial stratification. Morgan (1998), by consupportive and nonsupportive evidence for
trast, uses a single-cohort longitudinal design
increasing inequality, relative to white men,
with data from the Survey of Natural and Social
occurs despite the fact that the share of black
Scientists and Engineers and a multi-cohort,
men decreases with movement up theDelivered
hierarchyby Ingenta to :
cross-sectional design with data from the 1992
University
Of Oregon Library
in both panels (see columns labeled
¡°% black
of Women and Men Engineers. From
Sat, 30 Sep 2006Survey
15:55:56
men¡±).
these analyses, Morgan concludes that increased
In the present research we focus on this oddspay gaps among men and women at later career
based criterion for assessing inequality and
stages are more reflective of cohort-replaceoperationalize this focus via the following
ment dynamics¡ªthat is, past inequalities workhypothesis:
ing themselves through the system¡ªthan
Hypothesis 1: Women and minorities¡¯ odds of
increasing gender inequality among men and
women as they progress in their careers.1
advancement decrease, relative to white
men, at higher levels of power.
In the most direct test of this hypothesis to date,
Baxter and Wright (2000) use a six-level index
of workplace power to examine cross-national
1
For criticism of Morgan¡¯s analysis and conclusions, see Alessio and Andrzejewski (2000), with
reply by Morgan (2000).
Table 1. Inequality among Men at Higher Levels of Workplace Power
Men in Power Level
Power Level
White (n)
Black (n)
Lack of Support for Increasing Inequality
¡ªManager
10
02
¡ªSupervisor
20
08
¡ªWorker
30
30
Support for Increasing Inequality
¡ªManager
20
02
¡ªSupervisor
20
08
¡ªWorker
30
30
Note: Data adapted from Baxter and Wright 2000.
Odds of Advancement to Next Level of Power
% Black
White
Black
White-Black Ratio
17
29
50
.¡ª
0.50
0.67
.¡ª
.25
.27
¡ª
2:1
2.5:1
09
29
50
.¡ª
1.00
0.67
.¡ª
.25
.27
¡ª
4:1
2.5:1
#1600-ASR 69:3 filename:69303-elliott
368 ¡ª¨CAMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
Another broad mechanism presumed to generate increasing inequalities in workplace power
involves a more indirect process, namely the
exclusion of women and minorities, relative to
white men, from networks that regulate access
to information, opportunities, and resources
needed to advance in the workplace. Research
on this subject generally shows that work-related networks help workers gain skills, acquire
legitimacy, and climb promotional ladders
(Bridges and Villemez 1986; Campbell and
Rosenfeld 1985; Podolny and Baron 1997) and
that these resources are important because most
employees¡¯ job training and career development come from informal instruction rather
than continuing education and explicit on-thejob training (United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics 1996).
Additionally, recent research by McGuire
(2002) indicates that exclusion of women and
MECHANISMS OF ALLOCATION. Observers comminorities can occur within job-related netmonly point to three broad mechanisms responworks, as well as outside such networks. In her
sible for increasing ascriptive inequalities at
study of over a thousand financial-services
higher levels of workplace power. One mechaemployees, McGuire found that even when
nism is direct discrimination, which can take two
black and white women held jobs in which they
distinct forms: ¡°taste discrimination¡± in the
had personal
Delivered by Ingenta
to : ties to the same types of higherform of old-fashioned racism and sexism
based
level
employees
University Of Oregon Library as white men, they received
on out-group prejudice and antipathy;Sat,
and30
¡°staSep 2006
15:55:56 less work-related help from these
significantly
tistical discrimination¡± in which employers use
ties than similarly situated white men. McGuire
race and sex as proxies for assessing potential
concludes that this discrepancy arises because
productivity in candidates when they lack other
network members are less likely to invest in
information about the candidates. For examwomen than (white) men as a result of cultural
ple, if women generally are less likely to put
beliefs that rank women below men. The impliwork demands above family demands, then
cation is that workers, not just employers, use
employers might use this easy-to-observe trait
race and gender to rank network members, and
(sex) to screen and evaluate managerial candithis ranking influences the type and amount of
dates in favor of men, regardless of the (unobassistance available to members of different
served) work commitment of individual male
groups. Although McGuire focused primarily on
and female candidates under review.
network assistance within organizations, such
Researchers typically identify these forms of
assistance can also be useful in gaining positions
discrimination using a residual (or ¡°net gap¡±)
of power across organizations, by providing
strategy in which disadvantage, relative to
informal training and contacts necessary to
(white) men, is evaluated after statistically conopen doors to other employers. On the basis of
trolling for job-relevant factors, such as educathis rich body of research, we advance the foltion, experience, and employment context (e.g.,
lowing general hypothesis:
Wright, Baxter, and Birkelund 1995). If relative
Hypothesis 2: Women and minorities¡¯ odds of
disadvantage for the minority and/or female
network assistance decrease, relative to
group in question increases with movement up
white men, at higher levels of power.
the power hierarchy, increasing disadvantage is
presumed to exist and to be the result of direct
A corollary to this hypothesis is that women and
discrimination, although the precise form
minorities often rely more on education and
(¡°taste¡± or ¡°statistical¡±) is difficult to differenexperience, relative to white men, to ¡°break
into¡± higher levels of power, often having to
tiate.
Together, these two studies provide key
insights into race, gender, and employment
inequalities in the United States, but they also
leave us unclear about what to expect in analyses of workplace power. Some of this uncertainty stems from their mixed results, and some
of it stems from the fact that they analyze wages,
not workplace power. The last point is important because racial and gender differences in
workplace power are an important source of
wage inequality (Halaby 1979; Kluegel 1979;
Robinson and Kelley 1979; Smith 1997). Thus,
to clarify this issue, it is important not only to
examine these differences in workplace power
directly, relative to white men, but also to examine the mechanisms of allocation commonly
presumed responsible for these differences at
higher levels of legitimate authority.
#1471-ASR 69:2 filename:69303-elliott
RACE, GENDER AND WORKPLACE POWER ¡ª¨C 369
selected to advance up the power hierarchy. One
¡°out-credential¡± white-male counterparts to
way that higher-level managers try to maximize
compensate for their relative lack of network
these traits and impose greater predictability on
assistance. Researchers sometimes characterize
an otherwise uncertain environment is to mainthese distinct modes of advancement as ¡°spontain relative social homogeneity among indisored¡± and ¡°contest¡± mobility regimes, respecviduals they select to f ill positions of
tively¡ªthe first pertaining to network utilization
organizational power beneath them. The underamong white men, the second to skills-based
lying idea is that communication, discretion,
competition among women and minorities (e.g.,
and trust are facilitated by social similarity.
Mueller, Parcel, and Tanaka 1989). While the
Higher-level managers prefer this type of rela¡°contest¡± regime might seem fair in its emphationship over the strain of dealing with people
sis on objective, skills-based traits, it can lead
who are different when higher degrees of legitto relative disadvantage for women and minoriimate authority are at stake.2
ties for a couple reasons.
Kanter refers to this process generally as
First, given practical limits to educational
¡°homosocial reproduction¡± because it tends to
attainment and experience, it becomes increasreproduce the social characteristics of organiingly difficult to ¡°out-credential¡± other workers
zational power structures over successive genwith movement up workplace power hierarerations of workers¡ªan idea that traces back to
chies, leaving network assistance still a key facWilbert Moore¡¯s concept of ¡°bureaucratic kintor in determining who will advance and who
ship systems¡± (Moore 1962). Because white
will not. Second, as women and minorities move
men have historically held the reins of power in
up organizational chains of command, their outU.S. workplaces, they benefit most from these
group, or ¡°other,¡± status often becomes more
universal tendencies for in-group favoritism as
evident, leaving them more susceptible to inforthey move up organizational hierarchies, creatmal processes of exclusion and assessment as
ing increasing inequality for out-group memsymbols of an ¡°other¡± category rather than as
bers. We examine this mechanism of allocation
individuals. We examine this corollary
set
of
Delivered by Ingenta to :
via the
following hypothesis:
assumptions via the following hypothesis:
University Of Oregon
Library
Sat,
30
Sep
2006
15:55:56
Hypothesis
4: White men¡¯s odds of having selfHypothesis 3: Women and minorities¡¯ reliance
similar
superiors increase, relative to
on education and experience intensifies,
women
and
minorities, at higher levels of
relative to white men, at higher levels of
power.
power.
This hypothesis assumes that in most organiSupport for this hypothesis would mean that
zational contexts, homosocial reproduction
regression coefficients for education and expeoperates in a vertical fashion, with superiors
rience in equations predicting workplace power
selecting individuals like themselves to fill
would be statistically significant and increaspower positions below them rather than in a
ingly large for women and minorities, relative
horizontal fashion, with superiors selecting indito white men, with upward movement in workviduals like themselves to fill power positions
place power.
alongside them. To illustrate, consider a simple
A third mechanism presumed to generate
increasing inequality in workplace power is
ascriptive dissimilarity with superiors who over2 This argument is consistent with recent research
see higher positions of power. In perhaps the best
in ¡°organizational demography¡± and ¡°new economknown discussion of these dynamics, Kanter
ic sociology¡± that claims the following: (1) people
(1977) contends that with movement up orgatend to make sense of their social worlds by categonizational hierarchies, power positions become
rizing others into in-groups and out-groups; and
characterized by increasing uncertainty, inter(2) this normal information processing occurs largedependence, and necessity for rapid, accurate
ly outside conscious control, biasing treatment of
communication about murky matters, such as
others because of race, gender, and other discernible
relations between organizational means and
traits of group membership (see Pfeffer 1983; Reskin
ends and criteria for performance evaluation.
2002). See Tsui and O¡¯Reilly (1989) for specifics on
These job characteristics, in turn, place a preimportance of ascriptive similarity for performance
mium on discretion and trust among workers
evaluation in superior-subordinate dyads.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- black white wage inequality in the 1990s a decade of progress
- exploring racial economic equity in workforce development
- addressing racial injustice and inequality
- racial inequality in new york city robert f wagner
- race equality in the workplace for publication
- not only unequal paychecks
- race gender and authority in the workplace theory and
- occupational segregation stanford university
- racial discrimination in the world of work
- race gender and workplace power tulane university
Related searches
- mental health and workplace issues
- gender and society in sociology
- gender and age sociology
- gender and family socialization
- race ethnicity gender and class
- race ethnicity and gender
- gender stereotypes and workplace bias
- define race ethnicity and gender
- leadership and workplace culture
- race ethnicity and language
- race ethnicity and language data
- difference between race ethnicity and culture