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.

Google Online Preview   Download