Race, Gender, and Authority in the Workplace: Theory and ...

Race, Gender, and Authority in the Workplace: Theory and Research

Author(s): Ryan A. Smith

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 28 (2002), pp. 509-542

Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL:

Accessed: 11/01/2009 18:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of

Sociology.



Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002. 28:509-42

doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141048

Copyright ?) 2002 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved

RACE, GENDER, AND AUTHORITY IN THE

WORKPLACE:Theory and Research

RyanA. Smith*

RutgersUniversity,School of Managementand LaborRelations,50 Labor CenterWay,

New Brunswick,New Jersey 08901; e-mail: rasassocOl@

Key Words

job authority, authorityattainment,race inequality, gender inequality

U Abstract This chaptersurveys sociological approachesto the study of job authority, including theoretical foundations, measurement,and emergence as an importantdimension of social inequality. The focus here is mainly on studies of race and gender

differences in the determinants of authority and the consequences of race and gender

differences in authority for income. Despite significant advancements in the overall

socioeconomic status of minorities and working women, race and gender remain important impediments to their attainmentof authority.This pattern,which is consistent and

robust in state-level, national, cross-national, and cross-temporal studies, is sustained

net of an incumbent's human capital investments and structurallocation within and between several economic units. Following a review of the predominantexplanations for

gender and racial disparities in job authorityis the conclusion that the most promising

explanations for persistent racial and gender disparities in authorityconcern the racial

and gender demography of the workplace and the tendency on the part of authority

elites to reproduce themselves through both exclusionary and inclusionary processes.

Suggestions for future research include additional delineation of these processes based

on samples of multiple racial/ethnic groups of men and women and studies that synthesize quantitative and qualitative approaches to understanding the effects of employer

and employee attitudes/preferencesand practices on the authorityattainmentprocess.

INTRODUCTION

The conceptualizationof job authorityas animportantdimensionof social inequality may be tracedto the earlytheoreticaltreatisesof MaxWeberandKarlMarx.The

most directuse of authorityin quantitativeassessmentsof workinequalityis rooted

in Dahrendorf's (1959) critique and extension of Marx's theory of class relations

and class conflict. Three consecutive, and sometimes overlapping, developments in

the sociological study of job authority may be discerned. First, building on the work

of Karl Marx and Max Weber, researchers embarked upon theory development,

operationalization, and the measurement of job authority for use in quantitative

*Currentaddress:P.O. Box 357, Maplewood,NJ 07040.

0360-0572/02/0811-0509$14.00

509

510

SMITH

studiesof class analysisandstatusattainment.1Next, the MarxandWeberlineages

splinteredthe subsequentconceptualizationandmeasurementof authorityinto two

differentbutnot necessarilymutuallyexclusive arguments.One is the neo-Marxian

argumentthatjob authorityis a categoricaldiscretephenomenonthatlends itself

to the largerstudyof class analysis(Wright& Perrone1977, Lopreato1967, 1968,

Wright 1993). The other argumentinvolves the view thatjob authorityis gradational or scalar,lending itself to the analysis of statusgroups-which is more in

line with the Weberiantradition(Blau 1977, Halaby & Weakliem 1993, Halaby

1993). As a corollaryto this debate, some researcherschallenged Dahrendorf's

originaldichotomousformulationof authority,arguingthatjob authoritycan also

be conceptualizedas a polytomousvariable-that is, a variablewith threeor more

hierarchicallevels (Robinson 1979, Robinson & Kelley 1979).

Finally,embeddedin the debatesurroundingthe relativeinfluenceof demandside versus supply-side explanations of group inequality,the role of race and

genderversusachievement-orientedcriteriain explainingauthorityoutcomes,has

dominatedauthorityresearchin recentyears. Overall,this researchechoes earlier

claims that authorityis a unique and importantindicatorof workplacestratification comparableto, sometimesmore helpful than,or otherwisecomplementaryof

traditionalindicatorsof socioeconomic statusin explainingboth genderandracial

inequalityat work.

This chapterreviews the sociological literatureon race, gender,andjob authority. The theoreticalfoundationsof job authorityand its emergenceas an important

indicatorof socioeconomic statusare discussed. Next, this chapterexamineshow

job authorityhas been operationalizedandmeasuredfor use in quantitativeassessments of workplaceinequality.It then reviews severalprominentexplanationsfor

race and genderdifferencesin authority,followed by a summaryof the dominant

literaturethatdescribesthe causes and financialcosts of racial and genderexclusion fromjob authority.The most promisingexplanationsfor persistentracialand

genderdisparitiesin authorityoutcomes concernthe racial and genderdemography of the workplaceand the tendencyon the partof authorityelites to reproduce

themselvesthroughboth exclusionaryand inclusionaryprocesses. Thereis a definite need for more studiesto furtherexplorethese phenomenavia quantitativeand

qualitativestrategiesdesigned to yield detailedinformationon decisions made on

the supply-sideand demand-sideof the authorityrelationship.

JOB AUTHORITY AND ITS MULTIPLEDIMENSIONS

The Importance of Job Authority

Accordingto Max Weber,authoritymay be definedas the "probabilitythata commandwith a given specific contentwill be obeyed by a given groupof persons...

1A detailedreview of the class and statusattainmenttraditionsis beyond the scope of this

chapter.See Kurz & Muller (1987) for the formerand Matras(1980) and Brieger (1995)

for the latter.

AUTHORITY

RACE,GENDER,ANDWORKPLACE

511

The importantdifference between power and authorityconsists in the fact that

whereaspower is essentially tied to the personalityof individuals,authorityis always associatedwith social positions or roles... authorityis a legitimaterelation

of dominationand subjection.In this sense, authoritycan be describedas legitimatepower"(quotedin Dahrendorf1959, p. 166). In the last 20 years,the studyof

the relativedistributionof legitimatepower (job authority)within the context of

the workplacehas emergedas an importantareaof sociological investigation.Job

authorityis psychologicallyrewarding;it bringsstatusboth inside and outsidethe

workplace;it is related to job satisfaction,autonomy,class consciousness, class

position, voting behavior,partyidentification,and political views (Kluegel 1978,

Halaby 1979, Robinson & Kelley 1979, Wright 1979, Roos 1981, Spaeth 1985,

Mueller & Parcel 1986, Jaffee 1989, Reskin & Ross 1992, Adler 1993, Reskin &

Padavic 1994, Wilson 1997b, Smith 1999). In the sociological literature,however,

job authorityis perhapsmost associated with income. As noted by Wrightet al.

(1995, p. 407), "job authorityis one of the central ways in which the financial

rewardsof work are allocated."Elsewhere,Halaby& Weakliem(1993, p. 17) declaredthe studyof job authorityto be sociology's chief contributionto the studyof

earningsinequality.In short,job authorityis a highly coveted workplaceresource.

As such, it comes as no surpriseto learnthatit is unequallydistributedby race and

gender in Americansociety and cross-nationally.Explainingwhy this is the case

is one of the main objectivesof this chapter.

Select Typesand Dimensions of JobAuthority

Job authorityhas been conceptualizedand subsequentlymeasuredin a variety

of ways. Two majorclassificationsof authorityhave dominatedsociological literature:control over organizationalresourcesand control over humanresources.

Withinthese two possibilities, severaltypes of organizationalauthorityhave been

identified. Ownershipin the form of control over the means of production,also

known as control over the labor power of others (Wrightet al. 1982), is perhaps

the ultimate form of authority,but researchershave traditionallyconceptualized

ownership as something separate from authority---especiallyin postindustrial

societies (Dahrendorf1959). Sanctioning authority or span of responsibilityincludes the ability to influence the pay or promotionsof others (Mueller et al.

1989, Wrightet al. 1995). Span of control-denotes the numberof people under

directsupervision(Muelleret al. 1989). Decision-makingor managerialauthority

relatesto organizationalpolicy decisions, controlover products,services, budgets,

or purchases(Rosenfeld et al. 1998). Also, hierarchicalauthorityposition refers

to an individual'sformallocationwithinthe structureof organizationalhierarchies

(Kluegel 1978, Wrightet al. 1982, Speath 1985, Wrightet al. 1995). Finally,measuresof supervisoryauthorityestablishwhetheran individual"supervisesanyone

on the job," a query,however,thatfails to distinguishnominal supervisorystatus

(relaying informationfrom superiorsto subordinates)from the exercise of real

authority(Wrightet al. 1982, p. 714). Thus, there are multiple types and various

dimensions of authority.Because of this, researchershave approachedthe study

512

SMTH

of race andgenderdisparitiesin authorityfrommanydifferentangles-a fact that,

as discussedbelow, paintsa multidimensionaland often ambiguouspictureof the

extent of racial and gendergaps in authority.

THEORYAND MEASUREMENT

OF AUTHORITY

In his provocativebook, Class and Class Conflictin IndustrialSociety(1959), Ralf

Dahrendorfdeveloped a theorydetailingthe importanceof authority,specifically

job authority,in postindustrialorganizations.He arguedthat differentialsin job

authoritywere critical in understandingthe dynamicsof class relationsand class

conflict in modem society. Even though it is beyond the scope of this chapterto

discuss the debate surroundingthe source of class conflict, it is importantto pinpoint Dahrendorf'schief departurefrom Marx. For Dahrendorf,class formation

and class conflict ensue not from opposing intereststhatexist in the relationsbetween those who own the means andproductionversusthose who do not, as Marx

would contend. Instead, importantsocietal changes flowing from the onset and

developmentof industrializationhave led to the separationof those who own the

meansof productionfromthose who exercisecontroloverthe meansof production

in the form of legitimateauthorityover both organizationalresourcesand human

resources (Lopreato 1967, 1968, Hazelrigg 1972, Fox et al. 1977, Robinson &

Kelley 1979, Vanneman& Cannon1987). Dahrendorfposits authorityas the basic

determinantof class divisionin postindustrialsociety wherebyconflictensues over

the mannerin which authorityis unequallydistributedin society (Lopreato1967,

p. 281). Since conflict necessitates two opposing groups, Dahrendorfconceptualized authorityin strict dichotomous terms (i.e., those who exercise authority

versusthose who are subjectto it). Because this constructionhas importantimplications for the mannerin which authorityis measuredin quantitativeanalyses of

job inequality,it has met with widespreaddebate. Some have arguedthat a more

accuratedepictionof the postindustrialworkplacewould lead to an expandedconceptualizationof authoritybased on various hierarchicaland multidimensional

configurations(Lopreato1967, 1968, Robinson 1979, Robinson & Kelley 1979).

A brief review of this literaturefollows.

Dichotomous VersusPolytomous Authority

Presaging a later debate in authorityresearch on whether authorityshould be

conceptualized and measured as a class or status variable (Wright & Perrone

1977, Halaby & Weakliem 1993), Van den Berghe (1963) deridedDahrendorf's

tendency to view class conflict in solely dichotomous terms. According to Van

den Berghe, "Reducingevery conflict situationto a dualist opposition involves

strainingthe facts. Dahrendorfexperiencesthe same difficultyas Marxin handling

'intermediategroups"'(p. 701).

The debate over whetherjob authorityis better conceived as a dichotomous

variable (having authority or not) or polytomous variable (no, low, and high

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download