Overcoming Challenges to Gender Equality in the Workplace

Leadership and Innovation

Patricia M. Flynn, Kathryn Haynes, Maureen A. Kilgour

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351285308
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Many businesses and organizations are increasingly aware of the case for promoting gender equality, both within and outside their organizational boundaries. Evidence suggests that gender equality in the workplace boosts performance, and legal frameworks in many countries mandate specific action on gender inequality in the workplace. However, despite organizational policies on promoting equality and equal opportunities, there remain challenges to be overcome in many businesses, including throughout their supply chains.

The book provides research rationales as to why responsible organizations must address the issue of gender equality in the workplace. It also presents case studies, action research and examples of good practices, describing how businesses and organizations are working to promote gender equality in various contexts.

The book is designed to support the rationale for gender equality in business and organizations, providing evidence of implementation of gender equality in the workplace and advice on how to deal with and overcome challenges. It will be of interest to academics, employees, practitioners, policy-makers, businesses, institutions and organizations.

Part I
Case studies of companies that have overcome challenges to gender equality in the workplace

1
Disrupting gendered dichotomies

Gender equality in a high-tech Belgian company

Hannelore Roos and Patrizia Zanoni

UHasselt, Belgium

This chapter aims to draw together theoretical lessons on how to effectively foster gender equality at work. Based on the qualitative case study of a Belgian high-tech company employing a considerable number of women throughout the organizational hierarchy, we identify a constellation of policies, practices and narratives which dilute three classical hierarchized gendered dichotomies at work: (1) male/female identities, (2) individualism/collectivism, and (3) private/public (Ely and Meyerson, 2000). Our analysis suggests that gender equality along these dichotomies is respectively fostered by narratives and practices of: (1) masculine and feminine competences as distinct, equally valuable and acquirable by all, (2) innovative work as a collective achievement, and (3) far-reaching work flexibility. Despite the absence of a formalized gender policy, the emergence of masculine, heroic professional identities is discouraged, creating more equal professional opportunities for women and men, resulting in gender equality.

The persistent, albeit uneven (Cain and Leahey, 2014), exclusion of women in male-dominated, knowledge-intensive industries and occupations, including engineering, IT and science, has been documented by a vast body of literature (Charles and Grusky, 2004; Goodall, 2010; Kirkup et al., 2010; Walby, 2011b; Van Hove et al., 2011; Busch and Holst, 2011; Ellingsæter, 2013). Women remain heavily under-represented in these industries, as they are less likely than men to enter them and more likely to exit early (Beninger, 2014; Hewlett et al., 2008). Moreover, women that are employed in high-tech companies report having negative professional experiences, and feeling like “outsiders” (Peterson, 2007) and tend to be concentrated in the lower echelons, performing generic, labour-intensive jobs (Huffman et al., 2010).

A variety of mechanisms have been identified to explain gender inequality in male-dominated work environments. Research has shown how apparently neutral and meritocratic human resource (HR) practices, ranging from selection to evaluations, are predicated on dominant notions of gender which devalue women and the skills associated with them, negatively affecting their careers (Rees and Garnsey, 2003; Martin, 1996). Similarly, other studies have unveiled how the notion of an ideal worker both reflects and reproduces hegemonic masculinities in terms of authority, careerism, competitiveness, individualism and technology skills (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005). These male norms permeate organizations, making it particularly hard for women to be considered valuable employees in the work-place (Bastalich et al., 2007). Women’s exclusion is thus conceptualized as the effect of a hidden “gender subtext” (Smith, 1988, 1990; Acker, 1998), a set of concealed power based processes (re)producing gender distinctions to the disadvantage of women in organizations (Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998).

Uncovering and changing institutions reproducing gender inequality remain major topics of concern for gender scholars and practitioners alike (Ainsworth et al., 2010; Benschop and Verloo, 2011). The literature on gender equality traditionally distinguishes three distinct models for the advancement of women: (1) special programmes “fixing” women by offering them the skills they lack to perform at par with men; (2) programmes which stress women’s difference from men yet “value the feminine”; and (3) programmes fostering equal opportunities by reducing gender bias in structures and processes and through compensatory measures for women (Rees, 1998, 2005; Walby, 2011a; Ely and Meyerson, 2000; Meyerson and Kolb, 2000). Each of these approaches has been distinctively critiqued for its ineffectiveness in inducing profound, structural organizational change necessary to achieve gender equality (Ely and Meyerson, 2000; Ainsworth et al., 2010). Specifically, it has been argued that they leave the latent gender subtext of organizations intact (Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998; Janssens and Zanoni, 2014; Zanoni et al., 2010) and that, during the implementation of gender change strategies, underlying mechanisms such as social cognitions, ideas on social justice, experiences of threat or the lack of demonstrated utility or direct benefits of gender equality tend to be insufficiently addressed (Kottke and Agars, 2005).

In this chapter, we identify social practices fostering gender equality by drawing on a case study of a high-tech company that has achieved significant progress towards gender equality throughout the organizational hierarchy. Founded in the late 1980s by a married couple, an engineer and a translator by training, SensorInc (pseudonym) is a Belgian multinational company listed on the Euronext Brussels stock exchange. With premises in Belgium, Germany, France, Swiss, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Japan, China, Hong Kong, the Philippines and the USA, the company is a world player in automotive sensors employing 889 workers in total, 33% of whom are women. Although only 10% of the 273 engineers are female, 29% of the 194 staff members in leadership positions are women (e.g. management roles, as team leader or chief). In the Belgian headquarters, 38% of the 161 employees and 45% of the 58 managers are women.

Since its public listing in 1997, SensorInc’s board of directors has been composed of three women and three men. This gender balance is exceptional in the Belgian context, where female directors were a rarity before the introduction of a legal quota in 2011 (11% on the Bel20 index; European Commission, 2015) and where the proportion of female executives lies below the European average (Straub, 2007). SensorInc’s alternative approach is grounded in the business case for diversity, publicly communicating that “a diverse and inclusive staff inspires creativity and innovation, enabling the SensorInc vision” (Press release, March 7, 2012). The company has a strong business orientation as expressed in its mission statement which stresses values such as customer orientation, leadership and profitability as well as interpersonal values of enjoyment, a sustainable work–life balance, respect for diversity, mutual trust and equality of opportunities. As a team-based organization it is characterized by a flat organizational structure to enhance knowledge-intensive project work, communication and collaboration.

The main data sources are 36 semi-structured interviews conducted in the Belgian headquarters with the CEO, all the members of the board and 30 employees, including eight men and eight women in management positions (e.g. team lead, financial planning and analysis manger, site and HR manager, portfolio manager, or global supply chain manager). Access to respondents was facilitated by the CEO, who introduced us to the board members and the HR department. The latter compiled a gender-balanced list of employees across various departments, from which we could randomly select respondents. In approaching potential interviewees, we informed them about the goal of the study and granted full anonymity and confidentiality. The interviews probed into the professional background of the respondents, the organizational culture and working environment, their social networks and human resource practices. All interviews took place at the premises of the company during office hours, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. To complement the interview data, we collected relevant internal documents and publicly available year reports and media articles on the company.

SensorInc’s social practices disrupting the gender subtext

To interpret the policies, practices and narratives we observed, we draw on a fourth, alternative approach to gender advanced by Ely and Meyerson (2000). This approach rests on an understanding of gender as “a complex set of social relations enacted across a range of social practices that exist both within and outside of formal organizations” and “through which the categories male and female, masculine and feminine, derive meaning and shape experience” (Ely and Meyerson, 2000, pp. 113-114). Despite their gender-neutral appearance, institutionalized social practices in organizations—including formal policies and procedures; informal work practices, norms, and patterns of work; language, and other symbolic expressions; and informal patterns of everyday social interaction (Acker, 1990)—tend to reflect and support men’s experiences and male norms (Martin, 1996), reproducing a gendered social order in which men and particular forms of masculinity predominate.

Ely and Meyerson (2000) hold that such social order rests on three foundational, pervasive dichotomies between masculinity/femininity, individual/collective and public/private, which operate as key mechanisms for the unequal allocation of resources, information, and opportunities between men and women in organizations. Hereunder, we outline these dichotomies and discuss how SensorInc disrupts them, respectively, through a strong narrative and practices of masculine and feminine competences as distinct, equally valuable and acquirable by all, innovative work as a collective achievement, and far-reaching work flexibility. Although these social practices are not part of a formal, designated gender policy but rather aim to enhance performance and innovation in a high-tech workplace, they foster gender equality.

Disrupting the male–female dichotomy through the equal valuing of competences

A first gendered dichotomy refers to the understanding of male and female identities as mutually exclusive, hierarchically ordered categories rooted in individuals’ biological sex (West and Zimmerman, 1987). To the extent that female identity and roles are devalued by organizations, women who behave according to stereotypical female roles will be professionally disadvantaged. SensorInc disrupted this opposition through HR practices ranging from recruitment to evaluation, training and promotion. The company clearly distinguished between “female business skills” and “male technical skills”, yet simultaneously also revalued the former as essential to the company’s growth and success and expected individuals to invest in acquiring novel skills complementing their own (gendered) ones through training.

Many respondents, both male and female, upheld common stereotypical ideas about male and female competences. Women were seen to be more caring and social, and good at multitasking, organizing and taking the broader context into account to find compromises. Men were seen as more result-oriented and technical, but also as more conflict-driven and narrow-minded:

Men are more involved in technical occupations, while women are specialized in soft skills, the administration and organization. They are also good in management. We, men, are more focused on the technical and are good in technical problem-solving (man, Senior System Administrator).

These gender representations were supported by the occupational segregation of men and women in the company, reflecting the low share of women in high-tech higher educational tracks. Female-dominated departments were human resources, operations, global sales and marketing communication, while male-dominated ones were the SensorInc business units, global development and finance.

At the same time, respondents commonly stressed that these different sets of skills are both essential to the company:

A company has not only a technical side, but forms a human entity that needs to be managed and guided. So you need both types of competences otherwise you will not achieve business results. Initially, a company can drive on its technical core competences, but it will not be able to grow. The more we expand, the more we experience the need for other, complementary competences to make a company successful (man, Facilities Manager).

The idea of the difference and complementarity between men and women was also clearly central in the company’s hiring practice, which systematically aimed at gender balance in personnel throughout departments:

Yes, we look at gender when we recruit. When we notice that certain departments are becoming homogenous, we try to look for candidates of the opposite sex. When two candidates of opposite sexes show the same level of competences and commitment, we take gender into consideration in the final decision to create a better gender balance in our departments. In our HR department for example we would opt for a male candidate, while we would give preference to a female engineer to obtain a healthy mix. Merit remains the foremost quality but when you have equal profiles… You create a different atmosphere, a different dynamic, which is interesting (man, Consolidation Coordinator).

While these narratives undoubtedly reproduced stereotypical understandings of women and men rather than challenging them, different from the classical feminine/masculine identity dichotomy, gender differences were presented as equally valuable and gender heterogeneity in equality as an organizational asset.

Moreover, the essentialistic understanding of men and women was tempered by a strong personnel development policy which expected that employees continuously learned new skills, expanding their own abilities through training and coaching:

Different competences are stimulated, that depends on the role of each employee. Everybody has a position profile which entails the technical competences of the job but also the business culture that should be mastered. The company supports the employees on those two levels to be able to integrate both the technical competences and the business skills. We do that in different ways, by sending people to conferences, workshops and seminars, by letting people read certain books and offer them trainings, customized to each individual (man, Facilities Manager).

Importantly, this policy softened gender stereotypes by casting “male” and “female” skills as “learnable” by anyone and normalizing the expectation that individuals put in efforts to do so. To further integrate complementary knowledge and skills, the company organized courses and created formal and informal spaces and opportunities for cross-departmental exchange. Also, personnel development was supported by the use of 360 degree appraisals enabling individual...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• The Women’s Empowerment Principles
• The Six Principles of PRME
• Introduction: Reducing gender inequality in the workplace through leadership and innovation
• Part I: Case studies of companies that have overcome challenges to gender equality in the workplace
• Part II: First-hand accounts of leaders and pioneers tackling gender inequality at work
• Part III: Factors beyond the workplace that can foster greater gender equality at work
• Part IV: Long-standing traditions being challenged to promote gender equality in the workplace
• Conclusions
• About the editors