Gender and Power in the Workplace

This paper is an analysis of contemporary issues associated with gender and power in the workplace; which will specifically include a discussion of gender relations, stereotyping, women's identity, the structuring of formal and informal power, sources of inequality, and sexual harassment.

The concept of gender in relation to the division of labour in the workplace, and in relation to issues of power and control is an unfortunate, groundless stereotype. Suzanne Tallichet notes that the gendered division of workplace labour is rooted in erroneous ideology of innate sex differences in traits and abilities, and operates through various control mechanisms. (Tallichet 1995: 698) These control mechanisms are primarily exercised by men over women and serve to exaggerate differences between the sexes, especially surrounding women's presumed incapability for doing male identified work.

Tallichet notes that most forms of workplace control take the form of harassment, sexual bribery, gender based jokes and comments, and profanity which passively but succinctly makes gender differences a salient aspect of work relations. (Tallichet 1995: 698-699) Jan Grant and Paige Porter (1994: 150) add the ideology of 'the gendered logic of accumulation" to the discussion of gender in the workplace, which notes that men in Western societies have traditionally acquired and maintained the bulk of wealth in society.

These traditional roles and consequently women's identities have been formed and maintained by the workplace, therefore understanding any gendered differences in labour requires an examination in this light. Grant and Porter remind the researcher that the concepts of male and female are not independent relationships of the workplace, but have been strongly influenced and determined by the relationships of male and female in society at large.

Unfortunately the gendered division of labour has maintained its origins in the home, while reproducing its structure in the workplace. This can be seen inside families through the sharp distinctions between paid work and non work, paid and unpaid productivity, and even the separation of the private and public spheres where women are perceived as attached to the private and men to the public domains. (Grant & Porter 1994: 153) This is an important issue because while home and work may be physically

separated for working men and women, home is often not a haven ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

separated for working men and women, home is often not a haven for women but rather just another place of work. The gendered division of labour then, is not limited to the paid work force, but continues to the realm of unpaid work at home.

Issues surrounding power inequalities in the workforce may be explained historically in terms of the arguments of socialist feminism. This ideology argues that since the control of material resources necessary for survival was largely outside the home historically, the location of women in the home became their source of dependence on men and their subordination to men. (Boyd 1997: 51) This argument appears to be more gender specific than other socialist theories such as Marxism, as it emphasizes that gender inequality reflects not only the type of economic system in place but also the power that men have within the household and the economy.

Monica Boyd (1997: 64) proposes that power inequality in the workplace between genders has been maintained through occupational segregation, because it is the occupations themselves which differ in the capacity that incumbents have to impose their will upon others. This assertion implies that in any workplace, there exists not only a technical division of labour, but also a gender based social division ensuring that there is an imbalance in power toward men. Boyd is able to back her claims by noting that

Canadian women are employed in positions with fewer decision making powers; women are more likely to supervise other women only; and although women have increased their presence in the workforce, this presence is mostly in the service industry only, and that this increase in presence has not converted into a presence of power. (Boyd 1997: 67) Grant and Porter (1994: 155) also support this view by stating that most female workers find themselves in female dominated industries, and corralled at the lower levels of power. These findings are particularly disturbing as they seem to be supported by anti matriarchal

ideology of women being subordinate to men, and that men are seldom, if ever subordinate to women.

Meika Loe (1996: 402) adds to the discussion of gender based power differences in the workplace by noting the presence of formal and informal power. Informal power acts a passive aggressive force employed through 'interactional techniques', often used by men to sustain dominance and maintain the inferior status of women. Loe notes that common methods of exercising informal power include derogatory terms of address, disciplinary actions, direct orders, threats, general avoidance of concerns, cynicism, and even humiliation. Formal power refers to the traditional concepts of the ability to legitimately exercise control over a subordinate worker. Loe also notes the interesting addition to her theory of power in the workplace by suggesting that informal power is capable of undermining the formal power structure in the workplace. Perhaps a strategy then for the exploited female subordinate class could be to develop an autonomous informal power structure to balance against the patriarchal dominance of their supervisors.

Another source of conflict between genders, is a very specific issue of power and control, namely the existence of sexual harassment in the workplace. This gendered behavior varies in its definition due to its subjective nature, however it can generally be described as unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, creating a hostile, intimidating or offensive work environment, or more simply unwelcomed verbal or physical conduct of a sexual or gender related nature. (Smith 1995: 85-87)

Kathleen Rospenda (1998: 41) notes that various models exist to explain sexual harassment such as the organizational model, the socio-cultural model, and the model of contrapower sexual harassment. The organizational model suggests that the structural aspects of organizations promote power inequalities between individuals and set the stage for sexual harassment; while sociocultural models reflect a feminist perspective, conceptualizing sexual harassment as an outcome of patriarchal systems that enable men

to exercise sexual power to assert and maintain male dominance. (Rospenda et al. 1998: 42)

The contrapower model appears to be somewhat of a unique combination of these prior models in that it focuses on the organizational positions of the individuals involved however it assumes that gendered sociocultural power is at the root of sexual harassment. This model argues that originating sexual harassment in the organization structure is erroneous, because this would requiring embracing the structure as gender neutral. To understand sexual harassment then, the researcher must consider the social and cultural facilitators of men's achievements to high level positions and likewise the barriers facing women; rather than blindly attributing the harassment to men because they occupy these high level positions. (Rospenda et al. 1998: 43)

In addition to gendered issues in the workplace surrounding the division of labour, power differentials, and sexual harassment, there also exists an ingrained structure of gendered inequalities. Perhaps the most common and widely accepted form of inequality in the workplace is the hiring and treatment of part-time workers. Boyd argues that part-time work is more than a strategy used by women; it also becomes a mechanism for continued gender inequality in that it leaves intact the organization of domestic labour, existing power structures and relations of male control and dominance. From a feminist

perspective, the concentration of women in part-time employment highlights concerns that the constraints of domestic labour are left intact, and that the marginalization of women and their subordination to men continues. (Boyd 1997: 55) Even the part-time work in it of itself is humbling due to its diminished access to wages, benefits and other economic resources and rewards.

Boyd also points out gendered inequalities in part-time work in that employers may have devised gender specific ways of attaining flexibility in their employees. For example, in establishments where full-time employees are primarily women, employers may use part-time work as a way of attaining flexibility. When men constitute the majority of the full-time employees, flexibility is more often attained by overtime work and temporary workers. (Boyd 1997: 56) So as can be seen from this analysis, the movement of women into the workplace has been accompanied by the continued feminization of domestic work, part-time work, and by sex typing occupations through power differentials and workplace harassment.

This paper examined contemporary issues associated with gender and power in the workplace; and discussed in detail the topics of gender relations, stereotyping, women's identity, the structuring of formal and informal power, sources of inequality, and sexual harassment.