1
Culture and Diversity at work 2019-2020
The impact of Hierarchical structures on the work behavior of women and men
(Kanter)
• Hierarchies shape (structural conditions) sex differences in the workplace of organizations
• Work-related topics are too often studied as if in a vacuum
• Each occupation is a complex system that consists of interacting parties
• A hierarchical system determines employees’ position, which will advance, which positions
will lead to other positions, in practice the mobility, developing chances and opportunities for
growth along a chain of positions
• Organizational systems define a network of power relations outside of the authority of formal
positions.
• Power network defines which people can be influential beyond the boundaries of their
positions
• Men and Women’s behavior in organizations is shaped by three factors
a) The opportunity structures
b) The power structures
c) The sex ratio
• Structural position can account for what might appear to be "sex differences" and explain
more of the variances of behavior of women and men
• It is important to understand how women and men get distributed across structural positions
and how this differential distribution affects behavior (not how women differ from men)
• differential distribution affects behavior, but not how women differ from men
→ Sex as a criterion/sorting mechanism for social placement, in other words which position
is considered suitable for an individual
• Women more often at the bottom of hierarchies.
• Women at the bottom (or alone) should be seen as a function of being at the bottom
and not as a function of being a woman.
Work orientations, aspirations, and location in an opportunity structure
• Women’s work orientation differs from men’s on average.
• It is said that the primary socialization of women for family roles and men for work roles
• It is said that women are more concerned about their relationships with other people than
the task or reward aspects of their jobs and women have lower levels of aspiration
Some of the upper statements might have little scientific evidence, but all of these can be
explained by the opportunity structure
When women occupy low-mobility positions and disadvantageous place, they exhibit this
behavior to show their “disadvantage”
, 2
When men occupy low-mobility positions, they tend to demonstrate same characteristics
What some might consider as sex differences, can be explained as a structural phenomenon
Consistent with findings that both sexes at upper levels of organizations tend routinely to be
more motivated, involved, and interested in their jobs than those at lower levels
Opportunity and Limited Aspirations
• Studies conclude that women have more limited aspirations, are concerned with local,
immediate relationships, remaining loyal to local work groups also as professionals, rather
than identifying with work field and aspiring promotions which could cause them leaving the
local environment
• In male studies scientists found correlation between professionalism and a "cosmopolitan"
rather than "local" orientation
• Exception: Study with female nurses
• In female group, the more professionally oriented nurses "did not differ from others in their
loyalty to the hospital”
• Possible reason for this observation could be that the professional opportunity structure of
nursing does not offer much mobility/development chances outside of organization and peer
relationships are an important component of the work performance
• A research survey about attitudes towards promotions (by Homall), men showed greater
motivation to be promoted than women and perceived greater overall desirability and
likelihood of the consequences of a promotion
- men also perceived themselves to be more competent in managerial skills than women
and to receive more encouragement from superiors to improve
- newer employees were more likely than older to show high motivation for
promotion
- better educated were more motivated for promotion than the poorly educated
➔ these findings indicate that not only sex (but also age, education, etc.) affect employee’s
motivation for promotion
➔ Also, neither men nor women reported perceiving many advances for themselves
• But structure of the company in which study was conducted is striking:
a) 2/3 of employed women from sample were secretaries
- Secretary hierarchy is a short one, which means little development opportunities and no
promotions (dead-end job)
- No surprise that motivation of women in such a job is limited
Short-end jobs is an Explanation for why women placed focus on security, love, responsibility
and happiness, not job advancement
• Men-sample worked contrastingly in international exports department in customer relations
function, with strong mobility prospects
→ women workers tend to have shorter chains of opportunity
• Erroneous employee placement in an opportunity structure (social structural effect)
, 3
• Vicious cycle: those that are disadvantageously placed have lower aspiration, develop little
attachment to work, seek their major satisfaction in the family realm and are less likely
perceived as promotable
• More advantageously placed employees are likely to maintain higher aspirations and to be
encouraged and promoted
• Social structural effect is misunderstood as sex-differences
• Evidence: Women from same company that were placed as sales personal in hierarchy that
leads directly to management positions were highly motivated to reach top management
position
• Also, men in poor structures respond to blocked mobility by limiting their aspirations, lowering
work commitment, and dreaming of escape
Concern with Peer Group Relationships
• Women are said to be more concerned than men with interpersonal relationships on the job,
more involved with other people than with intrinsic task nature
• For women, peer relationships were a motivational factor
• For men peer relationships are only “hygiene” factors (= do not motivate them to perform,
only factors that prevent dissatisfaction)
➔ Women and men differ in reasons for liking a job
• Women mentioned "coworkers are friendly" with greatest frequency; "the job is interesting"
came second, tied with "the immediate boss is kind“
• For men, the listing was reversed. "The job is interesting" most frequent mentioned, with
friendly coworkers tied for second place, and the kind boss coming in fifth
• Lirtzman and Wahba (1972) interpreted sex differences as due to situational characteristics
• In own experiments, they used highly competitive game with high uncertainty about
consequences of behavior and sex differences disappeared
• Women as well as men behaved competitively, aggressively, and exploitatively, to maximize
their winning chance
• Women are concerned with relationships in low-risk, low-uncertainty environments, where
opportunities will not be lost if one accommodates to others
→ Context shapes organizational behavior
→ Opportunity structure is important part of context because it defines how important is
good, accommodative relationships with peers, and whether minimizing peer relations in
favor of competition or distance has "pay-off" in mobility
• High-mobility situations foster rivalry, instability in the composition of work groups,
comparisons upward in the hierarchy, and concern with intrinsic aspects of the job
• Low-mobility situations, foster characteristic (typical for working women) like camaraderie,
stably composed groups, and more concern with extrinsic rewards, social and monetary
• Vertical vs horizontal orientations
• When people face favorable advancement opportunities, they compare themselves upward
in rank, already partly out of current group ("anticipatory socialization")
• Unfavorable advancement opportunities, lead to comparison with peers, and concern with
peer solidarity
, 4
• Work-value orientations and the importance of interpersonal relations, are a function of the
structure of opportunity facing people in different parts of the organization by virtue of the
category into which they fall
• Men as well as women turn to relationships with work peers as an alternative interest when
mobility opportunities are limited
• When mobility opportunities are limited men, like women, form strong peer groups that value
solidarity and loyalty within the group and are suspicion upon fellow workers who interact
with outside groups.
➔ A lack of ability to envision other rewards encourages people to seek more immediate
socio-emotional rewards in present situation
➔ That explains the importance of peer relationships in low-opportunity situations
• Experiment: Created hierarchies:
The mobile groups showed greater concern with task, suppressed irrelevant communications,
less critical of the upper groups, less attracted to own group than higher-power people.
The non-mobile group centered their attention on the members of own group, neglected the
high-power people, feel their social validity from own group rather the upper group and
criticized upper group.
- Tichy: Members of no-mobility (low chance of promotion) organizations tend not to be
interested in instrumental relationships, since they offer little possibility of changing the
individual's status; once a member is satisfactorily adapted to a clique, he is under no pressure
to look for other relationships (Creation of closed clique)
- Members of closed clique are under pressure to remain loyal, leaving the group for promotion
would be disloyal
- Women in low-mobility organizational situations develop attitudes said to be female
characteristic, but which should be labeled as human responses to blocked opportunities
- → Initial placement in an opportunity structure helps determine whether a person will
develop the aspirations and orientations that make further mobility possible
Leadership Attitudes, Behavior, and the Power Structure
• No evidence that proves sex differences in leadership style
• In an organizational simulation using college students, Bartol found that sex of the leader did
not by itself affect follower satisfaction
• Sex-role stereotypes seem to play only small role, in responding to style of a leader, and
leadership styles themselves do not show much differentiation by sex
• But there is considerable evidence for a general cultural attitude that men make better
leaders.
• Large number of studies have concluded that neither men nor women want to work for a
woman
• There is a stereotype of the "woman boss" as rigid, petty, controlling, and too prone to
interfere in personal affairs of subordinates
