Male Qualities and Female Success in Business - Essay Example

Masculine Qualities and the Success of Women in Organizations Introduction Within the corporate sector, it is arguable that gender inequality is the main reason why women hardly progress past the low and middle occupational levels. In essence, women are hardly present at top occupational levels; levels which are traditionally dominated by male employees. Since the feminism period of the 1950s and the 1960s, multiple legislations and policies have been enacted in the United Kingdom to enable women progress into top corporate levels (Brick 2012, p. 15). Unfortunately, such legislations and policies have proved futile in the fight against gender inequality within the corporate world. Women are always absent from top management levels simply because masculine transactional cultures act as obstacles to professional progress of the feminine gender. Apparently, masculine attitudes, cultural inclinations and organizational biases exclude women from occupying top professional levels (Francine 2010, p. 67). Basically, top professional within an organization like managing directors are traditionally expected to demonstrate traits such as decisiveness, aggressiveness, toughness, and intelligence. These traits are primarily associated with masculinity and not femininity; hence women are stereotypically viewed as being unable to act in ideal leadership manners (Gibling 2006, p. 03). In this regard, there is a popular view that women ought to demonstrate masculine attributes in order to proceed to top professional levels in organizations. Women and Masculine Qualities in Organizations Admittedly, traditional approaches like legislations and labor policies used to achieve gender equality in organizations have been instrumental in advancing the position of women within the corporate world. Unfortunately, these traditional approaches have fallen short of uplifting women past middle level management levels. Futility of legislations and labor policies in advancing women in the corporate world can be attributed to the organizational concept of glass ceiling (Gibling 2006, p. 04). In practical contexts, lack of female representation in boardrooms is an example of a glass ceiling that makes it hard for members of an organization to entertain the thoughts of working under female bosses. Also, family commitments and related reproductive issues act as barriers to advancement of women in workplaces. For example, women with the right academic and professional qualifications are eligible as candidates for top positions, but their ambitions and visions are cut short whenever they are forced to take maternity leaves and other family related commitments (Acker 1990, p. 56). In this regard, the different treatment of women based on their biological nature has promoted male chauvinism in most organizations, thus making it hard to break the glass ceilings that act as obstacles. Professionally, the importance of role models cannot be overemphasized. Women can only progress to top professional levels if they are witnesses to examples of successful women occupying such top levels. Most women desiring to progress in organizational hierarchies are discouraged by the fact that there are no women who have successfully gone down such top level roads in the past. In essence, female mentors and role models could not only inspire their young protégés, but also encourage, support and advice them on how to overcome common gender-related barriers in male dominated fields. Unfortunately, relevant empirical studies indicate that in organizations across the world, women comprise less than 15% of middle professional levels, and comprise less than 8% of top professional levels (Eccles 2006, p. 587). In this regard, members of the feminine gender are a minority in medium and high professional levels. Therefore, lack of role models features as an influential challenge faced by women globally. Technically, the lack of women in top professional positions creates identifiable impacts in organizations. Prior to examining specific impacts of gender inequality in workplaces, it is worth acknowledging the average position of women in political, social and economic institutions in the UK. First, women comprise 51% of the entire UK population. In addition, women are increasingly gaining primary, secondary and tertiary education, and constantly outperforming boys in their academic endeavors (Lindsey 2010, p. 17). Unfortunately, women are still underrepresented in both the public and private sectors. In 2011, the UK’s cabinet comprised of only 17% women. Within the business environment, only 12.5% of directorship positions of UK’s FTSE 100 companies were occupied by women. Within the social context of education, only 35.5% of women occupied the head teachers’ positions in UK’s secondary schools (EHRC 2011, p. 05). With respect to other European nations, the UK lags behind in terms of women representation within largest companies in the continent. Norway has the highest percentage of women representation at 32%. Contrarily, only 12% of directorship positions in UK’s largest companies are occupied by women (Scott 2012, p. 94). In this regard, it is acknowledgeable that UK’s organizations are gendered; hence women are significantly missing in action within powerful positions. One practical impact attributable to lack of adequate women representation in powerful position is frequent recurrence of financial predicaments similar to the recent debt crisis that rocked members of the European Union. Apparently, the debt crisis resulted from heightened risk-taking approaches employed by male directors in the operation of leading financial institutions and finance-related governmental offices. Allegedly, the debt crisis would have been less severe if women were the ones occupying those powerful positions in governmental and private financial positions (Scott 2012, p. 92). Basically, women are less risk-taking and less obsessed with status and money. Contrarily, men are often overambitious, and are known to tolerate flawed incentives and skewed operational strategies as a means of hastening achievement of their desirable goals. In this context, it is admissible that men and women possess distinct personality attributes that are influential in their respective professional undertakings (ALI 2014, p. 118). Since women are mild to moderately ambitious, they are more likely to make less detrimental choices in managing organizations (Due 2009, p. 27). Therefore, future financial crises could be avoided only if women are allowed to occupy powerful positions in banking and governmental organizations. Besides the financial crisis issue, lack of adequate women representation in powerful positions is implicitly responsible for limited innovations and low revenue levels observed in most organizations (Archibald 2009, p. 157). As of 2010, the percentage of female-held directorship positions in the UK stood at 12.5%. On the other hand, only 9.6% of companies within the FTSE 250 category had female executive directors. Allegedly, UK firms are not making as much money as they should because of gendered leadership. Admittedly, diversity in terms of skills, talent and experiences are critical in enhancing success of organizations. Since women comprise of approximately half the population of UK, then there should be at least 50% of women in powerful positions within most organizations. Unfortunately, gender diversity in UK’s boardrooms is still immaterial with reference to legislative propositions from past gender-based enactments (Britton & Logan 2008, p. 97). Technically, most start-up businesses operated by women are 28% more likely to succeed compared to those operated by men (Kiriti 2011, p. 28). In future, business environments are likely to post increasing complexity and competitiveness attributes. In such times, proportionate blend of diverse skills will be necessary in order to secure robust economic progress of organizations across the UK and other European nations. In this case, adequate inclusion of women into boardrooms and other executive positions will be invariably necessary. Despite the influential effect of obstacles like the glass ceiling in women advancement, most liberal feminists subscribe to the notion that modern organizations are gender neutral as opposed to being gender biased. According to mainstream liberal feminists, the idea of gender neutrality in organizations is evidenced by popularity of hegemony masculine discourses in modern workplaces. In essence, hegemony masculinity refers to standards for an ideal man within specific organizational cultures (Davies and Thomas 2002, p. 81). For example, homosexual men are not regarded as being real men because of their unnatural sexuality. In workplaces, both men and women strive to meet the standards of ideal masculine statuses. Commonly, ideal managers are thought to possess the ideal masculine attributes of aggressiveness, assertiveness and independence. In striving to meet these ideal standards for managerial positions, both men and women will incline towards discourses of hegemony masculinity (Halford and Leonard 2001, p. 38). According to mainstream liberal feminists, the ideas of gender neutrality and hegemony masculine discourses in organizations can be explained from radical and post-structural feminism perspectives (Neil & Wolf 2009, p. 256) Radical feminism is in favor of gendered cultures in organizations. According to radical feminists, men and women are inherently different. Therefore, men and women must perform distinct duties and undertake distinct academic pursuits (Acker 1990, p. 83). For example a UK labor survey conducted in 2011 shows that in colleges and universities across the United Kingdom, only 6% of students pursuing engineering course were women while the remaining 94% were male. Contrarily, 88% of nursing students were female while 12% of those pursuing nursing and other caring occupations were men. In this regard, hegemony masculinity discourse results from the gender neutrality caused by early separation of women and men in academic journeys (Aschcraft 2009, p. 104). Therefore, male dominance and lack of advancement among women is attributable to the strength of hegemony masculine discourses in organizations today. Similarly, post-structural feminists assert that distinction in gendered identities and performances are a result of gendered expectations and discourses in workplace practices. According to post-structural feminists, gender is an incoherent parameter that cannot be unified. Therefore, gendered performances are discursive formations meant to create and sustain inherently incoherent structures in the society (Alvensson, Bridgman and Willmott 2007, p. 27). With respect to workplaces, expectations and discourses assigned to members of each gender are primarily incoherent; hence the concept of gender inequality fails to materialize. At top level managerial positions, masculine qualities of toughness and competitiveness are necessary. Therefore, hegemony masculinity becomes practical in establishing benchmarks and selecting candidates for top level positions (Hakin 1995, p. 446). In this case, standards for ideal masculinity become the norms in most organizations. As a means of examining objectivity attributes of the view that women must demonstrate masculine qualities in order to succeed in organizations, analysis of relevant empirical reports was conducted. In one article published within the British Journal of Occupational Psychology, researchers employed a constructive grounded theory to inquire the actual experiences of female employees in male dominated occupational fields across organizations within the London metropolitan (Gray 2013, p. 113). After quantitatively sampling 1,500 participants in all occupational levels, the authors employed relevant statistical techniques in ascertaining the relationship between distinct gender qualities and occupational positions within the researched organizations. Findings indicated that formal and implied practices in most organizations upheld gender discrimination. From the research’s findings, 83% of managing directorship positions was occupied by men. At middle level management positions like departmental chairmanship and supervisory offices, 64% of leaders were men and only 36% were women. At bottom professional levels like office clerk positions, secretarial duties and technical analyst positions, women made up 55% while men comprised of 45% of the sampled organizations’ workforce (Gray 2013, p. 119). Besides the quantitative approach, researchers also used unstructured interviews in eliciting relevant responses from participants. Most questions on the unstructured interviews were based on the covert and formal occupational practices used by human resources departments in hiring and promoting employees (Gray 2013, p. 110). After conducting close analysis between eligibility conditions for low, middle and top professional levels, it emerged that the element of implied gender inequality prevailed. For example during recruitment and hiring processes, the main eligibility requirements for office clerks and technical analysts for most organizations included; good communications skills; ability to maintain confidentiality, and customer or client-oriented personality traits. On the other hand, the main eligibility requirements for middle level management levels included; good communications skills, at least two years relevant experience, and team management skills. Finally, primary eligibility requirements for managing directors included; independence in thinking, at least five years experience, and professional aggressiveness (Gray 2013, p. 121). With respect to supplementary questionnaires on personality traits of sampled employees, it emerged that most female professionals at low level occupational positions were not only submissive and passive, but also professionally dependent on middle and top level leaders. In this regard, these feminine personality traits are the reason why 55% of women occupying low level occupational positions within the researched organizations (Gray 2013, p. 112). On the other hand, personality traits for most middle and top level positions included; emotional independence, aggressiveness, experience, and competitiveness. There masculine qualities are the main reason why middle and top management positions were primarily dominated by men. Complementary findings from the research report indicated that the few women who occupied managing directorship positions were either highly experienced, or have demonstrated independence and aggressiveness in previous managerial capacities. Therefore, the empirical study ascertained that female employees must demonstrate masculine qualities like independence in thinking and aggressiveness if they are to succeed in organizations (Label 2010, p. 81). In another research article published within the International Journal of Gender and Women Studies, researchers employed a systems review theory in examining the role of imposter syndrome and circumstantial masculinity among female workers in South Africa. The research was motivated by the fact that in the first decade of the 21st Century, South Africa has experienced a 42% increase in the number of female workers compared to a 28% increase in the last decade of the 20th Century (Debbie 2011, p. 18). In this regard, social scientists became interested in examining the main reasons for increase in female employment and subsequent promotions within the previously patriarchal South African labor market. The researched focused on two leading companies operating in South Africa; MTN Network and Nestle Ltd. From relevant secondary sources, researchers realized that women in South Africa’s MTN and Nestle are being increasingly admitted to managerial positions at stereotypical male-dominated departments like finance, research and development, and information technology. After conducting qualitative research exercises using open-ended questionnaires and personal interviews, researchers realized that the concept of circumstantial masculinity was the main reason why women were not only being increasing employed by major companies, but were also climbing up the administrative ladders in the two researched organizations (Debbie 2011, p. 18). Technically, circumstantial masculinity is the ability to express traditional masculine qualities as a means of enhancing one’s competitive advantage in specific circumstances. For example, Nestle top management seems to prioritize the feminine qualities of friendliness, emotional tactfulness and confidentiality when hiring female employees (Debbie 2011, p. 14). However, women who can express the masculine qualities of aggressiveness and assertiveness have higher chances of being promoted to middle management levels compared to their male counterparts. In this regard, the interviewed employees of MTN and Nestle agreed that those women with the ability to turn on and off male traits whenever necessary were twice as more likely to be promoted in stereotypical male-dominated fields than those who could not demonstrate both feminine and masculine personality traits (Debbie 2011, p. 24). Therefore, the research article proved that demonstration of masculine attributes by women is significantly influential in enhancing chances of promotion in South African workplaces. Undeniably, the South African labor market posses multiple similarities with labor markets in most parts of the world. Since the South African context is representative, it means that globally, women need to exhibit masculine attributes if they are to enter and progress in male-dominated occupational positions. After extrapolating on the relevant theoretical frameworks coupled with analysis of findings from empirical studies, it is acknowledgeable that there is a prevalence of masculine management culture in most organizations. Apparently, employees in most organizations believe that men can make better leaders than women (Hakin 1995, p. 437). Actually, masculine qualities of assertiveness, aggressiveness, confidence and independence in thinking are upheld as ideals and benchmarks for leadership positions. Therefore, human resources departments in most organizations use these masculine qualities as eligibility requirements for entering top professional levels like departmental management positions (Burke & Davidson 2000, p. 1024). Fortunately, masculine management cultures often bend to allow women into powerful positions, but only on certain conditions. From the two empirical studies analyzed, findings indicated that organizations in both the United Kingdom and South African labor markets have masculine management cultures (Lindsey 2009, p. 102). However, organizations in these two countries can admit women into top occupational positions only if the female candidates for the top positions can exercise masculinity. In this regard, masculine management cultures are influential in perpetrating gender inequality within modern workplaces. Undeniably, masculine management cultures are likely to prevail in organizations for a while. Prolonged prevalence of such male chauvinistic cultures will invariably hinder achievement of gender equality goals. In this case, it is not recommendable for women to continually emulate masculine qualities as a means of surviving and prospering in competitive organizational settings. Rather, women employees should be allowed to unconditionally express their feminine qualities without being discriminated against in professional progression. In an effort to enhanced female inclusion in boardrooms, public and private organizations have been encouraging business leaders to devise lasting solutions that would encourage organizations to adopt at least a 50% representation of women at board levels. One way of safeguarding the occupational rights of women would involve constitutional enactment of appropriate labor practices (Neil and Wolf 2009, p. 257). In African nations like Kenya, recent constitutional legislations provide that for any public committee or occupational body, a third of office occupants must belong to the female gender. For example, a third of all positions available for any commission or public office committee are reserved for women. In this case, such legislations must be extended to the labor sector. For example, policy makers can enact a constitutional amendment requiring that a certain portion of a company’s directorship positions must be occupied by women, regardless of whether or not those women can demonstrate masculine qualities (Aschcraft 2009, p. 74). Such legislative policies will ensure that the dominant role of masculine management cultures is tamed; hence allowing women to objectively progress in their professional undertakings. Conclusion In Conclusion, it is acknowledgeable that women face multiple problems in their career progression pursuits. Some of these challenges, which are faced by women globally, are self-inflicted in nature, while others are mechanisms engineered from gender-bias ideologies and principles. One of those challenges faced by women in their workplace undertakings is limited career progression caused by dominance of masculine management cultures. Apparently, management in modern organizations idolizes masculine qualities, and uses them as standards for selecting top leaders. Admittedly, specific theoretical frameworks like Marxism, Utilitarianism, and Functionalism are necessary in understanding the causes of the observable gender inequality and gender discrimination in modern workplaces (Gottfried and Smith 2014, p. 48). Admittedly, the positive role of masculine management cultures in determining women’s professional progression was ascertained after critical analysis of relevant empirical findings. At this juncture, it is agreeable that management, especially human resource management in charge of recruitment, hiring and promotion processes subscribe to the notion that masculine qualities are standards for attaining top occupational and leadership positions. As a result, women are often required to demonstrate masculine qualities in order to succeed in organizations. Reference List ACKER, J. (1990) Hierarchies, jobs and bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2), 81-95. ALI, A. (2014) The European debt crisis: Consequences, measures and remedies. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ALVENSSON, M., BRIDGMAN, T. & WILLMOTT, H. (2007) The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. London: Oxford University Press. ARCHIBALD, P. W. (2009) Marxism, functionalism, utilitarianism, and occupational alienation: Received and underappreciated wisdom. Critical Sociology Review, 35(2), 151-174. ASCHCRAFT, K. (2009) Gender and diversity: Other ways to make a difference. Pittsburg: John Wiley & Sons. BRICK, V. L. (2012) Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(6), 12-29. BRITTON, D. & LOGAN, L. (2008) Gendered organizations: Progress and prospects. Sociology Compass, 34(1), 93-106. BURKE, J. & DAVIDSON, M. J. (2000) Women in management: Current research issues. London: SAGE Publishing. DAVIES, A. & THOMAS, R. (2002) Gendering and gender in public service organizations: Changing professional identities under new public management. Public Management, 4(4), 79-85. DEBBIE, B. (2011) Gender equality and social dialogue in South Africa. Geneva: International Labor Organization. DUE, Y. (2009) Understanding gender and organizations: A systematic approach. London: SAGE Publishing. ECCLES, J. S. (2006) Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585-609. EHRC. (2011) Sex and power 2011. Equality and Human Rights Commission Report. FRANCINE, D. (2010) Gender and family issues in the workplace. Cardiff: Russell Sage Foundation. GIBLING, F. (2006) Being a woman at the top: The ‘glass ceiling.’ London: Adept Business Psychology Ltd. GOTTFRIED, H. & SMITH, R. L. (2014) Equity in the workplace: Gendering workplace policy analysis. Cardiff: Lexington Books. GRAY, H. L. (2013) Gender considerations in institutional management: Masculine and feminine roles in organizations. International Journal of Leadership & Management, 7(3), 110-127. HAKIN, C. (1995) Five feminist myths about women’s employment. British Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 429-455. HALFORD, S. & LEONARD, P. (2001) Gender, power and organizations: Chapters 1 and 6. Basingstoke: Palgrave. KIRITI, W. (2011) Institutions and gender inequality: A case study on UK’s FTSE 250 companies. London: Cengage Learning. LABEL, D. (2010) Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management: Theory and practice. International Journal of Business Ethics, 46(4), 78-95. LINDSEY, K. B. (2009) Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Oxford Psychological Review, 78(1), 99-104. LINDSEY, T. (2010) Gender inequality and economic growth: A cross-country analysis. World Development, 38(3), 11-30. NEIL, D. & WOLF, C. W. (2009) Sex and authority in the workplace: Causes of sexual inequality. British Sociological Review, 82(5), 253-268. SCOTT, A. (2012) Gendered lives: Gender inequalities in production. Pittsburg: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More