Communication Analysis on Gender Equality in the Workplace - Research Paper Example

Communication Analysis on Gender Equality in the Workplace Communication Analysis on Gender Equality in the Workplace The number ofemployed women in the United States increases in line with the worry of gender discrimination at the place of work. This discrimination comprises stereotyping and pay gaps. Men conventionally dominate workplaces, particularly in former generations. This means places of work traditionally practiced principles that favored men over women (Childs, 2012). Men are aggressive and competitive naturally. This fact and nature helps men when applying for work and they use it to maintain their places at work and even up their rank. The ordinary workplace works off the idea that this nature of men is suitable for bigger assignments and duties, especially in corporate workplaces outside households. At the same time, many contemporary cases of women who have developed prosperous corporate entities beg the question of gender equality at the work place (Eikhof, 2012). For example, Oprah Winfrey created a business empire virtually on her own. From a communications standpoint, the following paper analyzes gender equality at the workplace in different sectors. Theory Sectors dominated by women ought to experienced equality in pay, decreased sex discrimination, and have a more or less higher number of managing women than sectors dominated by men. This is because women have better chances in service, investment, property, wholesale, and retail sectors. In addition, Women have better communications skills than men. Women have better communication skills than men do because they bear a more relationship-based attitude towards work than men do. Men often choose to be objective when it comes to work, which makes it hard for them to appeal to others personally. In addition, women process knowledge aloud while men process within their minds. Processing knowledge aloud means there is a form of interaction. The more women process knowledge aloud, the better their communication skills. The relationship-based attitude of women further led to a consensus-type of leadership while men’s rational thinking often leads to a hierarchical-type of leadership. The consensus-type of leadership requires better communication skills than hierarchical because it involves less commands or orders and more personal interaction or engagement. However, this is not the case since managing women keep on lagging behind their male peers in terms of income and workplace dominance and opportunities in virtually all sectors. Analysis Author Simma Lieberman argues that men and women differ in a number of ways. These ways determine gender equality at the place of work. As a result, organization heads should be aware of these differences when addressing pay gaps, stereotyping, and communication at the workplace between both genders (Lieberman, n.d.). According to Lieberman, men and women usually follow different protocols when making decisions concerning work and leadership. In spite of the rhetoric and study, women remain miserably represented in managerial positions and income levels in service sectors. Lieberman’s main worry is averting resources from the true effort placed by organizations towards altering hiring and maintenance protocols (Lieberman, n.d.). It is crucial for women to change and correct their attitude regarding their places of work. This means women should not simply embrace these key gender differences like income differences. If a woman places an even amount of work and contribution as her male peers at her place of work, she deserves equal income and benefits (Taylor, Burke, Wheatley, and Sompayrac, 2011). A possible answer for a huge income gap is for women to discuss their incomes and benefits with their superiors actively. This solution is an alternative to being passive or taking in pay gaps as an unchangeable ill fate. The problem of pay gap has origins and effects analyzed by researchers Patterson and Bae by using participants from Korean companies. According to Patterson and Bae, corporate employers continuously discriminate against Korean women, particularly in terms of income and promotion with several variables in sector and communications skills (Patterson and Bae, 2013). In comparison, the main worry expressed by Lieberman cannot get through people who fail to familiarize themselves with the intricacies of gender equality at the workplace (Lieberman, n.d.). On the other hand, researchers Patterson and Bae note that the main effort contributing to gender disparity today originates from women. However, both authors make a more delicate and open appeal concealed among the rationale and facts of their articles. Patterson and Bae just focus on reviewing and scrutinizing previous literature pertaining to gender equality in contemporary workplaces. At the same time, Patterson and Bae seek to offer proof for stereotyping, gender bias, and pay gaps (Patterson and Bae, 2013). Patterson and Bae apply a critiquing tone against male prejudices in Korean firms and proof of female demerits in career income and ranking opportunities. The researchers do not directly defend the hard position women deal with in workplaces. Using Korean firms as a sample basis creates a tone that clarifies the purposes of the researchers’ hypotheses (Patterson and Bae, 2013). Social capital is inclined to be cumulative with the purpose of raising the aspects of trust, effective communication, quality networks, and common norms with every consecutive interaction (Patterson and Bae, 2013). A helpful experience in a single endeavor develops trust, social bonds, and knowledge that foster future socializations and relationships amongst people (Patterson and Bae, 2013). In a workplace setting, trust is a necessary element that women largely value over men. As a result, women garner more social capital and trust than men at the workplace receive, but clearly demonstrate their inability to use to their advantage. For instance, despite high social capital and trust, women still get low income than men for doing the same amount of work. From an ethos standpoint, the status and professionalism of Lieberman explicitly influences her work. Lieberman is a communications expert with several published and reviewed articles under her belt. A majority of these works tackle communication between genders. This article Lieberman focuses on the place of work to explore communication and gender disparity as a likely source. At the same time, Lieberman uses differences between the communication patterns of both genders as a means of analyzing gender disparity (Lieberman, n.d.). Similarly, Patterson and Bae use their academic professionalism to set up their credibility in the article. This is evident in a professional wording and tone when arguing. In addition, references put in Patterson and Bae’s article show the researchers made a comprehensive study, which turns the article into a knowledgeable text for communication between genders and equality at the workplace (Patterson and Bae, 2013). Two distinct and sex-specific unofficial networks working equally well inside organizations are necessary legally for nearly sectors today (Williams and Dellinger, 2010). Gender biases contrarily make women less vital in male-controlled workplaces. As a result, such women have to deal with reduced access to the dominant union composed mainly of men. Women in service sectors remain lacking due to access to this union of executive men (Sharma and Sharma, 2012). This disadvantage closely relates to career promotion and power in an organization. Male executives view women in work unions comprised of women for the most parts as employees with less power in the organization than women in work unions predominated by men. Informal means of communication in an organization benefit men exceedingly more than they do women. This is largely because dominating men excluded women from the informal communication grids for several reasons. Male executives frequently feel uncomfortable interacting with women, which is the key reason for the exclusions (Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011). Both genders are naturally uncomfortable in places full of members of the other gender. The second reason for exclusion is the fact that women will always find it very hard to access informal networks in an organization as new employees. The last reason is men’s desire to sustain dominance at the workplace by purposely excluding women from informal communications (Taylor, Burke, Wheatley, and Sompayrac, 2011). Since women face such exclusions at the workplace, they cannot benefit from the valuable knowledge, assets, and support that men acquire from informal communication grids at the workplace. In conclusion, women are better at communication than men are, which means women ought to experience equality in pay, and decreased sex discrimination. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that women are more prone to be hired in service, investment, property, wholesale, and retail sectors. This is not the case because study findings show women still face workplace stereotyping and pay gaps in contemporary organizations. Researchers Patterson and Bae support the notion that women face workplace prejudice through setbacks in career promotion and pay gaps. Patterson and Bae use Korean firms as a sample for their study, which confirms their theories (Patterson and Bae, 2013). Author Lieberman alternatively uses gender differences to confirm the same hypotheses (Lieberman, n.d.). The tones used in both articles are objective and rhetorical but convince the working class of the United States is male-controlled and disadvantageous to women. References Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2011). Gender Discrimination at Work Connecting Gender Stereotypes, Institutional Policies, and Gender Composition of Workplace. Gender & Society, 25(6), 764-786. Childs, S. (2012). Gender discrimination in the workplace. (Order No. 1507005, State University of New York Empire State College). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 71.  Eikhof, D. R. (2012). A double-edged sword: Twenty-first century workplace trends and gender equality. Gender in Management, 27(1), 7-22. Lieberman, S. (n.d.). Gender Communication Differences and Strategies. Simma Lieberman Associates. Retrieved from http://www.simmalieberman.com/articles/genderstrategies.html Patterson, L., & Bae, S. (2013). Gender (In) Equality In Korean Firms: Results From Stakeholders Interviews. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 17(1), 93-113. Sharma, S., & Sharma, M. (2012). Gender equality in the workplace: The perceptive reality. Social Sciences Directory, 1(1). Taylor, S., Burke, L. A., Wheatley, K., & Sompayrac, J. (2011). Effectively facilitating gender transition in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23(2), 101- 116. Williams, C. and Dellinger, K. (2010). Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace. Los Angeles, CA: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Read More