The workplace environment presents several disadvantageous positions for women. First, supported by gender-based views, men have had a headstart in management positions. From such positions, they influence policies on advancements in organizations. The study by Nkomo et al. (2018) found numerous hurdles to the advancement of women due to the lack of a women’s inclusion agenda by management. They found challenges in acceptance, inclusion, and diversity management. Sociopolitical factors are also important. Existing policies on migration discriminate against women on account of their caregiving roles. Social identifiers on religion and cultural views that tend to discourage women silently control the entry of women into management (Nkomo et al., 2018). Politicians wield much power in terms of policies affecting women. As the study found, conservative regimes in the United States, going back to the Ronald Reagan administration, have often loosened antidiscrimination laws and policies through conservative political ideology emphasizing certain social structures in society. Before the Reagan administration, a strong civil rights movement had created no space for discriminative practices through the strict implementation of Title VII and the 1964 Rights Act. With the Reagan administration emphasizing other rights, diversity became amorphous. It was seen as an infringement on other rights, leading firms to refocus on profit maximization as an objective that could benefit everyone (Nkomo et al., 2018). Thus, workplace structures have historically been disadvantageous to women.
The study found that presently, women suffer from lower remuneration, greater chances of work terminations, and lower than average pay compared to their male counterparts. This is mostly the case in male-dominated organizations, which are the majority. In the United States and Europe, these cases are milder than in countries with ethnic tribes, where religious segregation based on gender is a dominant issue. Women in Asia, Africa, and Latin America suffer more from workplace discrimination. Despite the progress in the United States, female leaders still have had to deal with attempts at harassment and abuse despite their positions. Women are not often considered on merit like men when it comes to promotions. The study also found that women in leadership often have greater than expected qualifications because a higher than average criteria is placed on them in career advancement. Therefore, women in the workplace face more challenges than their male counterparts.
Organizations are no longer pressed for women’s leadership issues as they are for other diversity issues, like race and regional issues. As Nkomo et al. (2018) found, much of the statistics put women in statistical terms as a ratio of employees. Given their predominant occupation of lower-level jobs, the ratios tend to give a wrong impression that things are right. However, the reality is that for every coin spent on a man in an organization, more than three women are compensated with a similar total value. This is because women do not occupy enough higher-paying jobs. Thus, organizations no longer treat the issue of women’s inclusion with the gravity it deserves.
Ethical Perspective
One excuse often advanced for excluding women, especially in leadership, is that the positions attract incivility from which women need protection. The study by Kim et al. (2019) identifies that women and men experience intense pressures in management positions, with women often having to cope with more of these. Kim et al. (2019) hold that being a leader in an organization calls on conduct that some tend to associate with manly behaviors. Women are believed to be too fragile to be introduced to the abrasive nature of management. The study holds that society tends to accept unruly, demeaning, and discourteous behaviors from leaders directed at their juniors to conform them to the desired goals (Kim et al., 2019). Women are believed to lack inbuilt incivility like men and thus would no doubt struggle in similar positions if given a chance. The world has always treated women with gloves. They are often reminded that they are tender and that everything should be done to protect them. Unfortunately, this protection often leads to a discrimination trap into which all willingly enter. Most people experience this right from school, where most student leaders are boys, as girls only take up supportive roles as secretaries. This imprint from the schooling days never disappears. Among Christians, the experience of women in church leadership is rare. It is normal to see all functions led by males instead of females. The same thinking dominates in non-religious organizations. The collective view is that women should be subordinate to men in virtually all endeavors. Therefore, women are conditioned to accept less demanding roles from an early age, trapping them into lower positions.
Workplace leadership is rife with stress, anxiety, and, sometimes, a depressing lifestyle where the leader is drawn away from the rest. It is believed that women are not built or ready for workplace anxiety and stress and that the alienated relationship, often the norm with leadership, is inconsistent with women’s caring and relational nature (Kim et al., 2019). Workplace demands on the leader include continuous demands for higher profits. These demands require immense commitment and effort, which are believed, would push women beyond their limits. This mentality is set right from the family level. Demanding tasks within the family setting are always given to boys to run with. On the other hand, girls within the family are always given the minor, less stressful ones, which equates to providing them protection. Thus, the exclusion of women from leading is driven by the belief that women are not built for demanding roles.
As part of the solution, there is a need to tap into virtue ethics theory. This reality directs on the need to be honest enough and to reveal the real motivation towards the discrimination of women in leadership positions. Virtue ethics would direct that women’s rights be respected in remuneration. They make it necessary that all contractual agreements are open and that the progression structure is clearly defined, including the way up for women. One area that can anchor this debate and that needs further research is the number of women qualifying for management courses compared to men (Kim et al., 2019). It has been variously presented that more men than women qualify in STEM fields. However, studies on leadership and management qualifications are missing. Hence, society can solve the problem of women’s exclusion by drawing from the virtual ethics theory.
References
Kim, A. Y., Shahidul, H., & Deneen, M. H. (2019). Towards understanding workplace incivility: Gender, ethical leadership and personal control. Public Management Review, 10, 1–23.
Nkomo, S., et al. (2018). Diversity at a critical juncture: New theories for a complex phenomenon. Academy of Management Review, 44 (3), 498-517.
write