Why Not Ascription? Organizations' Employment of Male and Female Managers

Abstract

We examine the effects of organizations' employment practices on sex-based ascription in managerial jobs. Given men's initial preponderance in management, we argue that inertia, sex labels, and power dynamics predispose organizations to use sex-based ascription when staffing managerial jobs, but that personnel practices can invite or curtail ascription. Our results-based on data from a national probability sample of 516 work organizations-show that specific personnel practices affect the sexual division of managerial labor. Net of controls for the composition of the labor supply, open recruitment methods are associated with women holding a greater share of management jobs, while recruitment through informal networks increases men's share. Formalizing personnel practices reduces men's share of management jobs, especially in large establishments, presumably because formalization checks ascription in job assignments, evaluation, and factors that affect attrition. Thus, through their personnel practices, establishments license or limit ascription. B ARON and Bielby (1980) encouraged researchers interested in labor market inequality to "bring the firm back in" because firms "link the 'macro' and 'micro' dimensions of work organization and inequality" (p. 738). Researchers who have taken up the call have demonstrated the importance of organizational structures, such as their nonprofit or government status or their size, for sustaining or eroding sex-based ascription (Baron 1991; Baron and Newman 1990; Nelson and Bridges 1999; Tomaskovic-Devey 1993). Relatively little is known, however, about the effects of establishments' personnel practices, and it is these practices that are the proximate causes of establishment-based gender inequality (Bielby 2000; Reskin 2000). We examine the effects of organizations' employment practices on sexbased ascription in managerial jobs for a national probability sample of establishments. Ascription exists when a status, position, or opportunity is allocated at least in part on the basis of an ascribed characteristic (Kemper 1974; Mayhew 1968; Parsons 1964). Baron (1991:143), for example, has contended that employers practice ascription when employees' ascribed characteristics directly influence their jobs or rewards. Thus, ascription involves differential treatment based on sex, race, ethnicity, and the like. Sex-based ascription does not necessarily involve invidious intent; it can occur when custom shapes employers' personnel practices, when sex stereotypes or jobs' sex labels affect allocation decisions, when decision-makers have the discretion to act on their biases, or when they use sex as a proxy for productivity or employment costs. Impulses toward ascription may originate in or-Direct all correspondence to Barbara Reskin

Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM

“…Gender is a dominant cultural frame that 4 Many expanding industries (e.g., in childcare, health, elementary teaching) produce services that are symbolically or functionally linked to women's domestic work, and high labor demand has led some employers to reorganize these jobs to appeal to married women-for example, through part-time scheduling (Oppenheimer 1973;Goldin 1990;Charles and Grusky 2004). 5 Other organizational characteristics that have been linked to occupational gender segregation include firm size, personnel policies and practices, skill requirements, opportunities for team work, unionization rates, women's presence in management, and workplace traditions (Bielby and Baron 1986;Baron et al 1991;Reskin and McBrier 2000;Smith-Doerr 2004). organizes everyday social relations, shapes individual identities, and inscribes gender inequality in social and economic institutions (Ridgeway 2011).…”

The Link Between Diversity and Equality Management Practice Bundles and Racial Diversity in the Managerial Ranks: Does Firm Size Matter?

“…However, there have been few efforts to measure their effectiveness (Cox, 1991;Cox & Blake, 1991;Ellis & Sonnenfeld, 1994;Konrad & Linnehan, 1995;Naff & Kellough, 2003;Richard & Johnson, 1999). Rather, evidence regarding the efficacy of DEM practices in creating a diverse workplace has been implied through the workplace diversity-firm performance link, research examining DEM practices as key factors empowering the degree to which a diverse workforce is more (or less) effective (e.g., Cunningham, 2009;Kochan et al, 2003;Kossek, Lobel, & Brown, 2006;Yang & Konrad, 2011), and organization stratification research (e.g., Goodman, Fields, & Blum, 2003;Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006;Reskin & McBrier, 2000) studying the association between broad-based HR practices (e.g., recruitment) and percentages of women and minority groups in organizations. In turn, the focus of our article is to investigate the overall racial diversity (or variety; Harrison & Klein, 2007) in firms' managerial ranks, as (a) race is a major component of diversity in firms (Richard, 2000) and (b) managers influence strategic decision making and implementation of strategic policies (e.g., Burgelman, 1994;Dwyer, Richard, & Chadwick, 2003;Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997), both of which affect a firm's bottom line.…”

The Control of Managerial Discretion: Evidence from Unionization’s Impact on Employment Segregation

“…Indeed the idea of bureaucratic procedures guiding employment and the principle of a "representative" workforce both presume some degree of organizational scale (Reskin and Branch McBrier 2000). Previous research on bureaucratic employment practices in large organizations has relied on similar justifications for studying this organizational population (Fernandez and Weinberg 1997;Petersen and Saporta 2004;Kalev et al 2006;Huffman et al 2010).…”

“…Much sociological and organizational theory (Reskin 2000;Reskin and Branch McBrier 2000;Bielby 2000;Reskin 2003;Dobbin 2009), supported by a growing body of empirical research (Huffman 1995;Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly 2006;Castilla 2008;Kalev 2009;Castilla and Benard 2010), suggests that it does. This work situates much employment discrimination not in the conscious actions of bigoted managers but in the unconscious impact of cognitive biases, deployed through personnel policies that fail to take such biases into account.…”