Article summary of The impact of hierarchical structures on the work behavior of women and men by Kanter - 1976 - Chapter

Preface

Structural conditions, certainly those that stem from the natural hierarchy, constitute gender differences in the workplace and in organizations. Findings about the behavior of women in organizations can be explained by a number of structural variables that also cause the behavior of and against men in comparable situations.

Three structural variables form the behavior of men and women in organizations:

1. The opportunity structure.
2. The power structure.
3. The ratio of the sexes.

The structural position can be responsible for what appear to be gender differences and may even explain the variation in the behavior of men and women.

Work orientations, aspirations and location in the opportunity structure

Women tend to be less involved in their work than men. They interrupt their work when they can and they are more interested in relationships with other people than the duties and remuneration aspects at work.

These findings can be explained by opportunity structure. People find themselves, whether they are men or women, in a mobility situation. People with a low mobility situation or blocked mobility situation tend to limit their aspirations, seek pleasure and satisfaction in other things and create a social peer group that they are more concerned with than their work. When women, but also men, experience a low mobility situation, they tend to exhibit these characteristics. Because women are more often in such a low mobility situation (they are stuck in their position, they cannot get promoted and they experience few opportunities), it seems that this is due to gender differences.

Opportunity and limited aspirations

Research by Hornall (1974) showed that men have a greater motivation to be promoted than women, and they felt more excited about the possible consequences of promotion. Men found themselves more suitable and able to learn and do basic management skills than women. Men also received more encouragement from leaders to work their way up. Newer employees also showed more motivation than older employees, just like the higher educated. This shows that other characteristics and not (only) gender differences influence the opportunities and motivation.

There is evidence that jobs occupied by female employees have fewer opportunities, and the opportunities that exist have less to do with getting a higher function.

The lower work involvement and aspirations of women can be seen as a response to the employees and managers who place the employees in the opportunity structure. Those who are placed in a disadvantaged position have fewer aspirations and motivation and are therefore less suitable for promotion. So it's a vicious circle. A social structure effect is often understood as a gender difference.

'Peer' group relationships

Along with more limited aspirations, women - more than men - consider interpersonal relationships at work more important. Women are often more involved with other people than with the intrinsic nature of a task. Motivational factors (factors that highlight the aspects of motivation and performance and the consequences) are distinguished from hygiene factors (the prevention of dissatisfaction in a job).

For women, peer relationships were a motivational factor, which motivated them more, while for men relationships were only a hygiene factor. For men, relationships in the workplace are a lot less important.

Research shows that more women than men find it important that their colleagues are friendly and helpful. Women called 'colleagues are friendly' in the first place. In second place was 'the job is interesting' and in third place came 'the direct boss is friendly'. For men, the list was almost the other way around. In the first place came 'the job is interesting'. In the second place came 'colleagues are friendly' and in third place came 'the direct boss is friendly'.

Playing strategy games was different for women than for men. Women had a more accommodative strategy that included instead of excluding people. Their strategy was also more focused on others than on winning. The strategies of men were more investigative and success-oriented.

• High mobility situations cause rivalry, instability in the composition of work groups, comparisons with the organization 's upper class and dealing with intrinsic aspects of a job.
• Low mobility situations ensure stable groups, friendships and more involvement with extrinsic aspects. When people have good chances, they compare themselves with the higher levels within an organization, where the current peer group is already traded in. Merton (1968) calls this expectation socialization. Unfavorable or no opportunities ensures peer group loyalty.

When members of a non-mobility organization are not interested in instrumental relationships, fixed groups arise, which are closed. As a member a closed group, there is more pressure to remain loyal to this group, a promotion can therefore be seen as an unfaithful act.

Leadership attitudes, behavior and power structure

Bartol (1974) thought that the gender of the leader itself had no influence on the satisfaction of the follower, even when a female leader was described as very dominant, a characteristic that many employees often find unpleasant. Attempts to prove that women as leaders were evaluated differently from men showed very few results. On the other hand, there is evidence that people in many different cultures see men as better leaders.

Structural explanations probably explain that men prefer to be seen as a leader rather than women, and that people find it unpleasant to see women in an authoritarian and dominant position. Both of these phenomena are understandable given the current distribution of women and men in the power structure of organizations.

The nature of the power structure of organizations as a total system can explain the following:

• Which leaders are preferred and are considered effective by their followers.
• Which leaders use overly interfering leadership styles.

Leadership effectiveness and dominant position

The influence that a leader has outside the working group and higher up in the organization is an important variable. This is often associated with good relationships. The combination of good relations with power is associated with a high moral. Relationship skills and low power (a possible combination for female leaders) sometimes have negative effects on morality. High external power adds power to the power base outside the authority in the current workplace. People are more likely to inhibit aggressive and negative behavior against a demanding person of high status than against a person with a low status. People with a high external status are more likely to be liked and talk more.

Organizational power comes with various structural factors:

• Lots of contact and good relationships with other people with power within the system.
• A good location within the opportunity structure and good mobility prospects.

The first has influence because of the relationships and interactions present, the second has influence because of future power.

Power, powerlessness and leadership style

Leaders with good mobility are more inclined to satisfy their followers than leaders who are stuck and therefore have poor mobility.

Departments led by men are often seen as higher in "spirit and intimacy" (a good predictor of morality) and divisions led by women are often seen as hindered.

Leaders who can be promoted often have a leadership style in which they share information, train people and allow autonomy. Leaders who cannot be promoted try to keep control and give their followers little autonomy. These leaders are therefore less loved.