I recently met with one of my international students. She was remarking with excitement that the Business School is led by women. Three of four of the administrators of the Business School, which includes the Dean and Department Head, are female. Our staff is predominantly female. Forty percent of the Business School faculty are female. Thus, women have a significant leadership role in the Business School and as we recognize Women’s History Month, this is a source of great pride in our school.
Yet, this kind of change in the gender of leadership where women dominate has been fraught with challenges, especially when pay and job status is considered. Historically, as a field becomes more female dominated, the prestige associated with the field often decreases as does the pay. Known as occupational feminization, the theory demonstrates that occupations with a greater share of women pay less than occupations that are male dominated. Researchers attribute this discriminatory bias to two phenomena: devaluation and queuing.[1]Devaluation is a process of devaluing and lowering the rewards of positions associated with women. We have seen this bias in effect as previously male dominated positions became female dominated, such a teaching or nursing. As more women entered the profession, the rewards of the position decreased. Queuing is the process of excluding women from roles that have been historically dominated by men. This “sticky floor” obstacle faced by women is commonly seen when women are clustered at entry level positions, with fewer climbing to the senior leadership ranks. However, in those instances when women are able to ascend to the senior ranks, the glass cliff looms as an obstacle. Women are given significant leadership roles during times of crisis when the likelihood of failure is greatest. It creates the opportunity to scapegoat women when the organization fails.
More recent research attempted to determine whether feminization effects still exist.[2] The short answer is yes. In their study, researchers recognized the growing numbers of women in highly paid occupations like STEM fields. Nevertheless, they concluded that there remains this persistent notion of predominantly male jobs and predominantly female jobs, with female jobs having lower wages. Additionally, women had materially higher part-time employment and shorter work weeks even when employed full-time.[3] The researchers posit that women may opt for so called female jobs because these roles offer needed flexibility in terms of parental and family sick leave, which suggests that wage gaps that exist due to feminization will not be resolved unless the inflexibilities of occupations are addressed.
So, how is it that the Business School enjoys such female leadership? The answer to that question differs for each leader; however, there are common themes that can be highlighted. Each senior female leader in the Business School is a trailblazer in her own right. Whether she was the first or the only one in her field, our stories as women are ones of perseverance in the face of difficult odds. And because we persisted, we stand to encourage those who have come after us, paving the way and hopefully making the path easier for future generations. More than offering encouragement, we are using our capital to help other women. As former Secretary of State Madeline Albright noted, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” We have to be champions for each other and not hinderances.
Specific to the pay inequities that we see in the feminization of roles, women are learning to be better negotiators by creating networks to help us navigate salary discussions. We must know our worth and be prepared to tell our story so that we can effectively advocate for ourselves. And when we do not know what a specific role is worth, leverage your network to get more information. For example, within Business Schools, the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) publishes salary schedules so that all can know the specific salary schedules by discipline.
The biases associated with occupational feminization continue to exist and threaten to weigh us down. But we can overcome the challenges as we persist together. In the academy, our students, faculty, and staff are looking to us as women to lead. In industry, our colleagues and co-workers are looking to us as women to lead. Therefore, let us lead and pave the way for others to follow with the hope that through our collective efforts, we overcome the sting and stigma of gendered bias.
Blessings,
Dean Debora Jackson
[1] Asaf Levanon, Paula England, Paul Allison, Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data, Social Forces, Volume 88, Issue 2, December 2009, Pages 865–891, https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0264.
[2] John T. Addison, et al. “THE OCCUPATIONAL FEMINIZATION OF WAGES.” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, vol. 71, no. 1, 2018, pp. 208–41, https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917708314.
[3] Ibid, 236.