Affirmative Action in Organizations
and the Existence of Gender Biases
among Men and Women
Master thesis, Msc. BA Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
This current study was conducted to examine the influence of affirmative action on the perception of gender biases for women and men. The results of this study, based on a survey among 85 randomly selected participants, showed that women are more likely than men to believe that a female bias exists, particularly when the existence of special programs for women to improve their minority position in the organizations is made salient to them. Supplementary analysis further revealed that both men and women acknowledge that traditional female and male biases have changed over time, although it is believed that a female bias still exists. Implications about these findings are mentioned, as well as limitations and future research directions.
INTRODUCTION
“In the novel of Egalia’s daughters the author speculated about what would happen if men were regulated to a lower status than women. After being faced with many disadvantages that
women in North Africa have traditionally endured, the men in this fictional society rose up against the women in power to demand their equal status. As such, the novel makes a questionable assumption: disadvantage will have the same consequences for any group,
namely to rebel against its oppressors.” (Foster, Arnt & Honkola, 2004).
“Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing” (Norton & Sommers, 2011). According to the findings of Norton and Sommers, black people, who have faced many disadvantages as a group, nowadays perceive less bias against themselves. They further believe that an anti-white bias has never existed, not in the beginning of 1900 nor in the present time. Interestingly however, white people also perceive a decline in anti-black bias, but they feel that this is replaced by an increase in anti-white bias. In fact they even perceive more anti-white bias than anti-black bias. Arguably, their belief has given impetus for public policy debates.
This study aims to test whether another important minority group in organizations, women, also hold different beliefs about the existence of female and male biases than men do. Given that a growing number of organizations use affirmative action policies to overcome disadvantages that women experience at the work place, the question arises whether this increased attention for women has the disadvantage of causing men to feel discriminated against. This may thus lead men to experience that organizations increasingly adopt a male bias, even more so than a female bias.
typically in the majority in top level management positions - feel subordinated by such policies, those policies are unlikely to have long term positive effects for the work opportunities for women. Thus, as a backlash effect, the majority may informally discriminate even more to minorities once this last group is privileged by formal policies (Kidder, Lankau, Chrobot-Mason, Mollica & Friedman, 2004). In my thesis, I will first present the theoretical background for my research before I provide information on the survey that was conducted to test my hypotheses.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Gender Beliefs
The first thing people notice about other is whether this person is a male or female (Fiske, Haslam & Fiske, 1991). Categorization by sex evokes mental association, or expectations, about the behaviours of men and women. These expectations are defined as gender biases and represent beliefs that women are primarily communal, and men more agentic (Deaux & Lewis, 1984). Whereas communal beliefs are selfless and concerned with others, agentic beliefs are self-assertive and motivated to master goals (Eagly & Steffen, 1984).
Typical communal, feminine characteristics are being intuitive, spontaneous, caring, cooperative, flexible, emotional and thorough, whereas typical agentic, masculine traits are being forceful, independent, logical, manipulative, competitive, resilient and decisive (Traves, Brockbank & Tomlinson, 1997).
employed in paid work. Men’s more common occupancy contains higher status roles, being seen as the breadwinner (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009; Eagly & Steffen, 1984).
Gender Discrimination
Female Bias. A natural consequence of gender stereotypes, and the expectations they produce about how women should behave and what they are like, is that women are discriminated against at the work floor. Such gender discrimination can best be described by the “glass ceiling” effect. This phenomenon represents an impenetrable barrier at some point in a woman’s career (Morrison, White & van Velsor, 1987; Heilman, 2001; Barreto, Ryan & Schmitt, 2009), and refers to the fact that men still dominate the upper levels of management in most organizations today. Although the percentage of women in organizations has steadily increased over the past six decades (Elacqua, Beehr, Hansen & Webster, 2009; Davidson & Cooper, 1992), only a few women actually make it to the most powerful positions (Acker, 2009; Desvaus, Devillard-Hoellinger & Baumgarten, 2007; Goodman, Fields & Blum, 2003). For example, across the European Union, women account for 45% of the employed people. Yet, in January 2012, only 15.8 % of the board-seats of the largest publicly listed companies in EU member states were occupied by women (European Commission, 2013). In the Netherlands, the number of women in top positions of organizations is 22%.
In order to help women into top positions in the Netherlands, an agreement called ‘Charter talent to the top’ was signed by almost 200 organizations. In over half of the organizations that signed the charter, the number of women in top positions has increased. However, in one third of the organizations the number decreased (NOS, 2012). In line with the label “glass ceiling” women thus experience an upper limit on how high they can climb on the organizational ladder, and this upper limit barrier seems to be quite subtle (Schmitt, Spoor, Danaher & Branscombe, 2009).
incongruity between people’s beliefs about the communal roles that women generally take on in society and the more directive, agentic roles that leaders are expected to display. This discrepancy makes people think that women may not be suited for leadership positions, as they do not possess the necessary skills that are so “natural” to men (Lemm, Dabady & Banaji, 2005). Moreover, this discrepancy makes it difficult for those women who do enter a high status, male-dominated work setting to behave as an agentic leader. When they do behave in this way, they are often evaluated more harshly and met with more hostility than equally qualified man (Collinson, Knights & Collinson, 1990; Heilman, 2001).
Being the target of gender discrimination, it has been argued that women are more likely than men to perceive that a female bias exists at their work place (Glover, Corrigan & Wilkniss, 2010). As the research of Branscombe shows, gender discrimination is simply a less negative experience for men than for women (1998).
sum terms - “less against you, means more against me”. I therefore argue that men are more likely than women to perceive an anti- male bias at work.
Taken together, previous research suggests that women should be more prone to perceive a female bias than men do, whereas men should be more likely to perceive a male bias than women do. I expect to replicate this direct effect for women. I propose, however, that the extent to which men perceive a male bias may be moderated by saliency of affirmative action programs that advantage the positions of women in organizations.
Affirmative Action as a Way to Cope with Gender Discrimination
For women to break through the ‘glass ceiling’, a lot of action is needed on many fronts (Wirth, 2001), including organizations. To systematically combat past and present gender discrimination in the workplace, organizations have developed affirmative action programs (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart & Wright, 1994). Affirmative action programs all seek to rectify the effects of past employment discrimination by increasing the representation of certain groups in the organization’s workforce (Heneman, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Establishing and actively pursuing hiring and promotion goals for these groups can achieve this.
attitudes towards the program and feelings of unfairness against their own group.
To conclude, both men and women’s perceptions of gender discrimination seem to be affected by affirmative action policies. In the sections below, however, I will explain why I think that affirmative action policies should moderate the extent to which men perceive a male bias only, not women’s perceptions of a female bias.
Affirmative Action and Women’s Perception of a Female Bias.
According to Gamliel, women, who belong to a target group of gender discrimination, tend to be more supportive of affirmative action than men (2007). As mentioned previously, affirmative action is generally effective in increasing the percentage of women in organizations. On the basis of this finding, one could expect that women may start to perceive less female bias when they have experience with affirmative action. Yet, I believe that this effect may not be as straightforward as it may seem. Other research, for example, has demonstrated that some women can also feel stigmatized by affirmative action programs (Heilman, Block & Lucas, 1992). In presence of affirmative action, the impression can be fostered that women did not achieve their position through their own gain. Besides, as qualifications are typically crucial in selection decisions, affirmative action programs can signal that the selected woman are not as competent as the individuals who would normally get the top position (Heilman, Block & Stathatos, 1997). Finally, affirmative action programs can hurt the status position of female employees once they enter an organization because these programs pay less attention to the beneficiaries of the policy once they are employed by the organization. This may cause specific negative experiences associated with affirmative action that are not currently addressed in the policy (Iyer, 2009).
affirmative action (hypothesis 1).
Affirmative Action and Men’s Perception of a Male Bias.
Where women at least have some profits of affirmative action in terms of an increased number of positions available to them, affirmative action only seems to elicit negative responses from highly qualified males (Leonard, 1989) – they tend to experience reverse discrimination as a consequence of giving the target group certain work advantages (Federico, 2002
).
Men can use affirmative action policies as a reason to believe that women are now privileged because they can gain certain positions independent of their merits. In this way, the presence of affirmative action programs within an organization can strengthen their perception that a male bias exists. However, without the presence of affirmative action, men cannot circumvent the possibility that women gained a top position on the basis of their own success, that they simply possess the qualifications needed for a good performance. In this situation, it may be less likely that men develop a male bias when more women enter their organization.In other words, I propose that men’s perception of a male bias should be stronger when affirmative action is involved, than when it’s not. Women, on the other hand, should not experience a male bias, regardless of whether or not affirmative action policies are present. I therefore argue that the salience of affirmative action policies moderates the relationship between gender and the perception that a male bias exists. Men are more likely than women to perceive such a male bias when affirmative action is made salient to them. This effect should be attenuated when affirmative action is not made salient to them (hypothesis 2).
Conceptual model
Figure 1: Conceptual model (Source: Merel Goossens, 2013)
As you can see, in this research, the independent variable is the gender of the participant: male or female. The dependent variables are the perception of a male bias and a female bias. The assumption is being made in this research that the perception of a male bias is positively moderated by the saliency of affirmative action policies in favour of women; therefore this can be mentioned as the moderator.
RESEARCH DESIGN Design, Procedure and Participants
The questionnaires were conducted among a large group of 85 randomly selected participants who were approached through Facebook, LinkedIn and the author’s social network. The participants predominantly were younger than 30 years of age (67%) and most of them indicated to be working in the fast mover consumer goods (22%), consultancy (19%) and the financial sector (17%). The majority of the participants (47%) had between one to five years of experience in the branch they were working in, and most of them did not fulfil a managerial position (64%).
Affirmative Action. In the priming condition, the following additional information about affirmative action was given to participants:
“In these days, many organizations have to deal with diversity at the work place, meaning that the employees who have to work together are different from each other in several important ways. Think for instance of differences in national background, gender, culture, religion or functional background. Yet despite this diversity, we know that some minority groups are still underrepresented in key management positions today, such as women. Organizations cope with this underrepresentation by using affirmative action programs. Affirmative action programs are referred to as both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them from discrimination (Website Archives, 2012).
The Constitution of the Netherlands forbids any discrimination on any grounds. However it allows affirmative action. The law can only limit this right for affirmative action, if there is an objective and reasonable justification for restricting it. Apart from the discrimination law in the Constitution of the Netherlands, since December 1st 2009, the only specific legislation to diversity policies in the Netherlands is called the Kalma Amendment. This law states that the board and the supervisory board of companies with more than 250 employees, should for at least consist for 30 per cent out of women (Frouws & Buiskool, 2010). Although the percentage of women in organizations has steadily increased over the past six decades, gender inequality continues to exist in organizations. Yet most organizations these days, try their best to have good gender diversity (Davidson & Cooper, 1992; Elacqua, Beehr Hansen & Webster, 2009).”
Participant Gender. In total, there were 44 (20 males and 24 females) participants who filled in the questionnaire in which affirmative action was primed and 41 participants (14 males and 27 females) who filled in the questionnaire without the priming of affirmative action.
Measures
The questionnaire included a number of measures to test different lines of research. For the sake of clarity, I will only discuss the measures relevant to my research question here. The full questionnaire, with all measures included, is presented in the appendix.
Key dependent variable. The perception of a female bias and the perception of a male bias were measured, either right at the beginning, or, right after the affirmative action prime. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they believed that females were the targets of gender bias in 2012. Likewise, they were asked to indicate the extent to which men were the targets of gender bias in 2012 (see Norton & Sommers, 2011). Participants had to answer on a 10-point scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ (1) to ‘very much’ (10).
Additional variables. In addition to the extent to which participants believed females and males were the target of gender bias in 2012, I also measured these extents for 1950 and 1980 (following Norton & Sommers, 2011). This way we could additionally examine whether participant´s perceptions about men and women have gradually changed over time.
Control Variables. We controlled for several important variables. First, we measured the extent to which participants had encountered the use of affirmative action programs within their own organization. This item was measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7).
On a similar scale, I also measured their personal attitude towards affirmative action (Slack, 1987). The items we used for this included the following statements: ‘I am against the use of affirmative action in organizations’ and ‘I am an advocate of the use of affirmative action in organizations’ (α = .78). This last statement was recoded in order to compute an average score on the items.
would feel threatened if one of their female colleagues would get a top position through affirmative action (α = .71).
RESULTS Key dependent variable
ANOVA’s were performed with gender bias in 2012 as a dependent variable and gender as well as the priming of affirmative action as fixed factors. As control variables, indicated as covariates, I included the extent to which participants had encountered the use of affirmative action programs within their own organization, the participants’ personal attitude towards affirmative action and their perceptions of career threat.
policies were made salient to women, they in fact believed more firmly that they are disadvantaged as a group in the work place.
Affirmative Action Prime Women Men
Yes 6.1b 4.7a
No 4.9a 5.0a
Table 1: Mean Perception of Female Bias in 2012 (on a 10-point scale).
Perception of a Male Bias. For the male bias I did expect an interaction effect between gender and the saliency of affirmative action, as hypothesized in the introduction. However, the two way ANOVA for gender and affirmative action did not yield any significant effects, not for the control variables or for the manipulations, F (1,78) = 1.25, p < .27 (see Table 3).
Affirmative Action Prime Women Men
Yes 4.0 4.0
No 3.2 4.3
Table 2: Mean Perception of Male Bias in 2012 (on a 10-point scale).
Table 2 does show that men in fact believed more firmly that a male bias existed in the condition where affirmative action was not primed than in the condition where affirmative action was primed. As such, I cannot state that the saliency of affirmative action programs for women causes men to perceive more bias against them as a gender group.
Supplementary analysis
Gender and Gender Biases over Time
.35, and a significant main effect for gender, F (1, 83) = 0.37, p < .054, n2 = .00. No interaction effect between time and gender emerged.
The second repeated measures analysis on the existence of a male bias demonstrated a significant main effect for time as well, F (1,83) = 15.79, p < .00, n2 = .16, but there was no effect for gender or an interaction effect, (lowest F (1,83) = 0.49, p < .49, n2 = .01).
Figure 1 provides an illustration of the mean perceptions that can be derived from the two repeated measures analyses. A simple main effect that derives from this figure is that female respondents perceived a decrease in female bias over time and a slight decrease in the perception of male bias. Men, in contrast, even perceived a larger decrease in female bias over time and a smaller decrease in the perception of male bias.
acknowledge that there is a big difference in the perception of male and female bias in 1950 (Δ indicated by men = 2.5 and Δ indicated by women = 2.9). Yet, looking at the results in 2012, women still see a big difference in the perception of gender bias (Δ = 1.9) where men clearly indicate a low difference (Δ = 0.7).
DISCUSSION Findings
The objective of this study was twofold: First, I wanted to find out if women hold different beliefs about the existence of female and male biases than men do. Second, I wanted to establish whether the increased attention for women, through the growing number of organizations that use affirmative action policies, has the disadvantage of causing men to feel discriminated against. According to Kidder & Lankau et al. (2004) it is important to understand the various reactions that may occur from men (as historically higher status identity groups) now that more organizations contemplate the implementation of organizational practices for women (i.e., a minority, or, historically lower status identity group).
The main finding of this research is that in fact women are more likely than men to believe that a female bias exists, when the existence of special programs for women to improve their minority position in the organizations is made salient to them. More specifically, when affirmative action programs were primed, women more firmly believed that they are disadvantaged than men do and thus hypothesis 1 can be rejected. As such the hypothesized moderation effect of the saliency of affirmative action on the relationship between gender and the perception that a female bias exists was not found.
hypothesis 2 ‘the saliency of affirmative action policies moderates the relationship between gender and the perception that a male bias exists’ can be rejected.
More generally, the supplementary analysis showed that both genders acknowledge a change in female bias as well as male bias over time. In line with these outcomes, men and women both acknowledge a higher female bias. However, women perceive higher female bias then men do and men perceive higher male bias then women do.
Theoretical implications
There can be several reasons for women to perceive a higher female bias than man do these days, particularly when affirmative action is made salient them. First, the saliency of affirmative action confirms to women that they are in a minority position in the labour market and that affirmative actions are at all needed to help them break through the glass ceiling. Accordingly, the perception of being disadvantaged is also still present. In addition, where previous research (Heilman & Alcott, 2001) showed that affirmative action could unintentionally harm women - because of the fact that it may foster a view that women in the workplace have been selected preferentially -, this research shows that affirmative action can also directly harm women because it undermines the image women have of themselves. As a consequence they may indeed also see themselves as a weaker group.
Moreover, the supplementary analysis demonstrated that there is a significant effect of gender bias and time. Over time, the perception of gender biases has decreased, but they both still exist. Literature states that both men and women can be disadvantaged by workplace discrimination when applying for jobs stereotypically associated with the other sex (Hoyt, 2012), which may be one of the reasons for both men and women still to perceive this bias these days. Yet the bias for females was clearly higher in the past then it is now, whereas the bias for men dropped only slightly. This means that men are nowadays still perceived to be relatively agentic, just like fifty years ago (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). This difference in change over time for men and women may have occurred because of their different status positions within society. Perceptions of a male bias mean something very different too, and are valued less negatively by people than perceptions of a female bias (Schmitt & Branscombe et al., 2002).
Limitations and future directions
diversity in the organization. A more systematic examination of this question across organizations with or without affirmative action would be necessary to get more robust insights into the negative experiences of men and women once they face an actual gender bias. Another reason for this is that the affirmative action prime makes it salient to women that they are a minority group. While this is in line with some research (see above), it could thus mean that it was not the affirmative action per se that influenced women’s perceptions. In addition, asking the participants to indicate their perceptions of the existence of neutral female and male bias (combining positive and negative biases), instead of merely negative female and male biases only may in fact have also caused affirmative action to be more salient.
gender pay gap should – in future research – be regarded as a possible moderator for the perception of gender bias.
Conclusions and practical implications
Taken together, it can be said that women still perceive a higher bias than men do these days, particularly when the presence of affirmative action is made salient to them. At the same time, the saliency of affirmative action programs for women are not of influence on the perception of bias for men as a gender group.
Bielby states that preferences in gender or race are a superficial response to a far more challenging problem (2002). A problem to substantially analyse an organization’s personnel system, identify and remove barriers and to ‘act affirmatively’ to put in place systems for hiring, training, assigning, compensating, evaluating and promoting employees that create true equal employment opportunities. Moreover, this research showed that affirmative action could harm women because it makes them see themselves as a weaker group, and thus
REFERENCES
Acker, J. (2009). From glass ceiling to inequality regimes. Sociologie du travail, 51(2), 199-217.
Barreto, M., Ryan, M.K., & Schmitt, M.T. (2009). Increasing the representation and status of women in employment: the effectiveness of affirmative action. In: Barreto, M., Ryan, M.K., & Schmitt, M.T. The Glass ceiling in the 21st century: understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association, 3-18.
Bielby, W.T. (2000). Minimizing workplace gender and racial bias. Contemporary sociology, 29 (1), 120-128.
Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in women and men. British journal of social psychology, 37, 167– 184.
Collinson, D. L., Knights, D., & Collinson, M. (1990). Managing to discriminate. London and New York: Routledge.
Davidson, M.J., & Cooper, C.L. (1992). Shattering the glass ceiling: the woman manager. London: Paul Chapter publishing ltd.
Desvaus, G., Devillard-Hoellinger, S., & Baumgarten, P. (2007). Women matter: gender diversity, a corporate performance driver. McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Diekman, A.B., & Eagly, A.H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present and future. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 26, 1171-1188.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism: advances in experimental social psychology, 36, 1–56.
Eagly, A.H., & Sczesny, S. (2009). Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders: Have times changed? In: Barreto, M., Ryan, M.K., & Schmitt, M.T. The glass ceiling in the 21st century: understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association, 21-47.
Eagly, A.H., & Steffen, V.J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46 (4). 735-754.
Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A.B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In: Eckes, T., & Trautner, M. The developmental social psychology of gender. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elkins, T.J., Phillips, J.S. & Konopaske, R. (2002). Gender related biases in evaluations of sex discrimination allegations: Is perceived threat the key? Journal of applied psychology, 87 (2), 280-292.
Federico, C.M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequences of 'principled objections' to affirmative action. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(4), 488-502.
Fiske, A.P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S.T. (1991). Confusing one person with another: What errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 60(5), 656-674.
Foster, M.D., Arnt, S., & Honkola, J. (2004). When the advantages become disadvantaged: men’s and women’s actions against gender discrimination. Sex roles, 50 (1/2), 27-36.
Gamliel, E. (2007). To accept or to reject: The effect of framing on attitudes toward affirmative action. Journal of applied psychology, 37 (4), 683-702.
Glover, C.M., Corrigan, P., & Wilkniss, S. (2010). The effects of multiple categorization on perceptions of discrimination, life domains, and stress for individuals with severe mental illness. Journal of vocational rehabilitation, 33(2), 113-121.
Heilman, M.E. (2001). Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women's Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder. Journal of social issues, 57(4), 657-674.
Heilman, M.E. & Alcott, V.B. (2001). What I think you think of me: Women’s reactions to being viewed as beneficiaries of preferential selection. Journal of applied psychology, 86 (4), 574-582.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J., & Lucas, J.A. (1992). Presumed incompetent?: Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of applied psychology, 77, 536-544.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J., & Stathatos, P. (1997). The Affirmative Action Stigma of Incompetence: Effects of Performance Information Ambiguity. Academy of management journal, 40(3), 603-625.
Heneman III, H.G., Judge, T.A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2012). Staffing organizations. Midleton: Mendota House, Inc.
Hoyt, C.L. (2012) Gender bias in employment contexts: A closer examination of the incongruity principle. Journal of experimental social psychology, 48, 86-96.
Khoreva, V. (2011). Gender pay gap and its perceptions. Equality, diversity and inclusion: an international journal, 30 (3), 233-248.
Kidder, D.L., Lankau, M.J., Chrobot-Mason, D., Mollica, K.A., & Friedman, R.A. (2004). Backlash toward diversity initiatives: examining the impact of diversity program justification., personal and group outcomes. International journal of conflict management, 15 (1), 77-102.
Leonard, J.S. (1989). Women and affirmative action. Journal of economic perspectives, 3, 61-75.
Lemm, K.M., Dabady, M., & Banaji, M.R. (2005). Gender picture priming: it works with denotative and connotative primes. Social cognition, 23, 218-241.
Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P.M. (1994). Human resource management: gaining a competitive advantage. Burr Ridge, IL US: Austen Press/Richard D. Irwin.
Sabattini, L. & Crosby, F.J. (2009). Ceilings and walls: work-life ad ‘family friendly’ policies. In: Barreto, M., Ryan, M.K., & Schmitt, M.T. The glass ceiling in the 21st century: understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association, 201-223.
Schmitt, M.T., Branscombe, N.R., Kobrynowicz, D. & Owen, S. (2002). Gender group has different Implications for well being in women and men. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 28 (2), 197-210.
Schmitt, M.T., Spoor, J.R., Danaher, K., & Branscombe, N.R. (2009). Rose-colored glasses: How tokenism and comparisons with the past reduce the visibility of gender inequality. In: Barreto, M., Ryan, M.K., & Schmitt, M.T. The glass ceiling in the 21st century: understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association, 49-71.
Slack, J.D. (1987). Affirmative action and city managers: Attitudes toward recruitment of women. Public administration review, 7 (2), 199-206.
Traves, J., Brockbank, A. & Tomlinson, F. (1997). Careers of women managers in the retail industry. Service industries journal (London), 17 (1), 133-154.
Wirth, L. (2001). Breaking through the glass ceiling: women in management. Geneva: International labour office.
Yerkes, M. (2010). Diversity in work: heterogeneity of women’s employment patterns. Gender, work and organizations, 17 (6), 696 – 720.
Websites
Archives (2012). http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-‐rights-‐act/. Accessed October 27, 2012.
Economist (2013). http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21576662-governments-should-be-colour-blind-time-scrap-affirmative-action. Accessed May 13, 2013.
European Commission (2013). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-51_en.htm. Accessed June 22, 2013.
NOS (2012). http://nos.nl/artikel/427166-nauwelijks-topvrouwen-erbij.html. Accessed November 12, 2012.
APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE
The following questionnaire refers to the way you look at your job, your colleagues and the organization you work for. These days’ organizations think of many HR policies to motivate their employees. Affirmative action is one of these policies. We are curious about your opinion and the way you look at this.
The survey will take about 15 minutes. You are asked to fill in the questions as well as possible for the truth. The results of the questionnaires will be treated confidentially and will not be disclosed to third parties unless authorized by applicable laws. The information will be made publicly available through an article, written in the context of the Master’s Thesis, only after anonymisation and in a statistical and aggregate form. This means that none of the results can be reducible to a specific respondent.
To start, we would like to ask you some general questions about your job. 1. What branch are you working in?
…….
(Verschillende opties weergegeven n.a.v. intermediair lijst.) 2. How long are you working in this branche?
o 0-1 year o 1-5 years o 5-10 years
o 10 years or longer
3. Do you have a managerial role in the organization you work for? o Yes (go to question 4)
o No (go to question 5)
4. What is the size of the team you manage? o Less than 10 employees.
5. At what level are you in your organization? Draw your position.
6. For what time are you in this current position? o Less than 1 year.
o Between 1 and 3 years. o Between 3 and 5 years. o More than 5 years.
7. To what extent do you think your work is in most ways close to ideal?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. To what extent are you satisfied with your work?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Affirmative action
In these days, many organizations have to deal with diversity at the work place, meaning that the employees who have to work together are different from each other in several important ways. Think for instance of differences in national background, gender, culture, religion or functional background.
Yet despite this diversity, we know that some minority groups are still underrepresented in key management positions today, such as women. Organizations cope with this underrepresentation by using affirmative action programs.
Affirmative action programs are referred to as “both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them from discrimination”.1
The Constitution of the Netherlands forbids any discrimination on any grounds. However it allows affirmative action. Law can only limit this right for affirmative action, if there is an objective and reasonable justification for restricting it. Apart from the discrimination law in the Constitution of the Netherlands, since December 1st 2009, the only specific legislation to diversity policies in the Netherlands is called the Kalma Amendment. This law states that the board and the supervisory board of companies with more than 250 employees, should for at least consist for 30 per cent out of women.2 The literature indeed shows us that the first thing people notice about others is whether this person is a male or female, particularly at work. This categorization by sex evokes work role expectations about the behaviours of men and women. These expectations are defined as gender biases and can lead to gender discrimination to women as well as men. The following statements are related to gender biases and how they have changed over time. The statements can be answered on a 1 to 10 scale, in which 1 means not at all and 10 means very much.
9. From what you know, indicate the extent to which women were the target of gender bias around 1950 (= more than 60 years ago).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10. Now, indicate the extent to which men were the target of gender bias around 1950 (= more than 60 years ago).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11. From what you know, indicate the extent to which women were the target of gender bias around 1980 (=more than 30 years ago).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12. Now, indicate the extent to which men were the target of gender bias around 1980 (=more than 30 years ago).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
13. From what you experience, indicate the extent to which women are currently, in 2012, the target of gender bias (= at this moment!)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14. Now, indicate the extent to which men are currently, in 2012, the target of gender bias (= at this moment!).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The following statements are about you and your job, and your reaction to the implementation of affirmative action within your organization. These statements should
be answered on a 1 to 7 scale. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the statements. (1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3= agree somewhat, 4 = undecided, 5= disagree somewhat, 6= disagree, 7= strongly disagree).
Imagine, a direct female colleague of yours gets one of the few top positions within your organization through an affirmative action policy. How would you react to this?
15. I would feel this colleague threatens my current position on the job.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. I would make sure she wouldn’t hinder me in being successful at work.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. I would feel like there is a lot of competition for promotions at work.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. I would think the competition on the job is quite extensive.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How would you feel about the top position your direct female colleague will possibly occupy?
19. If this top position will be offered to me in the near future, I will accept this.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. I would see this top position as a special challenge to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. I prefer to leave this top position to her.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. I would probably tell my relatives that I was hoping for promotion to this top position.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The next question is about the reality, your own organization.
23. In the organization where I work for, affirmative action is implemented.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Next, when you think about your female colleagues, what answer would you choose regarding their career opportunities?
24. I think it is easy for them to get ahead.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. I would see opportunities for them in the near future for a promotion to an interesting position.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. I would think there are more than enough opportunities for their personal development.
Looking at your own organization, to what extent do you think the right people get promoted to the top positions?
27. Within my department people with a higher hierarchical position are generally correct in this higher place.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. In general, the right people get promoted to the higher top positions within my organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. All in all I think the opportunities for promotion are fair in my organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Regarding permeability, which of the following sentences applies to you the most, regarding permeability?
30. For me it is easy to gain access to interesting projects at work.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
31. Without problems I gain access to the necessary means for projects (e.g. finances, personnel etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32. Important social networks are well accessible for me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33. The ability for me to get ahead in my career is positively influenced by affirmative action.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Furthermore, how do you feel about fitting in with the other managers in top positions? 34. Generally, I think I would ‘fit in’ with managers in top positions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35. When I think of managers in top positions, I get a sense that I belong with them.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36. I think that my skills fit well with those of most managers in top positions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37. When I look at people who have succeeded in becoming managers in top positions, I feel like I have a lot in common with them.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent do you feel committed to your organization? 38. Problems of the organization partly feel as problems of mine.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
39. I feel emotionally attached to the organization.
40. The organization means a lot to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41. I feel at home in the organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42. I feel like I’m part of the family within the organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gender diversity
Although the percentage of women in organizations has steadily increased over the past six decades, gender inequality continues to exist in organizations.3 Yet most organizations these days, try their best to have good gender diversity. To continue, we will now ask you some questions regarding gender diversity in your organization and how you experience this.
43. What is the percentage women in your organization? o 0-20 %
o 21-40 % o 41- 60% o 61-80% o 81-100%
44. What is the percentage women working in managerial positions? o 0-20 %
o 21-40 % o 41- 60% o 61-80% o 81-100%
The following statements should be answered on a 1 to 7 scale again. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the statements. (1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3= agree somewhat, 4 = undecided, 5= disagree somewhat, 6= disagree, 7= strongly disagree).
45. I think that the ratio between males and females is relatively good in my organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46. I believe that more women should be working in my organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
47. I believe that more men should be working in my organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
48. Gender diversity is an important issue where I work.
3 Davidson, M.J., & Cooper, C.L. (1992). Shattering the Glass Ceiling: The Woman Manager. London: Paul
Chapter publishing ltd.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49. I think my organization manages issues related to gender diversity well.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
50. I think my organization manages gender issues related to gender diversity fairly.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You will now be presented with some more statements about affirmative action. These statements should be answered on a 1 to 7 scale again. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the statements. (1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3= agree somewhat, 4 = undecided, 5= disagree somewhat, 6= disagree, 7= strongly disagree).
51. When female and male applicants are of equal ability and women are underrepresented in an organization, the organization should give preference to female applicants.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
52. An organization should make effort to recruit women for top positions in management.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
53. An organization should establish hiring targets for women.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
54. An organization should not hire a female applicant if there is a more competent male applicant who wants the job.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
55. I think affirmative action is an effective method to achieve gender equality.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
56. I am an advocate of the use of affirmative action within organizations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
57. I am against the use of affirmative action within organizations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Finally, we would like to ask you to answer the following demographical questions. 58. What is your gender?
o Male o Female
59. What is your age? ….
