Gender is perhaps better understood as a verb than a noun. It is a process that ensures that everything from what we wear, read and watch, to the ways we think, feel and even perceive our future carries a gendered undertone. Gender can be a significant lens through which we shape our identity and how we choose to interact with different spheres of society. One such sphere is the law. Examining the different ways the two ends of the gender spectrum, men and women, interact with and understand the law can lead to observing many clear differences along gender lines. Elizabeth Hoffman’s work in analyzing cooperative working environments illustrates such a situation. While cooperative organizations intend to flatten traditional hierarchical power dynamics and create an atmosphere in which all individuals feel comfortable utilizing company laws to settle disputes, Hoffman’s work demonstrates that gender still influences who is willing to use various forms of procedures. It can be difficult to understand why the removal of traditional boss/subordinate dynamics in a workplace fails to eliminate the variations in the procedures men and women are comfortable using. However, when applying the evidence and logic collected in the study performed by Grasmick, which investigates the ways gender affects how a person interacts with laws, it becomes clearer why gender is about so much more than just power dynamics.
Hoffman’s report asserts that women are more likely to utilize formal procedures when resolving workplace disputes, while men prefer more informal avenues. There are claims that the reasoning behind such a trend is that women simply did not have access to the male dominated system of “networking” that is required for successfully using informal approaches. While the noted difference in such access is undoubtedly a factor, the motivation of such women is much more complex and can be in some ways subconscious. The informal procedures in Hoffman’s analysis carry more risk and require a higher degree of assertion on the part of women. Informal procedures also often revolve around direct confrontation between two parties. These added components may leave women feeling at a distinct disadvantage due to the way women are socialized to perceive risk, confrontation and conflicts differently than men. Through different mechanisms of societal reward and punishment, women are ingrained with notions that favor avoiding confrontation because to do otherwise is to “engage in status threatening behavior by failing to appear passive, dependent or fearful.” Thus methods that require such confrontation may seem less favorable to women. Attempting to eliminate traditional power hierarchies in a work place doesn’t erase decades of engendered socialization that leaves women feeling that they cannot argue and advocate for themselves in the same manner men can.
Formal procedures at the company in question tend to incorporate a spokesperson to speak on behalf of wronged women. In addition, they require a degree of objectivity and ensure all aggrieved parties get an opportunity to voice their concerns. In essence there is a greater atmosphere of control. Grasmick’s study conveys that women tend to experience an increased amount of control over their lives by parents, family members and other authority figures. This pattern can lead to women feeling more familiar with controlled processes and procedures as opposed to the loose nature of informal conflict resolution. Arguing or debating over the course of a conflict can be associated with aggression and anger which are other characteristics society punishes women for exhibiting. The ability for women to have representatives speak on their behalf when incorporating formal conflict resolution methods may subconsciously alleviate some of the concerns women may have about others perceiving them to be less like what society has defined to be “womanly.”
Grasmick and company do argue that the ways in which man and women interact with the law is converging. This overarching conclusion does not render the evidence found in their article incompatible with the results of Hoffman’s for a variety of reasons. One explanation for the reduction in variability observed between men and women’s interaction with the law offered by Grasmick is that there are more women in in the work force and in employed office settings. There are also more women in authoritative positions and living in a more empowered context, and thus able to mimic men’s interactions with the law. While these claims may be true, they are not entirely applicable to the co-op case study examined by Hoffman. While the working community overall has more women workers, the coop organization is comprised of only 16 per cent women. In addition, of the various semi-authoritative positions available in the co-op, a majority of these positions are held by men. In fact only one position of great power is held by a woman. Lastly, Hoffman asserts that for women cab driving is often considered an unconventional occupation - which can influence interpretations of the power dynamics by women. So while Grasmick’s evidence supports a growing trend in which women are able to mirror the actions of men in a legal framework in society as whole, the specific characteristics of the co-op in Hoffman’s article are not conducive to women feeling as though they are on the same playing field as men.
Hoffman may be right in attributing her observed variation is usage of formal/informal procedures along gender lines to women not being a part of the “boys club,” but gender in this case study is about so much more than exclusion. It dictates perceptions of success and what the stakes are. When society punishes women for playing the game the same way men do, it is not surprising that they rely on more structured methods to trespass through the “dangerous” domain of pursuing restorative justice.
_____________________________________________
Work Cited
Hoffman, E. (2005). Dispute Resolution in a Worker Cooperative: Formal Procedures and Procedural Justice. Journal of the Law and Society Association, 39, 51-82.
Grasmick, H., Blackwell, B., & Bursik, R. (1993). Changes in the Sex Patterning of Perceived Threats of Sanctioning. Journal of the Law and Society Association, 27, 679-705.
This is a really well formulated comparison between the two articles! I think you touched on the most important piece concerning gender dynamics and conflict resolution, which is that by and large, it is derived from a collective cultural problem we face, not an individual issue. Often times gender is only thought of in the binary of men and women, for which society has endorsed strict roles for what a man or women looks and acts like. Asserting that women lean on more formal procedures to resolve conflict is spot on specifically because it goes against a gender role prescribed to women by society. While I think there is no outright answer to neutralize the differences of conflict resolution between men and women, I do think that it begins with a collective cultural shift where, perhaps, the formal procedures are enforced across the board until everyone can benefit equally from informal procedures.
ReplyDeleteGreat choice of readings to compare! Your argument makes it clear that a woman's preference toward more formal, controlled procedures in the workplace is not only about exclusion, but also a result of years of socialization. After reading your analysis, I'm curious to know if the emergence of "google" style offices in recent years--ones with an open structure that encourage group collaboration and the interaction of co-workers--has any impact on the influence of gender when choosing to use formal or informal procedures. My guess is that, coupled with an increasing amount of women in authority positions since 2005, offices such as these help women feel more comfortable around their co-workers. Group-think activities and projects may give women more opportunities to advocate their ideas in an informal arena of mixed gender. Now, I'm not sure if the simple increase in interaction among co-workers is enough to erase generations of engendered socialization, however, I can imagine it has some impact. Even if google-style offices are not the answer to this issue of gender differences in the workplace, specific structural changes in different work environments still need to be implemented to combat this problem.
ReplyDeleteHi Sarah. I think choosing to analyze how Google as a corporation is affected with, and attempts to address gender dynamics in its working space is a great idea. Google in many ways is seen as a pioneer in the methods it utilizes to try and ensure its employees work in the most enabling environment and so Im sure examining some of their initiatives would reveal some insight as to what can be effective or not.
DeleteGreat job, Jihad. I am curious how your comparison of the Hoffman and Grasmick articles plays into the larger feminist argument that is so prevalent today. After watching Emma Watson's speech at the UN regarding gender equality, in which she makes the point that perceived gender norms affect men in the same way they affect women, I am curious as to whether or not perceived male norms, not just female, play a role in the problem women had at the taxi company. If men feel they have to fit into the stereotypes of being more aggressive and assertive, especially because taxi driving, as you mentioned, is seen as a male profession, could this contribute to the women's problems with dispute resolution. Furthermore, the question than arises, if it were in a workplace that is generally seen as a female profession, would dispute resolution for women change? Does location exaggerate gender norms or are they always there? I feel that until both men and women can feel comfortable in any workplace, regardless if it was formally seen as male or female professions, gender stereotypes will continue to affect dispute resolution. The more uncomfortable one feels in the workplace, the harder time they will have getting out of their gender's perceived norms.
ReplyDeleteThanks Josh. I Think you make a really great point. The fact is, men are also stakeholders in resolving gender dynamics that negatively affect how employees in a shared space pursue enumeration or justice. i think flipping the switch and looking at a men in a predominately woman based profession would should that representation does indeed play a role in how individuals interpret their access to different resolution avenues
DeleteI think this arugment was very well supported! I am curious however, about your one point relating to how women have been observed to resort to more formal methods of confrontation in the office. I realize why this does occur, as there is an inherent power in numbers, but could this method also be somewhat detrimental to the relationship between men and women? I only say this because it can be very intimidating and messages can be taken the wrong way should 7 women confront one man, even just another person for that matter. What do you think when it comes to confrontation? Do we side with statistics or follow more social norm based methods?
ReplyDeleteGreat point Evan. The types of methods used by one gender can most certainly affect another, especially in a shared space like a co-op. Its hard to account for all of the socio/neurological/emotional elements that influence why women may choose one avenue over the other, but any attempts to try and introduce new methods that may be less potentially detrimental to gender relationships would need to be implemented long before men and women enter the workforce. Socialization begins at birth, so such efforts would also need to have roots early in development as well. Great points Evan.
DeleteI think that the Grasmick and Hoffman comparison is a great one, for it beautifully highlights the issue of gender disparity within the workplace. The arguments are well formulated, and I like how the study ties into the idea of formal/informal methods. It would have been interesting to go a little further and highlight issues of income disparity as well. Studies have shown that since women have been socialized to be more cooperative & caring, they are less likely to act in self-promoting ways, such as asking for a pay raise. On top of that, that type of behavior has socially and professionally penalized women before; those who are more confrontational are labeled as “pushy” or “bitchy” even though such behavior is socially encouraged amongst their male counterparts. Obviously, with more women being placed in higher positions, the environment may become a lot more welcoming for all genders; however, the issue remains within the same positions as well. I am aware that the word count is limited, but this piece also raises the question of how workplace interactions differ among different sexual orientations as well.
ReplyDeleteJihad, I commend your analysis of the readings. You connect the two well and emphasize important issues. I must say, I experience this paradigm constantly. As an officer of a male-dominated athletic club, I know how difficult it is to be a female in power in a literal "boy's club." Many other (male) club leaders approach issues informally, but I always feel the need to practice protocol. When I act "informally" in any way, I am critiqued and when male officers behave similarly, high fives and laughs follow their actions. However, I am good friends with many of the men on the officer board: we hang out outside of club meetings, drink together, etc. As you suggest, there is more at play here than simply a lack of access to informal social networks. I think in general, women must work much harder to be perceived as leaders and as professionals in society. Broadly, cultural and social patterns that place women at a disadvantage in organizations are a consequence of brain patterning and macroeconomic patterns—not unlike other instances of discrimination that we've studied in class.
ReplyDeleteThis was excellently thought out and very well supported! It does, however, lead me to question the original pieces claims that the difference is gender based-- while it very well might be, I'd also be interested to see female-dominated organizations and see if women still felt the need to use formal procedures, or if the roles were flipped in some way.
ReplyDeleteGreat point. I think looking at things from the flip side would be interesting as well!
DeleteI really enjoyed your comparison of the Gramsick and Hoffman readings. I think the Bruner as well as the Stets and Burke readings from unit one could apply to this concept as well. For one, Bruner argues that the concept of the “self” is a cultural product. This ties in with Gramsick’s idea that the concept of being “womanly” is not necessarily compatible with the methods that informal interactions in the cab company might require. This is in America, women are often culturally expected to avoid conflict. Thus, the women in the Hoffman study may be subconsciously acting to fulfill the expectations of their cultural role as a woman. Further, Stets and Burke argue that identity stems from in-group and out-group associations. Because cab driving is considered an unconventional profession for a woman, the women in the company may feel that they are outsiders, or part of an “out-group” in this business, and therefore feel disadvantaged using informal interactions to solve conflict. This may be an issue particularly because the men in the company may view their identities as powerful figures in the company because of in-group status in “boys clubs.”
ReplyDeleteI find this essay interesting because I believe the topic of gender in any form is one that has the same unfinished output every time it is discussed. One would think that if the work environment is one that is welcoming and collaborative it would help with the gendering of the space. But this essay explores the fact that genders are identified by a lot more than just unfair treatment or other obvious examples of gendering. It can also be seen in the ways they choose to handle treatment from those of the opposite gender.
ReplyDeleteGreat essay! You can definitely see real world examples of the argument you've just presented. It's interesting to see such theoretics regarding gender discrimination applied to large firms where, in general, women do actually have a reasonable basis behind their preference for more quickly resorting to formal methods of problem solving in comparison to men. I wonder what happens, however, when women do not have access to the formal procedures and offices usually supported by large companies. For example, this summer I interned at a tiny law firm in San Francisco. If a dispute arose during my time there, I would have nobody to go to but directly to the partner of my firm. But this seems almost bizarre: a temporary college student intern going to the partner of her law firm to settle workplace disputes! With such dependence on formal procedure, now one can see how society has thrown women into a corner if no such formalities exist.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great essay that skillfully connects the two articles. I have taken several classes on gender issues and find the topic of gender equality extremely interesting. One item that interests me is the power-control theory and how it ultimately deters women from taking risks and how this will most likely become less common as gender equality emerges. However, it also leads to other questions like will the “two” genders ever be equal or will we gradually evolve out of this dichotomous nomenclature and have a more free system. Continually, will people ever be able to ignore the common preconceptions or connotations of what a boy or what a girl should be. It is tough to imagine any sort of gender equality while ignoring these questions in my opinion.
ReplyDelete