QUEEN BEE???

April 12, 2011 by Leave a Comment

April 11, 2011

What follows are excerpts from a study by psychologists at the University of Cincinnati concluding that female bosses tend to be “cogs in the machine” to other women in the workplace.According to the researchers, a female boss is more likely to wreck a woman’s promotion prospects in male-dominated environments and men who report to a female manager get much more mentoring and support than their female colleagues.

The researchers say that women who manage to break the glass ceiling may not want competition from other women and/or may want to blend in as much as possible with their male counterparts.

The import of the study, in my opinion, is that the researchers say workplaces are still pervasively male-oriented in their customs, policies, and structures, and that female bosses are no different from male bosses in reacting to organizational preferences to invest in men’s careers more so than women’s.  This is what needs to change.  No boss should be a “cog in the machine.”

To commemorate International Women’s Day, former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet,  the head of the new U.N. women’s agency,  recently said there has been “remarkable progress” since International Women’s Day was first celebrated a century ago but that gender equality remains a distant goal because women still suffer widespread discrimination and lack political and economic clout. – PGB

queen beeMEN GET MORE SUPPORT THAN WOMEN

FROM FEMALE BOSSES

Excerpt from:  Maume, David J. ,  Meet the new boss…same as the old boss? Female supervisors and subordinate career prospects,  Social Science Research Volume 40, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 287-298.

… Drawing a 2002 national sample of non-managerial workers, men exceeded women in receiving job-related support from female supervisors and were more optimistic about their promotion chances as a result. Although cross-sectional data precludes drawing firm conclusions regarding processes that occur over-time, the results are consistent with the notion that female managers are cogs in the machine, in that female supervisors have little or no effect on the career prospects of female subordinates, and instead foster men’s career prospects.

… when women attain jobs paying wages similar to men’s, informal workplace dynamics are unleashed that seek to restore men’s more privileged position in the workplace. These processes include isolation and exclusion from informal networks and professional growth opportunities ([Purcell, 2007] and [Reskin et al., 1999]), ratcheting up job demands to determine if women will put work ahead of family life as men do ([Fried, 1998] and [Hochschild, 1997]), and harassment of a general and/or sexual nature ([Acker, 1990] and [Roscigno, 2007]). The cumulative effect of these informal processes is that women’s work effectiveness is compromised, increasing the likelihood that they will either quit their jobs or be fired.

Given gendered informal dynamics that are pervasive in the workplace, some contend that female bosses either lack the power to impede organizational preferences to foster men’s careers, or that female bosses agree with negative stereotypes of female workers ([Cooper, 1997] and [Deaux, 1985]; Wajcman, 1998). And of course, female supervisors may themselves be the victims of informal processes to marginalize them and compromise their effectiveness ([Kanter, 1977] and [Fried, 1998]). In either case, when subordinates report to female supervisors, they may not perceive them to be any different from male bosses who give male subordinates more attention and more chances for promotion as way to advance their own careers. If so, female subordinates will be more likely to quit out of frustration or be fired, even though they may hold jobs paying wages similar to men’s. Jacobs (1989) characterized this process as one of “revolving doors,” in which women enter high-paying male-typed jobs only to exit these jobs later. This dynamic could reconcile the apparent inconsistency between studies reporting an association between more female managers and a lower gender wage gap, and this study’s finding that men’s, but not women’s, career prospects are enhanced when reporting a female superior.

… Despite these caveats, this study is the first representative analysis of how subordinate career prospects are affected by directly reporting to a female supervisor. The results are consistent with much research showing that workplaces are pervasively male-oriented in their customs, policies, and structures, and that female bosses are no different from male bosses in reacting to organizational preferences to invest in men’s careers more so than women’s. Additional research is needed on the organizational mechanisms fostering or impeding women’s ascendance to supervisory positions in order to assess progress toward the goal of affording men and women equal opportunity to exercise managerial authority. Yet, irrespective of what future studies of managerial attainment show, those who expect that female bosses will dramatically change the nature of superior-subordinate relations are likely to be disappointed.

Filed Under: DISPATCHES Tagged With: , , , , cogs in the machine, female bosses, glass ceiling, , University of Cincinnati

Employer Picks Up the Tab?

February 24, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Here’s a 2/15/11 article in The New York Post about an alleged bully boss.  Whether or not Mr. Dingle prevails,  this story should give employers pause to think about the high cost to THEM of alleged bullying – higher health costs, sick leave, complaints to human resources that tie up personnel, lost work hours, poor morale, bad publicity that may discourage quality job applicants and taint the organization, turnover, and, of course, costly litigation.  As a lawyer and consultant with experience in employment law and domestic violence, I have done substantial research in this area and believe that training, monitoring and early intervention could resolve many of these problems before they reach the critical stage.  PGB

My boss’ voice made me vomit

By JAMIE SCHRAM

The mere sound of his boss’ voice made his stomach turn.

Housing Authority Superintendent Anthony Dingle was so sickened by higher-up Demetrice Gadson’s constant berating that he would literally vomit, according to a lawsuit.

“I was constantly being attacked by her. I felt like attacks could come at any time. Every time I heard her voice, it triggered a sickening feeling in me,” Dingle said through his lawyers, Michael Borrelli and Alexander Coleman.

Dingle, 48, claims that his boss became verbally abusive after he blew the whistle on her for alleged shenanigans.

He says he was forced to go to a doctor because of the abuse to get “prescribed medication to calm his stomach and to get his intestinal system properly functioning,” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit charges.

A colleague even told him that Gadson relished in his suffering, the suit alleges, saying, “I did not know that I made men throw up” — and then laughed hysterically.

Gadson, 43, who is deputy director of the Housing Authority’s Manhattan Management unit, was so heartless that she even chastised Dingle as he grieved for his dead uncle, the suit says.

While Dingle was attending his uncle’s funeral in South Carolina, Gadson allegedly fired off e-mails to him that ripped him for not requesting overtime to address certain issues and accusing him of “not knowing his role.”

“She showed me a complete lack of respect,” Dingle said through his lawyers.

Dingle’s health continued to deteriorate, the suit says, and he suffered from a bleeding prostate that was treated by a urologist.

He was so beaten down emotionally that he sought out a shrink.

“Mr. Dingle began seeing a psychological therapist, and he continues, to date, to see this therapist on a weekly basis,” the suit charges.

The suit, filed late last year against the Housing Authority and Gadson, alleges the boss began verbally bashing Dingle after he complained about her to higher ups while he was superintendent at the Polo Grounds Towers in Harlem.

It follows a federal suit filed by Dingle against both last year. In that suit, the judge dismissed the case against the Housing Authority while the claims against Gadson remain pending. The Housing Authority declined to comment.

Reached by telephone, Gadson declined to comment.

Filed Under: DISPATCHES Tagged With: , , , Anthony Dingle, , , ,

Abusive Potential Employers

February 1, 2011 by 2 Comments

We have all read about the self-defeating mistakes a job applicant can make at a job interview.

The woman who brought her toddler. The guy who took the phone call from his wife. The girl who wore a revealing T-Shirt and flip-flops.

It is less well understood that this is a two-way street. Employers make “mistakes” too.  Some employers use tactics that are abusive to potential employees, who often have no recourse to complain.

A potential employer is in a power position. The employer has what the applicant wants – a job. For that reason, most job applicants seek to please. However,  some employers seem to feel that by consenting to an interview, the applicant has forfeited his or her right to be treated with dignity, respect and fairly.

The Society for Human Resources Management exhorts its 250,000 members to abide by a Code of Ethics that includes: “Encourage my employer to make the fair and equitable treatment of all employees a primary concern.” That tenet should be broadened to apply to job applicants also.

An applicant found her dream job at a non-profit organization halfway across the country. She was offered the job and moved there with her children. However, in the month between the offer and her arrival, there was a management shakeup. When she arrived, her job description had changed and she was reporting to a new supervisor who had not participated in her job interview. Furthermore, the new supervisor was 20 years younger, far less experienced, and was hostile from the start. The applicant estimates it cost her about $8,000 to relocate for the job, and that it will cost her many thousands more to relocate again – not including lost pension benefits and the emotional distress.

In another instance, after meeting with the Human Resources person, a job applicant for a position in Long Island  literally waited six hours sitting in a chair outside the boss’ office. At one point, he heard the boss  talking on the phone, laughing, and making plans for dinner.  The interview was finally conducted at the end of the day. It lasted about ten minutes. To add insult to injury, he was stuck on the drive home in Long Island’s infamous rush hour traffic for about two hours.

One applicant, an unemployed father of two, says he was strongly encouraged to fly to Philadelphia to meet with a prospective employer, who indicated he was a finalist for the position but could not be appointed without a face-to-face meeting.  This was a job at a state agency that, he was told, had no travel budget.  Upon arrival in Philadelphia, the prospective employer administered the equivalent of a standardized test  that he said he was giving to all applicants.  The “test” could easily have been conducted over the phone. The applicant, who didn’t get the job, advises:  “Never pay for travel!” (Suggest Skype – it’s the equivalent of a  face to face interview and it’s free.)

Finally,  an attractive woman in her mid-50s recalls a job interview in Connecticut with a direct supervisor that was going well.  The supervisor said the company president planned to stop by and say hello.  At one point, a man in his 40s walked briskly into the supervisor’s office, took one look at the applicant, and, wordlessly, turned on his heels and walked out. There was a long  and awkward silence.  After a few moments, the supervisor,  a woman in her 30s, left the room. When she returned, she said the boss wouldn’t be able to meet with the applicant after-all.  The applicant suspected the man who entered the room was the company president.  She was devastated. “I guess I was too old?” she says.

When a prospective employer makes a mistake or uses abusive tactics, more often than not, the job seeker pays the price. You may not get the job. If you do, you may end up feeling used and abused. And you have little recourse.  The woman at the Connecticut interview might argue she was the victim of age discrimination but what she wanted was a job, not a costly and time consuming lawsuit (assuming she could get an attorney to take her case).

Of course, an abusive employer may lose a valuable potential employee and engender ill will that could cost the employer business in the long run.  And, what’s the point?

Suffice to say that it is amusing when a job applicant makes a snafu but it is troubling when an employer does. The employer exerts power and control over the interview and a bad employer can wreak both emotional and economic hardship on the applicant.

These are difficult times. An unprecedented number of Americans are out of work and ripe for exploitation. A job advertisement for a menial position can precipitate a line of hundreds around a block.  Job applicants need to beware and employers need to insure that their processes accord dignity and respect to all job applicants.

- PGB

Filed Under: DISPATCHES Tagged With: abusing job applicants, abusive employers, , applying for jobs, , , job applicant, job interviews
«Previous Page