Social Hierarchies and Workplace Discrimination
I’m sure that throughout our lives, many of us have experienced or witnessed some form of workplace discrimination. We often hear about the glass ceiling that blocking women from achieving promotions as easily as men or the glass elevator that men ‘ride’ to their promotions because they don’t face the obstacles that women usually face in the workplace. Some of us women have noticed that climbing up is difficult with the sticky floor that keeps women at the lower rungs of the job ladder (Padavic & Reskin, 2002). So why does all of this discrimination happen? It was considered a social norm before for women to be housewives and men the bread earners; in a different age, we were taught that the male was dominant and the female was inferior. We’ve grown past that now. Our age places a lot of focus on gender equality and looks at gender discrimination as something to be frowned upon, so why is there still inequality in the workplace?
One of the theories that we focused on this lesson can be easily utilized to explain why job discrimination is still persistent today. According to social dominance theory, all of us belong to groups. These groups provide us with support and resources, so we wish to keep the group safe (Penn State, 2014). Let’s take a look at the support and resources that men gain from their male groups. According to social networks theory, the current workplace often hires people with connections or through word-of-mouth (Padavic & Reskin, 2002). According to Padavic and Reskin, because the highest levels of organizations are dominated by males (and males tend to share work information with and hire other males), females are usually held at a disadvantage. Social dominance theory states that because of the support that individuals gain from their groups, they’ll want to keep their groups protected (Penn State, 2014).
We’ve learned in this lesson that society is arranged in a way that groups are often placed in hierarchies, and individuals in groups will behave in ways to keep those hierarchies intact (Pratto, Sidanious, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Women, who often perceives their status even today to be lower in the hierarchy as compared to men, will often subconsciously behave in ways that keep themselves lower while the men, who see themselves as members of a superior hierarchy, will behave in ways to keep their higher status. Most higher-ups in companies tend to be male, and when asked why most individuals hired into higher positions or given promotions tend to be male, many replied that that the reason they’re employing and promoting males is because they themselves are male and feel more comfortable around men or with promoting individuals more like themselves (Padavic & Reskin, 2002).
The dominant group in this situation, that is, the males, are regarded as individuals with positive social values who have access to greater resources than groups that are considered lower in the rungs, such as the females. The females, as the subordinate group, are perceived as having negative social values, a lack of power, a lack of resources, and fewer desirable attributes (Pratto et al., 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Men tend to be given more chances to train on the job and learn new skills than women (Padavic & Reskin), and because they have less skills, they’re less likely to be hired in the future as compared to men and learn new skills. Gender is one of the major categories of hierarchies when dealing with the social dominance theory, and whatever part of the social dominance theory we taken and apply to how men and women are regarded at work goes to explain why these happenings occur (Penn State, 2014). Men were viewed as holding a higher status in the past. Even though our norms have altered and it’s no longer socially acceptable to be a sexist, men wish to maintain their position in the social hierarchy and women behave in ways to keep theirs.
Works Cited
Penn State (2014). Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations. (n.d.).PSYCH424: Applied Social Psychology. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from http://cms.psu.edu.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.