Sei sulla pagina 1di 19
Gendering, Courtship and Pay Equality Developing Attraction Theory to Understand Work-Life Balance and Entrepreneurial

Gendering, Courtship and

Pay Equality

Developing Attraction Theory to Understand

Work-Life Balance and Entrepreneurial Activity

Presentation to 31 st ISBE Conference, Belfast, 5 th -7 th November

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Centre for Individual and Organisational Development (CIOD), Sheffield Hallam University

Full Paper available from: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/749/
Full Paper available from: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/749/

r.ridley-duff@shu.ac.uk

Introduction • Rationale for the paper • Paradigms in gender research • Attraction Theory •

Introduction

Rationale for the paper

Paradigms in gender research

Attraction Theory

Gender-based theory of entrepreneurial

options

Implications

Rationale for the paper • Extend understanding of work-life balance issues by investigating women's and

Rationale for the paper

Extend understanding of work-life balance

issues by investigating women's and men's

entrepreneurship.

Discussions with colleagues about applying

theoretical perspectives from my PhD (Ridley-

Duff, 2005)

Discussions with colleagues about

contradictions in studies of work-life balance

and gendered power.

Paradigms in Gender Research • Traditional gender perspective – 1960s – 1980s (Friedan, 1963; Rowbottom,

Paradigms in Gender Research

Traditional gender perspective

1960s 1980s (Friedan, 1963; Rowbottom, 1974).

Male domination 'twice over' (Hearn and Parkin, 1987).

Work, pay and position as 'power' (Cockburn, 1991, 2001).

Family life as 'powerlessless' (Segal, 1990).

Emerging counter perspective

1980s now (Farrell, 1988, 1994, 2001, 2005).

Exclusion from family life = 'powerlessess' (men in divorce).

Higher risk, higher pay = 'high stress' (Krantz, 2002).

(male suicides, growing life-expectancy gap between men and women, homeless and prison population mostly men)

1974

1982
1984

1992
1994

1986

1976

1996

1978
1980

1988
1990

1998
2000

1992 1994 1986 1976 1996 1978 1980 1988 1990 1998 2000 What underpins the counter-perspective? •

What underpins the counter-perspective?

Figure 5 Increase in Male to Female Suicides (1974-2000)

250%

200%

150%

100%

50%

0%

United Kingdom -

Male Suicides v Female Suicides (1974 - 2000)

Source: Office of National Statistics

200% 150% 100% 50% 0% United Kingdom - Male Suicides v Female Suicides (1974 - 2000)
200% 150% 100% 50% 0% United Kingdom - Male Suicides v Female Suicides (1974 - 2000)
Paradigms in Gender Research • Employment – Up to 30% gap in average pay rates

Paradigms in Gender Research

Employment

Up to 30% gap in average pay rates (Doherty and Stead, 1998).

Poor representation at senior levels (Wilson, 2003).

Entrepreneurship

30% of enterprises majority-owned by women (Bruin et al., 2006).

Only 6% of equity capital invested the above.

Discursive practices reproduce negativity (Ahl, 2006).

Paradigms in Gender Research • Employment – Part-time women working 24-29 hours earn 40% more

Paradigms in Gender Research

Employment

Part-time women working 24-29 hours earn 40% more than part-time men (US Census 2003).

Men in "full-time" employment commute further and

work longer hours (Farrell, 2005).

Entrepreneurship

Male entrepreneurs average 38.6 hours per week, compared to women's 29.9 hours.

Male entrepreneurs commute average of 169 miles a

week compared to women's 115.

(US Census 2004, cited Farrell, 2005:134)

Problematizing Theory • Power as the capacity of a person to access five things in

Problematizing Theory

Power as the capacity of a person to access five things in line with their desires:

External rewards (e.g. income, possessions, status)

Internal rewards (e.g. emotional release, positive self-image)

Interpersonal contact (e.g. attention, affection, love and recognition)

Physical health (e.g. well-being, attractiveness, intelligence)

Sexual fulfilment (e.g. satisfaction of desire and sensual pleasures).

By reconceptualising power as control over our own lives, we can ask questions that

illustrate the limitations of our traditional view of power - as status, income and control over

others. Does a company president who has never known how to be intimate have power? Does a thirteen-year-old Olympic gymnast who has never known whether she is loved for herself or for how she performs have power? Does a boy who must register for the draft at eighteen and is shot through the face in Vietnam have power? Does a beautiful woman who marries a doctor have power, when she never discovers her own talents? Which of these people have power over his or her own life?

Farrell, 1988:10

Problematizing Theory • Power as the capacity of a person to access five things in

Problematizing Theory

Power as the capacity of a person to access five things in line with their desires:

External rewards (e.g. income, possessions, status)

Internal rewards (e.g. emotional release, positive self-image)

Interpersonal contact (e.g. attention, affection, love and recognition)

Physical health (e.g. well-being, attractiveness, intelligence)

Sexual fulfilment (e.g. satisfaction of desire and sensual pleasures).

Key Question:

How do entrepreneurial and employment choices empower and disempower people in each of the five dimensions of power?

Theoretical Problem Areas • Contradictions – Men found at both top and bottom of social

Theoretical Problem Areas

Contradictions

Men found at both top and bottom of social hierarchies

– …and class does not explain the data…

Wealth Generating Context

Linked to childraising expectations/responsibilities

One parent oriented towards tasks (wealth creation)

Other prioritises relationships (social cohesion)

– …OR a delicately negotiated / fiercely contested balance…

• Organisation Structures…

Reflect relationship aspirations / commitments

Reflect the relationships people are prepared to defend

Facilitates (hidden) development of emotional commitments

Requires updated theory?

Attraction Theory • "The premise of Attraction Theory is that selecting sexual partners and raising

Attraction Theory

"The premise of Attraction Theory is that selecting sexual

partners and raising children involves navigating two conflicting

perspectives that shape our epistemological and ontological

assumptions about the purpose and nature of work. One is grounded in the concept of social rationality, the other in economic rationality. A socially rational perspective prioritises human reproduction and strong personal relationships: from this

view, work is the means by which we support the development of children and satisfying personal relationships. An economically rational perspectives is task-focussed, prioritising

wealth creation and sees (or uses) personal relationships and

family policy to support the career advancement of key workers, promote economic efficiency and profit-maximisation."

p. 8

Economic Rationality Economically Rational View of Social Life (Work Centred) Economic Life S o c

Economic Rationality

Economically Rational View of Social Life (Work Centred)

Economic Life

Social Life

Delegate Work (if desired) No Need to Do Caring Business Class Managerial Class Male Secondary
Delegate Work (if desired)
No Need to Do Caring
Business Class
Managerial Class
Male
Secondary Caring Role
(Necessity)
Primary/Secondary Caring
Professional Class
(Choice)
Administrative Class
Primary Caring Role
(Necessity)
Female
Female
Labouring Class
Primary/Secondary Caring
(Choice)
Male
Dispossesed
Underclass (no paid work / illegal trading)
No Caring Role
Wealth Creation
Social Rationality Socially Rational View of Economic Life (Person Centred) S o c i a

Social Rationality

Socially Rational View of Economic Life (Person Centred) Social Life

Economic Life

Delegate Caring (if desired) Celebrity Elite No Need to Do Paid Work Female Part-Time Paid
Delegate Caring (if desired)
Celebrity Elite
No Need to Do Paid Work
Female
Part-Time Paid Work
Primary Carer
(Necessity)
Secondary Carer
Full-Time Paid Work
(Necessity)
Male
Male
No Dependents
Full/Part-Time Paid Work
(Choice)
Female
No Family Life
No paid work / illegal trading
Dispossesed
Human Reproduction
Some Evidence • "A social enterprise is a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses

Some Evidence

"A social enterprise is a business with primarily social objectives

whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in

the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners."

DTI (2002) A Strategy for Social Enterprise, London: HM Treasury, p. 7.

"Interestingly, women are almost as likely as men to be social entrepreneurs, and in some regions are more likely

to be social entrepreneurs than men. This is in stark

contrast to mainstream entrepreneurial activity where men are twice as likely to be setting up a business than a

woman."

Source: GEM 2004 Study (Harding and Cowling, 2004:11)

Some Evidence Figure 6 – Entrepreneurial Representation by Gender and Sector 60% 50% 40% 30%

Some Evidence

Figure 6 Entrepreneurial Representation by Gender and Sector

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established

All

All

Women

Women

Men

Men

All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established
All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established

Early Stage

Established

Consumer Oriented30% 20% 10% 0% All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established Business Services Transforming

Business Services30% 20% 10% 0% All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established Consumer Oriented Transforming

Transforming10% 0% All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established Consumer Oriented Business Services Extraction

Extraction10% 0% All All Women Women Men Men Early Stage Established Consumer Oriented Business Services Transforming

Sources:

GEM 2007 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship (data for women's enterprises)

GEM 2006 Global Monitor (data for all enterprises)

Implications • "By defining social power in a way that bridges the spectrum of work-life

Implications

"By defining social power in a way that bridges the spectrum of

work-life issues, it is possible to interpret the academic literature in new ways. For example, there is a paradox that in

a patriarchal society, women are more satisfied at work than

men (see Asadullah & Fernandez, 2006). By recognising that women dominate some forms of power, we can understand that

some jobs empower women (through the promotion of

interpersonal contact and emotional well-being) and that they will not trade these for different jobs that do nothing to increase

their attractiveness. Men, on the other hand, will trade these

forms of power because higher pay increases their attractiveness."

p. 12

Implications • Theoretical framework for understanding entrepreneurial constraints: – Options open to attractive

Implications

Theoretical framework for understanding

entrepreneurial constraints:

Options open to attractive 'females' (celebrities with high

sexual value) are different from those available to attractive

'males' (business / political elites).

Options for marginalised 'males' will be different from those

adopted by a marginalised 'females' (i.e. security-military v

prostitution-sex industry) .

Theorises the social value of different entrepreneurial / employment choices:

What is the sexual / social value of setting up in business?

Or, pursuing a particular career path?

Or, accepting a particular job?

Conclusions • Contributes to theorisation of: – the family context for entrepreneurship – community contexts

Conclusions

Contributes to theorisation of:

the family context for entrepreneurship

community contexts for entrepreneurship

New paradigm for understanding barriers and enablers of work-life balance:

In entrepreneurial contexts

In employment contexts

"Attraction Theory provides a new theoretical framework within

which the connections between work, entrepreneurship and sexual relations can be discussed, without abandoning the goals

of the 'long agenda' set out by Cockburn (2001)."

References • Ahl, H. (2006) “Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions”, Entrepreneurship, Theory

References

• Ahl, H. (2006) “Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595-623.

Allen, E., Elam, A., Langowitz, N. and Dean, M. (2007) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2007 Report on Women

and Entrepreneurship, The Centre for Women’s Leadership: Babson College.

• Asadullah, M. N. & Fernandez, R. M. (2006) “Job flexibility and the gender gap in job satisfaction: New evidence

from matched employer-employee data”, Working Paper

• Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., Welter, F. (2006) “Introduction to the Special Issue: Towards Building Cumulative Knowledge on Women’s Entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 30(5): 585-593.

Cockburn, C. (1991) In the way of women: Men’s resistance to sex equality in organizations, London: Macmillan.

• (2001) “Equal Opportunities: the long and short agenda”, Industrial Relations Journal, pp. 213-224.

• Doherty, L. and Stead, L. (1998) “The Gap between Male and Female Pay: What Does the Case of Hotel and Catering Tell Us?”, The Service Industries Journal, 18(4): 126-144.

DTI (2002) A Strategy for Social Enterprise, London: HM Treasury.

Farrell, W. (1988) Why Men Are the Way They Are: The Definitive Guide to Love, Sex and Intimacy, New York:

Bantam Books.

(1994) The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, New York: Berkley Books.

(2001) Father and Child Reunion, New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

(2005) Why Men Earn More, New York: Amacom.

Friedan, B. (1963) The Feminine Mystique, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

• Harding, R. & Cowling, M. (2004) “Social Entrepreneurship Monitor United Kingdom 2004 (GEM)”, London Business School.

Hearn, J. & Parkin, W. (1987) Sex at work: The power and paradox of organisation sexuality, Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

Krantz, L. (ed) (2002) The Jobs Rated Almanac (6 th Edition), New York: Ballantine Books.

Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2005) Communitarian Perspectives on Corporate Governance, Phd Thesis, Sheffield Hallam University, available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/3271344/

Rowbottom, S. (1973) Women’s Consciousness, Man’s World, Harmonsworth: Penguin.

Segal, L. (1990) Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities: Changing Men, London: Virago.

Wilson, F. (2003) Organizational Behaviour And Gender (2 nd edition), Aldershot: Ashgate.