Approaches to Equity Management and their Relationship to Women in Management
| Author | Erica French |
| Published date | 01 December 2001 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00210 |
| Date | 01 December 2001 |
Introduction
Despite significant changes in participation rates,
the situation for women in the workplace is still
significantly different from men. Occupational
segregation by sex still restricts women’s ability
to work in a variety of jobs and a variety of
labour markets around the world (Anker, 1997).
Moreover, women continue to be concentrated
in lower levels within organizations with limited
access to management (Still, 1993). The reasons
argued for the disparity between men and women
in the workplace are varied and include natural
differences between the sexes, labour market seg-
mentation driven by human capital and product-
ivity exchanges, customary and legal constraints
that deny women access to the world, and the
dominance and power of men. While each theory
describes or explains in part the differences men
and women experience and each prescribes a
means of addressing the disparity, none is fully
able to do so (Anker, 1997; Tong, 1989). Calls for
change range from keeping the status quo, through
individual change, to equal opportunity via social
and organizational change based on individual
rights and/or justice. However justice is difficult to
define and more difficult to implement, because of
often conflicting and competing views and assump-
tions on the definition and causes of injustice and
the means of addressing it.
The main aim of this study was to explore the
features that account for the differences between
approaches used in equity management in Austra-
lian private-sector organizations and to identify
the differences in outcomes for women’s employ-
ment and employment status.
British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, 267–285 (2001)
© 2001 British Academy of Management
Approaches to Equity Management and
their Relationship to Women in
Management
Erica French
School of Management, Faculty of Business, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434,
Brisbane 4001, Queensland, Australia
email: e.french@qut.edu.au
Developing equitable practices that provide fair access for all individuals to the
benefits and burdens within an organization remains a dilemma for management both
in policy and in practice. Research continues to show that the employment status and
representation for members of some groups is significantly less than in relation to those
of other groups. Addressing the issue of disparity has resulted in a number of different
approaches. The main aim of this paper is to explore the ability of a typological theory
of equal employment opportunity implementation to account for the differences in the
numbers of women in management and in management tiers. This paper identifies and
analyses four ideal-typical equity management approaches to achieving workplace
parity: traditional (non-compliance), anti-discrimination, affirmative action and equal
employment opportunity. While the objective of these approaches may be to ensure
equity management in order to encourage equal outcomes the results tell a different
story. Results show that an affirmative action approach to equity management predicts
increases in women in management across all tiers of management.
Theoretical background
A distributive perspective
According to Beteille (1969, p. 13) ‘[In]equality,
has both a distributive and relational aspect’. The
distributive aspect is concerned with how benefits
and burdens of society are allocated. The rela-
tional aspect refers to how these factors affect
interaction between individuals and between
groups. Two major perspectives in challenging
distribution, namely equality and equity, address
different aspects of inequality differently. Accord-
ing to Deutsch (1985) equality is a distributional
notion based on the equal value of individuals
and their right to benefit equally in any benefits
and burdens. Equity is concerned with distri-
bution based on individual inputs. Narrow inter-
pretations of equity relate to rules and systems
designed to discover differences between individ-
uals in terms of their potential and actual contri-
bution and to distribute rewards according to
input (Deutsch, 1985; Pateman, 1981). However,
such systems do not consider the actual circum-
stances of the individuals and the systems within
which they operate, nor do they question who
makes the rules and determines the fairness of
those rules (Thornton, 1990). Broader interpre-
tations of equity incorporate broader applications
of justice. Substantive justice incorporates aspects
of distribution, procedure, compensation, retri-
bution systemic and interaction (Deutsch, 1985;
Greenberg, 1987, 1990). Broader equitable prac-
tices and processes consider actual disadvantage
and advantage caused by social systems and natural
difference when determining procedures for dis-
tribution of benefits and compensates (or denies)
individuals accordingly to encourage fair and
equitable outcomes.
An institutional perspective
The different perspectives on distribution fuel
different ideological approaches to implementing
measures directed towards the attainment of fair
and equitable outcomes. One view is that fair and
equitable outcomes for individuals in the work-
place can be achieved through processes that
ensure all people an equal opportunity in gaining
access to the benefits and burdens of society
(Poiner and Wills, 1991). Whether those fair pro-
cesses involve equal treatment of all persons or
different treatment, through special measures
designed to assist members of targeted groups,
remains contentious. An alternate argument
suggests that equal opportunity does not
guarantee an equal outcome, therefore as a pro-
cess for achieving ‘equity’ it is questionable (Moens,
1985; Poiner and Wills, 1991). Another view sug-
gests that if ‘equity’ is achievable through fair
practices, it will be impossible without legislation
to coerce all organizations to adopt equal oppor-
tunity measures (Konrad and Linnehan, 1995).
The dissenting view suggests that equity cannot
be achieved through legislation (Allport, 1954;
Edelman, 1992; Moens, 1985).
The substantive legislation regarded as equal
opportunity legislation in Australia now totals
more than 12 State and Federal Acts. Some of
these Acts are anti-discriminatory in nature, con-
sistent with rights-based equality, and encourage
equal treatment for both sexes. Others are affirma-
tive action in nature and consistent with a justice-
based equity, and encourage different treatment
based on sex.
Equal opportunity strategies used within
organizations have developed more out of prac-
tical needs in order to address common-law issues
and legislation, rather than theory. In Australia,
anti-discrimination legislation provides an em-
ployer with a defence against vicarious liability if
reasonable steps are taken to prevent discrimin-
ation and harassment from occurring. With no
specific definition of what constitutes ‘reasonable
steps’, human resource management has increas-
ingly been recommended as a means for imple-
menting reasonable steps through various policies
and practices that recognize equal opportunity.
Blanchard (1989) identified specific recruiting of
women, implementation of grievance procedures,
attention to promotion, retention, training and
termination of women as important strategies in
equal opportunity. Affirmative action legislation
includes recommendations for specific strategies
including policy definition, consultation with
unions and employees, profile of targeted groups,
strategy implementation through HR specific
recruitment and selection, terms and conditions
of employment and training and development,
and goal setting. Most of the research in this
area considers implementation issues rather than
specific strategic identification. Braithwaite (1993)
found that organizations committed to human
resource management had procedural compliance
with equal opportunity legislation. Management
268 E. French
To continue reading
Request your trial