A fatal attraction?. Strategic HRM and the business case for women’s progression at work
| Published date | 01 October 1996 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483489610130931 |
| Date | 01 October 1996 |
| Pages | 51-66 |
| Author | Catherine Cassell |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Women’s
progression at
work
51
A fatal attraction?
Strategic HRM and the business case for
women’s progression at work
Catherine Cassell
Sheffield Business School, Sheffield, UK
Introduction
The position and status of women within the British workforce has received a
great deal of attention from academics and policymakers alike. There have been
a number of significant changes surrounding women’s employment during the
last 20 years. A two-million rise in the number of women in work in Britain has
corresponded to a 2.8 million fall in the number of men[1]. A series of legislative
interventions in the 1970s and 1980s has sought to address the issues of
unequal pay and opportunities that previously kept women firmly behind men
in their organizational lives. Yet despite such changes, women still earn
considerably less than men and are under-represented at the higher levels of
organisations[2]. A lot of research has been generated about the factors that
impact women’s progression at work and evidence suggests that there are a
number of barriers that exist to impede their progress. Examples are the
practical barriers such as a lack of sufficient child care for working mothers[3]
and the cultural barriers that are firmly located within the everyday practices
and procedures of organizational life[4-6].
A number of strategies have been used to argue for the furtherance of women
in the workplace. Such strategies have been advocated by a wide range of male
and female writers, together with women workers themselves. This paper
examines one such strategy that argues for the progression of diverse groups,
and consequently women within the workforce, that is based upon a business
case. The aim is to assess critically the underpinnings and implications of the
business case for the progression of women at work. In doing so the emergence
of the business case is considered in the context of other strategies previously
used by advocate groups, in particular that of equal opportunities. In
understanding the origins of the case its relative attractiveness to policy makers
and women themselves will be assessed. The implications of using a business
case to further women’s progression are then considered.
Equal opportunities
Within Britain evidence suggests that various of groups are discriminated
against within organizations. Although publicly very few people would now
The author would like to thank Rashmi Biswas, Dr Phil Johnson and Dr Liz Lawrence for their
useful feedback on earlier versions of this paper.
Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 5,
1996, pp. 51-66. © MCB
University Press, 0048-3486
Personnel
Review
25,5
52
defend discriminatory practices against certain groups, a number of commonly
held stereotypes still exist that facilitate the maintenance of discriminatory
practices. In Britain a lot of research has focused on discrimination faced by
women[7-9]. The context for examining discriminatory practices has long been
associated with the philosophy of equal opportunities. The basic premiss of
equal opportunities is that talent and ability are spread equally through all
groups including between men and women; able-bodied and people with
disabilities; all ethnic groups, etc.[10]. Therefore equal opportunities policies
and codes of practice (in theory) are aimed at ensuring that organizations make
the most of a diverse workforce rather than losing those talents through
discriminatory processes. Today many employers in Britain refer to themselves
as “equal opportunity employers”, implying that they are keen to disassociate
themselves from discriminatory practices based on gender, race, disability, etc.
In practice, groups of employees within those organizations can still experience
considerable discrimination, as many studies show[7,11,12]. The movement
towards such equal opportunities programmes in Britain is clearly linked to the
development of equality legislation in Britain since the 1970s[7]. Currently
within the UK there are laws legislating against sex discrimination: the Equal
Pay Act 1970 outlawed the practice of paying men and women different salaries
and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 gave rights to both sexes to be treated as
equals.
At the root of equal opportunities (EO) initiatives are assumptions about
social justice, equality and fairness[13]. Organizations have approached the
institutionalization of these values in different ways. Jewson and Mason[14]
outline the “liberal” and “radical” approaches. In the liberal approach fairness is
constructed as meaning equality of access to opportunities for all groups, for
example through establishing formal procedures for the selection process.
Fairness from the radical perspective is viewed as equality of outcomes for
different groups, the absence of which is evidence of unfair discrimination.
Individualistic conceptions of talent are rejected and positive discrimination
seen as one of the key ways forward. Cockburn[7] argues that it is fruitless to
comment on whether either of these approaches is right or wrong. Rather it is
useful to see equal opportunities as having an agenda of shorter or greater
length. At its shortest it would perhaps address a technicality in the
recruitment process, whereas at its longest the agenda could seek to transform
the power relations within an organization. Not surprisingly, she suggests that
it is those who have proposed the long agenda who have been most
disappointed with results to date.
What is wrong with equal opportunities?
Despite the existence of equal opportunities legislation, Wilson[2] suggests that
the notion that equal opportunity now exists for women is a myth. Indeed there
seems to be considerable disappointment and disillusionment about the current
state of women’s position at work, given 20 years of equal opportunity (EO)
legislation. Why is this the case?
To continue reading
Request your trial