Equity and Diversity in Organizations

This essay discusses the concept of equity and diversity in organizations, with a focus on intersectionality and inequality regimes. It explores how inequalities are created and sustained within organizations, and the impact of gender, race, and class on organizational hierarchies. The essay also examines the role of institutional contexts and national differences in shaping inequality regimes.

Running head: EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
Introduction
In the middle of the twentieth century, sociology embraced important methodological
principles that created significant complexities to explain and justify the generation of
inequalities and discrimination. Much of social as well as economic discrimination in industrial
nations is created in organizations, in regular actions of working and organizing the work.
Several feminists have perceived at the gendering of business as well as organizational
preparations to understand the way disparities between women and men tend to prolong in the
sphere of numerous to remove such inequalities. Furthermore, studies of Alfrey and Twine
(2017) on race inequity have observed the fabrication in work organizations of cultural
disparities which contribute to racial discrimination and inequalities in societies. Substantial
level of the production of class, sexual characteristics as well as racial discriminations in
organizations have shed light on these categories, however, seldom attempting to observe these
categories as multifaceted but mutually reinforcing or challenging processes. According to
Kapeller and Schütz (2015), the organizing developments which comprise of inequality regimes
are typically linked to the monetary decision making which is further resultant to noticeably
dissimilar local and regional configurations of inequality across the United States and other
developing countries. However, as per the view of authors critically investigating the
associations between specific inequality regimes along with a variety of economic decisions that
influence local economies would be still an additional approach to these multifaceted
interrelations. The aim of the essay is to evaluate the way inequality operates within
organizations by focusing on intersectionality and inequality regimes along with challenging
inequality regimes within contemporary organizations.
Discussion

2EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
Several organizations have variation or discriminatory regimes explicitly understood as
insecurely interrelated traditions, methods, actions and implications that maintain class, gender,
and racial discriminations within specific organizations. According to Tomaskovic-Devey and
Avent-Holt (2016), the ubiquity of inequality is highly noticeable in modern organizations
whereby leaders, managers, executives as well as department heads tend to show significant
amount of influence and power along with a higher pay in comparison to secretaries, production
workers, students as well as professors. However, substantial investigation on egalitarian
feminist associations has revealed that organizations which have precise egalitarian goals tend to
eventually develop inequality regimes. Alfrey and Twine (2017) have explained disparity in
organizations as methodical differences between contributors in significant influence, power and
control over organizational aims, objectives, resources as well as results. In addition to this, acts
of inequalities can be observed as workplace decisions primarily related to the way they organize
work and open avenues for openings for encouragement and interesting work in addition to
safety and security in employment and profits; remunerations along with other monetary rewards
which can be related to deference and pleasures in work as well as work associations. Kapeller
and Schütz (2015) have claimed that organizations tend to vary in the extent to which these
discrepancies have their existence and their level of severity. It is important to note, that equality
rarely has its significance in direction over goals as well as outcomes, while pay along with other
financial rewards are frequently imbalanced. Furthermore, other forms of inequalities tend to be
less evident or an elevated extent of equality tends to subsist in particular areas related to
employment security and benefits.
Organizations show variance in the practices and processes which are used to achieve
their goals. These ways and processes have the implication to generate class, gender as well as

3EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
racial inequalities. Comprehensive studies of Meyers and Vallas (2016) have noted that general
wants of work in organizations differ amongst organizations and organizational levels.
Moreover, Song and Xie (2014) have noted that work is planned on the representation of a white
man who shows utmost dedication towards assigned work and lives completely self-regulated
life without any burdens other than be paid for a living. Furthermore, around eight hours of
unremitting work away from the livelihood with high rate of punctuality along with extensive
hours. Thus, resilience to shape these expectations is more obtainable for managers in higher
levels than men employed in lower-level managerial positions. On the contrary, Meyers and
Vallas (2016) have shed light on lower level jobs which tends to show less flexibility. Due to
such levels of flexibility, several forms of temporary or part-time employment have been
introduced which intend to aid women to balance work and family responsibilities. However, in
the United States, these types of employment typically contain less or insignificant level of
reimbursements such as health care, thus have lesser pay than permanent employment. Drawing
relevance to these evidences, Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent-Holt (2016) have noted that women
have greater level of responsibilities external to work in comparison to men. Such a gender-bias
organization of work is central in upholding gender disparity in organizations; consequently give
rise to the unequal distribution of women and men in organizational class hierarchies. Thus,
sexual category, race in addition to class inequality regimes concurrently have been operating in
the fundamental production of the operational day, thus creating critical work responsibilities.
Furthermore, studies conducted by Ruppanner and Treas (2015) have noted that work is
based on the representation of the imaginative man racially superior in which women as well as
men are likely to execute as per the model. However, it is important to note that men are not
essentially identified as the supreme workers for all occupations. Thus, employment is

4EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
recognized as one of means in which sexual characteristics and ethnic or cultural discrimination
and dissimilarities are upheld in organizations. Tomaskovic-Devey (2014) has cited example of
positive action programs which have changed employment practices in many organizations who
call for direct publicity for positions as well as selection on considering gender as well as race-
neutral principle of capability instead of focusing on selection. At this juncture, Carvalho and
Rezai (2015) have noted that such changes in employment practices significantly operating
inequality regimes of racially advantageous women and people of colour in a range of
employments.
Drawing relevance to above evidences, Bartusevičius (2014) have developed the idea of
regimes of dissimilarity as a way of accepting the dynamics of gendered, racialized, class
associations in organization. As per the view of Ruppanner and Treas (2015), intersectionality
sheds light to the complex, irreducible, diverse and unpredictable impacts of inequality regimes
that tend to operate when manifold factors of differentiation tend to intersect in traditionally
specific contexts. Furthermore, Meyers and Vallas (2016) have argued that the primary insights
of an intersectional theory are threefold. The wide-ranging disregard of the incidents faced by
women at the nexus of gender and ethnicity in organizations has begun to be addressed.
Implementing an intersectional sensibility necessitates to comprehend the heterogeneity of
experiences of women. Drawing relevance to the above factors, Schmidt-Catran (2014) have
noted identified that Black Caribbean women show a strong association to labour market with an
economic activity of around 75% with almost 76% engaged to permanent employment and 49%
engaged to public sector. Moreover, black Caribbean women employees tend to have strong
tradition of public sector work related to nursing and other caring jobs (Benschop & Verloo,
2015). Reports of McDonald (2015) have revealed that all organizations have inequality regimes,

5EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
even the ones who practice egalitarian approach. At this juncture, authors have noted that
although organizations do not officially advocate inequalities in relation to gender, race, culture
or ethnicity but clearly support inequality regimes in terms of organizational hierarchy and class.
However mechanisms to ensure equivalent prospects and outcomes are vague. As per the view of
Rodriguez et al. (2016), engaging with the idea of inequality regimes depends on cost of finding
the difficulties arise through inequalities in organizations. Whilst, authors have argued that the
intersectional character of gender, class, culture and race shows utmost domination, there has
been realized that other differences also tend to serve as crucial bases for operations of inequality
regimes. At this peak of discussion, it is important to note that recently developed structuralist
and labour development literatures have aimed to come together into a generalized relational
inequality theory (RIT) and disparity that intensifies acts of dominance and authority on social
relations within contextually rooted workplaces. According to McBride, Hebson and Holgate
(2015), the RIT primarily casts light on the role of social associations among individuals and
positions, within organizational framework and decision making procedures distinguished as the
immediate reason of operating inequality regimes in organization in relation to respect,
possessions, authority and rewards. Furthermore, the generalized theory of relational inequality
uses the focus on relative power amongst players and institutional context from the recently
developed structuralism. Meanwhile, as per the studies of Vallas and Cummins (2014), one of
the highly significant ideas which have been developed by the RIT relies on the fact that each
and every modern organization tend to represent inequality regime. Such a regime has primarily
constituted class as well as status based communal and share associations within the
organization. On the contrary, while forms of inequality regimes fail to develop completely in a
vacuum, these regimes tend to be in part which tends to be highly distinct to each organization

6EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
(Rodriguez et al., 2016). As a result, drawing relevance to these evidences, Olofsson et al. (2014)
have mentioned that inequality regimes as developing within the local social order of a given
organization instead of simply being introduced from external labour markets or institutional
frameworks. On the other hand, insights claiming that organizations are embedded in industrial
contexts are categorized in RIT in a highly generalized way to domains whereby individuals as
well as organizations primarily operate. Comprehensive studies of Olofsson et al. (2014) have
noted that local, national, industrial as well as organizational fields show a tendency to impact
operations of inequality regimes. However, the RIT model focuses on the concern that
hierarchies which show greater influential ability at any given moment are instigated by the
institutional context. Shedding light on organizational contexts of United States, it has been
witnessed that manager or inequalities regimes among colleagues show higher tendency than in
Australia. In the view of authors, countries like United States shows higher levels of inequality
regimes more with weaker welfare state as well as labor union protections of its citizens.
Furthermore, the United States has additional institutional practices that promote augmented
discrimination in workplaces and insignificant number of mechanisms to mitigate them
(Bartusevičius, 2014). Additionally, it has been noted that class difference is shaped by
organization level inequality regimes. Research conducted by Wasserman and Frenkel (2015)
have noted that the local social relations in these inequality regimes do not essentially throw light
on role of manager-worker peculiarity, but aims to focus on intersectionality between
organizational positions as well as other sources of dissimilarity along with restricted practices
and organizational cultures. Moreover, in countries like United States on one hand and New
Zealand and Australia on the other, all the countries experienced that intersecting status
differences intensified the manager-worker differences by increasing class inequality.

7EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
Bartusevičius (2014) in his study have founded that, at situations when managerial positions are
filled by men and workers women, manager-worker show significant inequality regimes.
Furthermore, when managerial positions are accessible to qualified and educated ones and
working class generally represented the uneducated or less educated section of the society,
organizations practiced inequality regimes. Likewise, in situations when managers had
permanent jobs and workers have been engaged to part-time or temporary contracts inequalities
significantly intensified. For instances, in the United States, managerial positions have been
accessible to whites and labour class has been represented by the non-whites, it showed high rate
of inequality regimes (Tomaskovic-Devey, 2014). Thus, drawing relevance to all of these cases,
Pickett and Wilkinson (2015) have noted that the class distinction related to management or
workers has been overstated when they corresponded to other status resources.
Number of women is still inadequate in superior leadership roles in prosperous
industrialized sectors despite of extensive gender justice in realms of culture. Furthermore, the
opening of an escalating rate of women into elevated reputed professions as well as professional
employment has been significantly dominated by men. According to Song and Xie (2014), cross-
national discrepancies is present and women belonging to cultural as well as ethnic minorities are
not properly represented at the top in comparison to women coming from the prevailing racial
grouping in general white and belonging to financially affluent class. As a consequence
upholding the inequality regime at all levels. This occurrence has been recognized as the “Glass
Ceiling.” As per the view of Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent-Holt (2016), although women gain
the ability to move up organizational ladders, however an insignificant number actually develop
as influential positions. This realism has drawn significance for a number of underlying factors.
Firstly, the challenges in clearing up the diligence of this prototype interprete gaps in the

8EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
consideration of the inflexible perseverance of sexual category and time and again race, culture
or national disparities or dissimilarities. For instance, the United States along with other
developing nations in the past three to four decades have been witnessing an increasing rate of
women who have been existing in the “pipe line” to superior positions, however the percentage
of women tends to decline at all superior levels of business. Meanwhile, Kapeller and Schütz
(2015) have claimed that the continuation of a gender disparity seen at the top of the majority
organizations draws utmost criticality for reason. According to Ruppanner and Treas (2015), the
significant absence of women at the higher organizational positions almost certainly poses
challenges for women to maintain work life balance. As a result, due to such incompetence, they
positions in the organization have been declining and thus increasing inequality regimes in the
organizations. When women occupy top hierarchical jobs, other women tend to gain in a number
of ways. Drawing relevance to the above stated claim, Carvalho and Rezai (2015) have
mentioned that when women occupy top professional positions, the gender wage gap at junior
hierarchical levels has the propensity to be subordinate in relation to situations when women
show lack of prominence in the top hierarchy. Furthermore, in the view of Schmidt-Catran
(2014), other indicators of gender discrimination tend to experience critical reduction when
women are positioned in professional positions. Thus, breaking of the “glass ceiling” tends to
add to highly generalized gender parity objectives. Such an assertion must be considered with
caution whereby modifications are appropriate to be self-effacing unless women are positioned
at the top obtain the ability to surpass interventions in individual cases and further adapt
significant financial as well as organizing procedures that give rise to inequality regimes.
Conclusion

9EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
Hence to conclude, observing operations of inequality regimes in organizations show a
tendency to send some clues regarding underlying factors which have led several contemporary
organizations to increase equality in order to gain significance and achievements. Change toward
greater equality however is possible, but may pose critical impediments because of deep-rooted
economic or class and caste interests in addition to the authority of class interests with
commitments to gendered as well as racialized identities and advantages. However, it is essential
to note that class uniqueness and welfare are primarily incorporated with factors related to
gender as well as racial distinctiveness as well as interests; whereby resistance may be strong and
crucial for any changes and developments to modify the combined advantages. On the other
hand, the essay has shed light on the assertion that male employed to superior executive positions
tend to gain greater degree of support and security in their numerous advantages in addition to
civil liberties which tend to be highly advocated of reducing inequalities in comparison to male
middle managers who show less inclination in reducing inequality regimes.

10EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
References
Alfrey, L., & Twine, F. W. (2017). Gender-fluid geek girls: Negotiating inequality regimes in the
tech industry. Gender & Society, 31(1), 28-50.
Avent-Holt, D., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2014). A relational theory of earnings
inequality. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(3), 379-399.
Bartusevičius, H. (2014). The inequality–conflict nexus re-examined: Income, education and
popular rebellions. Journal of Peace Research, 51(1), 35-50.
Benschop, Y., & Verloo, M. (2015). Feminist organization theories. The Routledge companion to
philosophy in organization studies, 100.
Carvalho, L., & Rezai, A. (2015). Personal income inequality and aggregate demand. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 40(2), 491-505.
Dietz, K. (2017). Researching inequalities from a socio-ecological perspective. In Global
Entangled Inequalities (pp. 90-106). Routledge.
Kapeller, J., & Schütz, B. (2015). Conspicuous consumption, inequality and debt: the nature of
consumption‐driven profit‐led regimes. Metroeconomica, 66(1), 51-70.
McBride, A., Hebson, G., & Holgate, J. (2015). Intersectionality: are we taking enough notice in
the field of work and employment relations?. Work, employment and society, 29(2), 331-
341.
McDonald, J. (2015). Organizational communication meets queer theory: Theorizing relations of
“difference” differently. Communication Theory, 25(3), 310-329.
Meyers, J. S., & Vallas, S. P. (2016). Diversity regimes in worker cooperatives: workplace
inequality under conditions of worker control. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(1), 98-128.

11EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
Olofsson, A., Zinn, J. O., Griffin, G., Nygren, K. G., Cebulla, A., & Hannah-Moffat, K. (2014).
The mutual constitution of risk and inequalities: Intersectional risk theory. Health, Risk &
Society, 16(5), 417-430.
Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2015). Income inequality and health: a causal review. Social
science & medicine, 128, 316-326.
Rodriguez, J. K., Holvino, E., Fletcher, J. K., & Nkomo, S. M. (2016). The theory and praxis of
intersectionality in work and organisations: Where do we go from here. Gender, Work &
Organization, 23(3), 201-222.
Ruppanner, L., & Treas, J. (2015). Working weekends: Changing European time regimes and
gender inequality in household labor. Journal of Family Issues, 36(13), 1782-1809.
Schmidt-Catran, A. W. (2014). Economic inequality and public demand for redistribution:
combining cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence. Socio-Economic Review, 14(1),
119-140.
Song, X., & Xie, Y. (2014). Market Transition Theory Revisited: Changing Regimes of Housing
Inequality in China, 1988-2002. Sociological Science, 1, 277.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2014). The relational generation of workplace inequalities. Social
Currents, 1(1), 51-73.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Avent-Holt, D. (2016). Observing organizational inequality regimes.
In A Gedenkschrift to Randy Hodson: Working with Dignity (pp. 187-212). Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Vallas, S., & Cummins, E. (2014). Relational models of organizational inequalities: Emerging
approaches and conceptual dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(2), 228-255.

12EQUITY AND DIVERSITY
Wasserman, V., & Frenkel, M. (2015). Spatial work in between glass ceilings and glass walls:
Gender-class intersectionality and organizational aesthetics. Organization
Studies, 36(11), 1485-1505.