Gender Discrimination at Work: Connecting Gender Stereotypes, Institutional Policies, and Gender Composition of Workplace Donna Bobbitt-Zeher Gender & Society

http://gas.sagepub.com/
Gender & Society
http://gas.sagepub.com/content/25/6/764
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0891243211424741
2011 25: 764Gender & Society
Donna Bobbitt-Zeher
Institutional Policies, and Gender Composition of Workplace
Gender Discrimination at Work: Connecting Gender Stereotypes,
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Sociologists for Women in Society
can be found at:Gender & SocietyAdditional services and information for
http://gas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://gas.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://gas.sagepub.com/content/25/6/764.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Dec 5, 2011Version of Record>>
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

GENDER DISCRIMINATION AT WORK:
Connecting Gender Stereotypes, Institutional
Policies, and Gender Composition of Workplace
DONNA BOBBITT-ZEHER
The Ohio State University
Research on gender inequality has posited the importance of gender discrimination for
women’s experiences at work. Previous studies have suggested that gender stereotyping
and organizational factors may contribute to discrimination. Yet it is not well understood
how these elements connect to foster gender discrimination in everyday workplaces. This
work contributes to our understanding of these relationships by analyzing 219 discrimina-
tion narratives constructed from sex discrimination cases brought before the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission. By looking across a variety of actual work settings, the analysis sheds
light on the cultural underpinnings and structural contexts in which discriminatory
actions occur. The analyses reveal how gender stereotyping combines in predictable ways
with sex composition of workplaces and organizational policies, often through interac-
tional dynamics of discretionary policy usage, to result in discrimination. The findings
suggest the importance of cultural, structural, and interactional influences on gender
discrimination.
Keywords: class/stratification; law; work/occupations
Feminists have long theorized the importance of gender discrimination
in women’s occupational outcomes (e.g., Reskin 1988). Recent
research shows that workplace discrimination continues to be an impedi-
ment to gender equality (e.g., Gorman 2005). Yet, how gender discrimina-
tion unfolds in everyday workplaces is not well understood. Past work
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I would like to thank Doug Downey, Lisa Garoutte, Marguerite
Hernandez, Vinnie Roscigno, Dana Britton, and the anonymous Gender & Society review-
ers for their thoughtful suggestions as I developed this paper. This research received no
specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 25 No. 6, December 2011 764-786
DOI: 10.1177/0891243211424741
© 2011 by The Author(s)
764
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bobbitt-Zeher / Gender discrimination at Work 765
associates gender discrimination with cultural beliefs about men and
women as well as institutionalized policies and practices in workplace
organizations (see Ridgeway and England 2007; Glick and Fiske 2007).
Other scholarship (e.g., Roth 2004; Hirsh and Kornrich 2008) argues sex
composition of the workplace may matter. However, little work has
explored how gender stereotyping and elements of workplace structure
combine to contribute to workplace discrimination. In the few studies that
do consider some of these complexities (e.g., Burgess and Borgida 1999;
Gorman 2005), a lack of testing in diverse workplace contexts and across
a variety of types of discrimination limits our understanding of how these
elements combine to facilitate or impede discrimination.
To build a more comprehensive understanding of gender discrimina-
tion, we need to consider discrimination as a process connected to the
larger gender system. This means exploring the cultural component of
gender ideology, the structural features of sex segregation and formal
policies, and the behaviors of institutional actors who apply and enforce
such policies in everyday work settings. This work seeks to bring us closer
to this kind of understanding by exploring women’s experiences with
employment discrimination using 219 narratives constructed from cases
for which the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ruled that there was probable
cause to believe sex discrimination happened. These narratives shed light
on how discrimination unfolds for women in everyday work settings and
across a variety of types of discriminatory actions. My analyses reveal
how stereotyping and gatekeeper views of gender appropriateness com-
bine with institutional policies across organizational contexts to translate
into discriminatory actions. By considering these elements and their con-
nections, the findings shed light on how discrimination builds on struc-
tural, cultural, and interactional dimensions of the gender system.
Gender discrimination in emPLoYment
Men and women experience the world of work quite differently. Wage
disparities, occupational sex segregation, and gender differences in
authority, for example, are well documented (e.g., Padavic and Reskin
2002). Despite notable changes in work, meaningful differences in these
areas remain persistent features of contemporary society (England 2006,
2010). The reasons are complex, including explanations on the supply
side (related to individual level differences) and the demand side (related
to aggregate or organizational factors) (e.g., Reskin 1993). While there are
certainly other factors at play, this paper focuses on discrimination, one
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

766 Gender & societY / december 2011
demand side factor associated with gender disparities in employment.
Although it is hard to capture the prevalence of gender-based discrimina-
tion, some research estimates about four to five percent of workers per-
ceive that they have experienced discrimination in the past year (Avery,
McKay, and Wilson 2008). Studies have documented discrimination in a
variety of forms, including in hiring (Gorman 2005; Goldin and Rouse
2000), promotions (Olson and Becker 1983), wages (Meitzen 1986), and
performance evaluations (American Bar Association 2006) as well as
sexual harassment (see Welsh 1999).
Of course, documenting the contemporary occurrence of gender dis-
crimination in employment is only a first step. As Reskin (2000, 320)
argues, “we need to move beyond demonstrating that employment dis-
crimination exists, and investigate why it persists in work organizations.”
We must look at processes that lead to unequal outcomes for women and
men. The real challenge is to uncover how discrimination unfolds in
actual work settings.cultural, structural, and interactional Foundations
Scholars generally regard cultural beliefs about gender as foundational
to discrimination against women in the workplace (Ridgeway and
England 2007, 193). Consciously or not, individuals translate ideas about
gender into discriminatory behaviors through sex categorization and gen-
der stereotyping. Regardless of other statuses they may occupy, people
tend to categorize each other by sex, which activates gender stereotypes
and may elicit gender-based in-group/out-group processes (Reskin 2000;
Ridgeway and England 2007).
Cognitive psychologists have further differentiated between descriptive
and prescriptive gender stereotypes. Descriptive stereotypes concern
beliefs about traits that one gender has; prescriptive stereotypes involve
beliefs about traits one gender should have (Burgess and Borgida 1999).
For example, the expectation that women will be nurturing would be
descriptive, whereas the belief that women should be nurturing would be
prescriptive. These stereotyped notions of gender difference affect how
women and men think and behave (Ridgeway and England 2007; Reskin
2000; Ridgeway and Correll 2004). Cognitive psychologists argue the
nature of these stereotypes may lead to discrimination in distinct ways.
For instance, descriptive stereotyping should translate into discrimination
when traits associated with that stereotype are incompatible with the traits
needed for the job or task at hand (Burgess and Borgida 1999; Fiske et al.
1991). Thus, women in occupations dominated by men may be especially
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bobbitt-Zeher / Gender discrimination at Work 767
prone to this kind of discrimination (Burgess and Borgida 1999). In con-
trast, violations of prescriptive stereotypes often generate more hostile
reactions, as others punish women through discrimination for deviance
from gendered expectations (Burgess and Borgida 1999).
While the primary causes of sex discrimination are rooted in cultural
beliefs, secondary causes relate to organizational structures, policies, and
practices (Ridgeway and England 2007, 199). These institutional features
may build on gender stereotypes, disparately affecting women and men
workers (Ridgeway and England 2007, 200). As institutionalized ele-
ments of organizational structure, such policies and procedures become
legitimized, often appearing gender-neutral, while also formalizing men’s
privilege in the workplace (Ridgeway and Correll 2004; Ridgeway and
England 2007; Roos and Reskin 1984).
Sex composition of the workplace may affect discrimination as well.
Ridgeway and Correll (2004, 517; Ridgeway 2006, 275) argue that gender
becomes “effectively salient,” or important enough to affect behavior in a
meaningful way, in settings where men and women come into contact and
also in sex-typed settings where descriptive gender stereotypes are linked
to specific job activities or elements. Studies looking specifically at dis-
crimination (e.g., Burstein 1989) often conclude women working in work
settings or occupations traditionally dominated by men may be the most
vulnerable to gender discrimination and sexual harassment. This may
result from men’s attempts to preserve privilege in these settings (De
Coster, Estes, and Mueller 1999). However, other work finds that an
increased presence of women may increase harassment, and specific
forms of it, as men interpret women’s increased presence as a threat to
their power (Chamberlain et al. 2008).
While the literature provides good reason to look to cultural underpin-
nings and structural contexts, discrimination ultimately concerns actions
and interaction (Ridgeway and England 2007). Institutional actors make
decisions to hire, fire, promote, and transfer workers. They also set wages,
evaluate performance, and create, modify, and enforce organizational
policies and procedures. Not only are gendered beliefs and organizational
context influenced and reinforced (or challenged) by interactions
(Ridgeway 1997; Martin 2003), but gender itself is created and re-created
through interaction (West and Zimmerman 1987).
Existing scholarship orients us to cultural, structural, and interactional
elements when considering gender discrimination; how these elements
relate remains to be systematically explored in real-world work environ-
ments. Gorman’s (2005) work on gender discrimination in hiring moves
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

768 Gender & societY / december 2011
us in the right direction, challenging us to look for connections between
gender ideology, organizational structure, and institutional actors engag-
ing in discriminatory actions across a variety of workplace settings. Thus
far, however, a lack of available data capturing these elements across
diverse settings has been an impediment to such research. In the present
study, I utilize a unique collection of narratives constructed from concrete
incidents of sex discrimination investigated by the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission (OCRC). By systematically and rigorously examining these
cases, this study contributes to the literature on gender discrimination
by exploring connections between gender stereotyping and workplace
policies and their application across a range of workplaces.data and anaLYtic strateGYdata
Data come from cases of sex discrimination in employment filed with
the OCRC between 1988 and 2003. The OCRC’s master database includes
data on the charging party’s race and sex, the basis of the charge (e.g., sex,
race, religion), the harm or injury that occurred (e.g., unequal wages, fir-
ing, sexual harassment), and the outcome of the investigation. In addition
to the database, I was allowed access to actual case files. These files gen-
erally contain the charging party’s account of the alleged discrimination
and why they believe it is discrimination, a response to the allegations
from the employer, witness statements about what occurred, the OCRC
investigative staff’s analysis of the evidence, and any reconsiderations of
the original OCRC decision, which includes the rationale for the final
decision. Most files contain information on the organizational composi-
tion of the charging party’s workplace as well.
Admittedly, the data capture a select group of discrimination cases. As
a legal construct, discrimination focuses on disparate treatment and dispa-
rate impact. Thus, the cases show either intentional, unequal treatment
based on sex or unequal impact of neutral policies on one sex (see Rhode
and Williams 2007). Furthermore, for a case to be included in the data, a
worker must experience an adverse employment action, perceive it as
discrimination, and file a claim with the appropriate agency (i.e., the
“name,” “blame,” and “claim” phenomenon discussed by Felstiner, Abel,
and Sarat 1981, 635-36). Certain groups of workers, particularly educated
women and women in workplaces traditionally dominated by men, may
be more likely to do so (Burstein 1989). Of course, there are significant
at St Petersburg State University on December 5, 2013gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from