Even though a vast majority of all households in wealthy countries have two wage-earners, women on average work fewer hours and at lower wages than their partners. This is commonly attributed to the fact that women perform most of the routine housework. For instance, Swedish women spend approximately 15 hours per week on domestic work compared to 10 hours for men – a moderate gender gap compared to many other European countries.
Women on executive boards and in other top level
leadership positions are still uncommon throughout the world. Germany is no
exception: by the end of June 2017, only 47 out of 677 executive board members
in the German stock-listed DAX, MDAX, SDAX, and TecDAX companies were female. There
is a strong rationale for changing this status quo. In addition to moral
motives to include women, we have compelling evidence of the bottom
line benefits that result from having more women in leadership
positions. However, in top management teams across companies and in boards of
companies where no quota applies, the progress is slow. We argue that women’s underrepresentation
indicates the persistent existence of the leadership
labyrinth – a metaphor for the numerous challenges faced by women in
their careers. Being
continually confronted with challenging twists and turns requires women to work
extra hard and persist in the face of difficulties on their route to success.
Studies have shown that engagement in networking is crucial for career success as it facilitates access to critical career-building resources such as advice, technical knowledge, strategic insight or emotional support. However, research has also revealed that women’s professional networks are often less powerful and effective than men’s in terms of exchanged benefits. Also the presumably distinct motivations that underlie the networking behaviors of men and women remain less well understood. With our research, we provide new insights into the discussion on women, leadership and career development, with a specific focus on networking. With such insights we contribute to greater transparency in the leadership labyrinth with ineffective networks being one detrimental hurdle for women.
“You get that satisfaction when you see your product transform from the raw wood to the final shape, like them taking the first footsteps, then getting shapes, then making their initial forays into the market, and finally, you have to sell them. It’s like holding their hands through this whole process and then giving them away.” – Artisan in Channapatna
In a recent study, I investigated how wood and lacquerware
artisans set their prices in an isolated handicraft town in southern India
called Channapatna. I conducted eight months of ethnographic fieldwork and an
audit study where trained buyers were sent to purchase a standardized product.
I found that artisans offered certain buyers significant discounts
(up to 50%) for their products. These discounts were puzzlingly offered to
precisely those buyers who were willing to pay more for the products, such as
All kinds of organisations – universities, NGOs, private companies – look to access new audiences and enter new markets by reaching out to resource holders and diverse constituencies outside their standard remit. And there’s a certain amount of good business sense at play here: addressing new audiences helps increase risk diversification and safeguard longer term prosperity.
But this growth strategy comes with potential pitfalls. New audiences often have demands that can be very different to those of existing markets. Organisations entering new spaces run the risk of neglecting mainstream business. The capabilities needed to address a new market are often not those needed to maintain the flow and quality of products and services to existing customers and stakeholders.
How can organisations manage this kind of audience diversification so that everyone comes out of it better off? How can they balance who they already are – or are perceived to be – and what they already do, with the goals, objectives and modus operandi of their new audience
When I ask people what they
think of when they hear the word “outsourcing,” most commonly I get the “ideal
type” answer. It is an image long associated
with outsourcing: information technology (IT) jobs that get shipped overseas to
countries like India.
Yet offshoring – the more
appropriate term for this example – did not define the type of outsourcing
affecting my friends and family or people I have come to know through my
research. Their examples were best
characterized as “in-house outsourcing,” a form of outsourcing where outsourced
employees remain onsite in their current environment, but work instead for a
different company, as an onsite “vendor.”
In my new
book, I sought to learn more about how in-house outsourcing was
affecting professionals in IT and other fields. While IT has been most often
targeted, in 2005, “cost centers” like human resources (HR), accounting, and
other job fields were also increasingly outsourced.
When thinking about a job and, more precisely, the position one hopes to obtain and hold, we often automatically think of material rewards (i.e., pay, benefits, mobility prospects, etc.) or job security over the long term.
Such goals are important for workers and their families, for sure, especially in the face of restructuring and growth in unstable, part-time and precarious employment.
They tell us little, however, about day-to-day workplace experiences—that is, the things that make individuals both happy and productive in their everyday work lives and that likely also make for a good workplace.
Issues of surrounding happiness and satisfaction on the job are certainly of consequence to workers. But, to be clear, they are (or should be) of relevance as well to employers—Employers who, in the current era, grapple regularly with high rates of employee turnover, absenteeism, stress of meeting production goals and heightened financial costs associated with job training.
In a recent study, we keep this dual focus on workers and employers in mind and tackle the issues of worker satisfaction and on-the-job effort and commitment.
Why do social inequalities – the kind that divide people on the basis of race, gender, etc. – persist in our societies despite many efforts to eliminate them? Who do we blame?
shows that there are subtle, complex ways that people are categorized by media,
which may be partly to blame.
Categories are part of our lives. Films are categorized into
genres and sub-genres. Vehicles can be SUVs, sedans, minivans, etc. Categories organize
information, reduce complexity, and make decisions easier.
But we also know that categories have a dark side. Because categories
reduce complexity and force things into one group or another, they oversimplify
reality. Importantly, categorizing people in simple ways can become a major
problem because it influences our perception of those people’s real abilities
and other characteristics.
In our study, we focused on one demographic aspect – gender
– to unpack the mechanisms through which this operates. We focused on
categorization in mainstream media given the importance of media in shaping
people’s opinions, perceptions, and values.
In Ghana, female cocoa farmers remain a
marginalised group. Cocoa has been traditionally perceived as a man’s crop, and
a combination of cultural, legal and social norms have coalesced to form a
situation in which although women work just as much as men on cocoa farming-
their efforts are rarely rewarded in income or status.
Our case study looked at a gender programme at a Ghanaian cocoa cooperative, which
aimed to change this. The 20-year-old programme is run in collaboration with
the UK confectionary company to which the cocoa is sold, and an NGO partner,
and was a leader for its time, advocating quotas for women farmers on
committees, and providing leadership training.
Income inequality in the United States has been moving steadily upward for decades. By contrast, during the post-war era, the distribution of income was fairly stable and relatively egalitarian. The Gini coefficient of income inequality, changed very little between 1947 and 1968, when it hit a historic low. However, since this time, it has moved steadily upward, reaching an all-time high in 2015.
What has caused this pronounced shift
in the US income distribution?
In a recent study, I argue that the decline of organized labor has contributed more significantly to rising income inequality in the United States than prior research realizes.
More than 20 years ago, William Julius Wilson wrote that work had disappeared from inner-city neighborhoods. Since then, joblessness has continued to rise—particularly among black men without high school degrees.
In 2016, nearly 50% of less-skilled black men were jobless.
When regular, stable jobs disappear from poor neighborhoods, what type of work do people find? It is well recognized among research scholars that people often cobble together temporary gigs, seasonal positions, and self-employment as a survival strategy to make ends meet.
However, there are few studies that examine this type of employment in a systematic and detailed way due to the methodological challenges of capturing unstable and irregular work experiences.
In a recent study of employment among men recently released from prison, I asked How often and how regularly do people find work? What kind of work do they do, and how consistently do they do it?
Using daily measures of job search and work collected from smartphone surveys, I documented the extreme irregularity of work in people’s everyday lives. I found that the type of work—from landscaper to warehouse worker to concession stand operator—changed nearly as often as the presence of work itself on any given day.
I proposed the concept of work as foraging to emphasize this depth of instability and variation across job types. The term foraging was originally used in employment research to describe the pursuit of short-term income-generating opportunities to maximize profit.
Work in Progress is a project of the American Sociological Association's Sections on Organizations, Occupations, and Work, Economic Sociology, Labor and Labor Movements, and Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility