|← Reinforcement Strategy Paper||Ethical Behaviour in the Workplace →|
Wage disparity across gender is an evident issue in many working environments. Especially in the modern day, where there are many advances in gender roles and occupations. However, some feminists' scholars argue that, in the 21st century, this issue is better off and women are receiving recognition that it was the case some few years ago (Lawrence, 2000). Wage disparity simply means situations where, one gender is favored over the other in terms of payment. Normally, the most evident issue across the board is when men earn more than women do at the work places even when performing the same or different tasks (Brown & Mary, 1997). Men's annual earnings are usually higher than women's are, in many work situations. This issue affects the work environment a terrific deal and shows different results across the diverse work places. With the efforts employed to handle this issue, most are situations where these efforts are not successful because of the many challenges of implementation.
Wage disparity between women and men has been a controversial topic particularly on the minds of a variety of interest groups, individuals and politicians, for several decades. There are also several theories on why such disparities exist. According to a survey by the US General Accounting Office, women in the country earned 44% less than men did in the period of the 1983-1997 (The Council of Economic Advisors, 1998). However, in the recent years the gap is rapidly decreasing owing to the point that people have been educated over the issue, and various efforts to handle the same are under implementation.
Among the noteworthy factors, which result to the wage disparity across gender include work patterns, choice of occupation, choice of industry, race, job tenure and marital status. In consulting other studies and sources, the two main factors affecting the wage disparity seemingly are the differences in industries as well as occupations females and males precisely choose, as well as the work patterns that they have at those jobs (Lawrence, 2000).
A study at Cornell University results concluded in 2005 that women with children in respective work places were less likely to earn more than men do, leave alone to secure a chance of being hired. If hired, these women would earn a lower salary when compared to the male applicants. On the other hand, male applicants with children had a more likelihood of being offered higher pay than the same women did (Weinberger, 1998). Professor Linda at Carnegie Mellon conducted another study, published at the end of 2007 reporting some findings that women who applied for jobs ideally were not as likely as men do to be hired as managers.
The issue, therefore, surpasses the earning and overreaches to issues of securing a job especially the top rank jobs, men in such situations have a better chance of securing these jobs than women do (Brown & Mary, 1997). This, therefore, coins women to lower rank jobs, which pay less while men continue to rise in rank and get promotions at their work places and enjoying payment increase.
Owing to the wage disparity across gender, women are subjugated to discrimination at the work place. It is, therefore, a genitive attribute to the work place because it kills of the practice of teamwork, which is an excellent approach of any successful organization (Weinberger, 1998). Research on competence has shown that any pervasive tendency of devaluing women's work at the work place and particularly, prejudice against women leads to male-dominated roles that are incongruent for women, therefore; it robs off the spirit of teamwork leading to lower productivity.
On the same issue, the devaluing of women and wage disparity discriminating against women has instilled the spirit of fear among the women even to dare their innovation and work towards excellence (Weinberger, 1998). It is, therefore, forcing women in lower ranked positions and reducing the innovativeness required for the organization to grow. Particularly, the organizations are even employing unqualified males on tasks, which if given a chance, the women in the work environment would do it better. Organizational research investigating biases in perceptions of equivalent female and male competence confirmed that women ideally who enter high-status also known as "male-dominated" work settings are evaluated harshly and met with greater hostility than same qualified men ,therefore, demoralizes their competence.
It is necessary for any organization to think over the hiring and payment policies, which govern the organization (Brown & Mary, 1997). This is because, mostly, these policies bring down the organization's productivity by discriminating against women who could be of more value and increase innovativeness in an organization. Policies need to handle the issue of gender inequality and form a similar and favorable base for both genders if the organization has a vision of increasing its productivity (Weinberger, 1998).
There are also laws governing employment and workers in any given setting. These employment acts are apparent and should apply in all situations at a work place to safeguard the interests of both males and females working in the same environment (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). Because they are already existent and operational, what is of essence now is to develop a stricter follow up of the employment acts by the government to ensure that, respective organizations follow the laws to the letter.
There are situations in the work place where women do not have an equal chance to promotion of payment hikes because of inadequate exposure to training (Lawrence, 2000). This is particularly common and many organizations discriminate against the women when it comes to offering trainings, and educating respective employees over pertinent issues and knowledge required in performing particular tasks (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). This should be the goal of any organization to give an equal chance to all employees of taking part in trainings for everyone to have a chance of proving fit for the promotion. A neutral ground would be excellent at the work place for everyone to take his or her chances. Weinberger (1998) found that, in many organizations, the reasons they fail in increasing productivity is because they engage male dominated practices and forget females who can do better under similar situations.
With the implementation of these goals, policies, laws and other efforts to handle the wage disparity across gender, organizations will be positively gaining from the same both socially and economically (Weinberger, 1998). One extraordinary thing about a neural ground is the creation of a harmonious team at the work place where everyone relates with the other harmoniously, therefore, working for the better of the organization. It boosts teamwork and generates more production in the organization.
The handling of the issue of wage disparity across gender develops healthy competition. Because everyone has an equal chance of a pay rise, promotion and many other motivational benefits, they work to make sure they earn the same, in the process productivity increase drawing more profits for the organization (Lawrence, 2000).
Retention of women employees is also a prominent factor because they feel appreciated in such an environment and, therefore, do their best to achieve success as their male counter parts do. The organization, therefore, does not need to fight with frequent turnover, which is a negative attribute to organization's productivity.