Typically, it is assumed that bureaucratic labor policies associated with internal labor markets (ILMs) both promote the efficient use of workers' skills and foster equality in the workplace by publicizing managers' decisions and increasing the accountability they face. This article uses data from a national probability sample of U.S. workplaces to test these assumptions about ILM policies with regard to gender inequality in workplace supervisory authority. The analysis also considers supply-side and occupational segregation as explanations for gender inequality in work authority, as well as several organizational characteristics emphasized in the organizational literature that have so far been left untested. Results indicate that occupational segregation accounts for most of the gap in supervisory authority, while purely human capital accounts are insufficient. Other results are consistent with an institutional interpretation—that organizations adopt ILM policies in order to “symbolically comply” with both regulatory bodies and public ideals about workplace opportunity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldlerMarina1993. “Gender Differences in Job Autonomy: The Consequences of Occupational Segregation and Authority Position.”Sociological Quarterly34: 449–465.
2.
BaronJames1984. “Organizational Perspectives on Stratification.”Annual Review of Sociology10: 37–69.
3.
BaronJamesBielbyWilliam1985. “Organizational Barriers to Gender Equality: Sex Segregation of Jobs and Opportunities.” Pp. 233–251 in Gender and the Life Course, edited by RossiAlice S.New York: Aldine.
4.
BaronJamesDavis-BlakeAlisonBielbyWilliam1986. “The Structure of Opportunity: How Promotion Ladders Vary Within and Between Organizations.”Administrative Science Quarterly31: 248–273.
5.
BeckerGary1975. Human Capital. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
6.
BielbyWilliamBaronJames1984. “A Woman's Place is With Other Women: Sex Segregation Within Organizations.” Pp. 27–55 in Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies, edited by ReskinBarbaraWashington, DC: National Academy Press.
7.
BielbyWilliamBaronJames1986. “Men and Women at Work: Sex Segregation and Statistical Discrimination.”American Journal of Sociology91: 759–799.
8.
BridgesWilliamVillemezWayne1986. “Overeducated Minority Workers: Does EEO Coverage Make a Difference?” Pp. 72–90 in Affirmative Action: Theory, Analysis, and Prospects, edited by CombsMichaelGruhlJohnJefferson, NC: McFarland.
9.
BridgesWilliamVillemezWayne1991. “Employment Relations and the Labor Market: Integrating Institutional and Market Perspectives.”American Sociological Review: 56: 748–764.
10.
DahrendorfRalf1957. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
DiPreteThomasSouleWhitman1988. “Gender and Promotion in Segmented Job Ladder Systems.”American Sociological Review. 53: 26–40.
12.
DobbinFrankSuttonJohnMeyerJohnScottW. Richard1993. “Equal Opportunity Law and the Construction of Internal Labor Markets.”American Journal of Sociology99: 396–427.
DuncanOtis Dudley1961. “A Socioeconomic Index for All Occupations.” Pp. 109–138 in Occupations and Social Status, edited by ReissA. J.New York: Free Press.
15.
HalabyCharles1979. “Job-Specific Sex Differences in Organizational Reward Attainment: Wage Discrimination Vs. Rank Discrimination.”Social Forces58: 108–127.
16.
JaffeeDavid1989. “Gender Inequality in Workplace Autonomy and Authority.”Social Science Quarterly70: 375–390.
17.
KallebergArne L.KnokeDavidMardsenPeterSpaethJoe (principle investigators). 1991. National Organizations Survey [MRDF]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor).
18.
KanterRosabeth Moss1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
19.
MardsenPeterCookCynthiaKnokeDavid1994. “Measuring Organizational Structures and Environments.”American Behavioral Scientist37: 891–910.
20.
PfefferJeffreyRossJerry1990. “Gender-Based Wage Differences: The Effects of Organizational Context.”Work and Occupations17: 55–78.
21.
PolachekSolomon1979. “Occupational Self-Selection: A Human Capital Approach to Sex Differences in Occupational Structure.”Review of Economics and Statistics58: 60–69.
22.
ReskinBarbaraRossCatherine1992. “Jobs, Authority, and Earnings Among Managers: The Continuing Significance of Sex.”Work and Occupations19: 342–365.
23.
ScottW. Richard1992. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. 3rd edition.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
StevensGillianChoJoo Hyun1985. “Socioeconomic Indexes and the New 1980 Census Occupational Classification Scheme.”Social Science Research14: 142–168.
25.
StinchcombeArthur1965. “Organizations and Social Structure.” Pp. 142–193 in Handbook of Organizations, edited by MarchJ.Chicago: Rand McNally.
26.
TolbertPamela1986. “Organizations and Inequality: Sources of Earnings Differences Between Male and Female Faculty.”Sociology of Education59: 227–236.
27.
Tomaskovic-DeveyDonald1993. Gender and Racial Inequality at Work. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
28.
United States, Bureau of the Census. 1984. Census of the Population 1980. Detailed Occupation of the Experienced Civilian Labor Force by Sex for the United States and by Regions: 1980 and 1970. Supplemental Report PC 80-S1-15. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Commerce.
29.
VillemezWayneBridgesWilliam1988. “When Bigger is Better: Differences in the Individual-Level Effect of Firm and Establishment Size.”American Sociological Review53: 237–255.
30.
WolfWendyFligsteinNeil1979. “Sex and Authority in the Workplace: The Causes of Sexual Inequality. American Sociological Review44: 235–252.
31.
WrightErik Olin1979. Class Structure and Income Determination. New York: Academic.
