50

Authors’ Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carol A. Archbold, NorthDakota State University, Department of Criminal Justice & Political Science, Fargo, ND 58105; e-mail:carol.archbold@ndsu.edu.

Police QuarterlyVolume 11 Number 1

March 2008 50-73© 2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/1098611107309628http://pqx.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Making RankThe Lingering Effects of Tokenism onFemale Police Officers’ Promotion AspirationsCarol A. ArchboldNorth Dakota State UniversityDorothy Moses SchulzJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY)

This article expands on the discussion of female police officers’ response to tokenismin the workplace, as well as how perceived token status affects female police officers’decisions to participate in promotion. Using structured, face-to-face interviews withfemale police officers in a large Midwestern police agency, the current study producedsome research findings that contrast with Kanter’s original description of tokenism.This study found that most female police officers were strongly encouraged by theirmale supervisors to participate in the promotion process. This encouragement by malepolice supervisors actually dissuaded some of the female officers from participating inthe promotion process. These findings suggest that tokenism in the workplace is morecomplex than focusing solely on the numerical representation of women in tradition-ally male-dominated professions.

Keywords: female police officers; tokenism; promotion; advancement

Almost anyone who has been to a police academy graduation has observed localreporters interviewing the new officers, often seen tossing their caps and gloves

in the air. Predictably, reporters will ask them where they hope to be in 10 years orin 20 years. At least one—and possibly many will answer—“the chief.” But mostwill not even come close to becoming the chief; they are likely to spend their entirecareers at the police officer rank. Despite the enthusiasm displayed by these rookies,opportunities for promotion in police departments are severely limited. The primaryreason for this is that police departments are complex bureaucracies with clearlydefined rank structures that are organized vertically; most members of the organiza-tion are at the bottom step (police officer) with the number of people in each subse-quent step decreasing sharply along the way.

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 51

Research into municipal policing practices has rarely focused on issues surroundingupward mobility and the decision-making process police officers follow in decidingwhether to engage in the promotional process. Part of this neglect may stem from theknowledge that promotion is less available to police officers than is commonlyunderstood. A 1981 study by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) attributedthe lack of upward mobility in most police departments to civil service regulationsthat often require an officer to serve a certain number of years (generally between 2and 5 years) in each rank before becoming eligible to apply for promotion to the nexthighest rank (Police Executive Research Forum, 1981). Not much has changed sincethe time of that study.

Added to this, promotion exams to supervisory, nonmanagement ranks (usuallysergeant and lieutenant, and captain in departments of more than 300 officers) occurat irregular intervals, generally based on a combination of a department’s needs anda city’s fiscal health. Even when exams are scheduled, the process is stressful andnot as objective as it might appear. In addition to a written exam, departments mayinclude in the testing process oral interviews, in-basket exercises, points for residency,for felony arrests made, for length of time in the agency, or for military veteran status.As many of the evaluators will be higher ranking members of the department, theevaluations may be influenced by one’s reputation in the department, by one’spopularity, and by one’s race, sex, or ethnicity.

Despite the paucity of research into the promotional process, a few researchershave questioned how gender roles—either in policing or in the larger culture—mayaffect women’s decisions to participate in the process. The earliest of these studiesappeared within a decade of when more than a handful of women were assigned touniformed patrol rather than to sex-segregated assignments as policewomen. JudieGaffin Wexler and Vicki Quinn (1985) raised questions about whether female sergeantswould be perceived differently than male sergeants are and whether women wouldneed any special support services upon promotion. In 1983, they surveyed men andwomen in the San Francisco Police Department who were eligible for promotion tosergeant to learn whether they intended to take the promotion test and what trainingthey felt they needed if they were to become sergeants.

Although both men and women believed they needed additional training in con-junction with moving up in rank, the female officers rated themselves as less competentthan the males rated themselves and indicated fears surrounding being promoted(Wexler & Quinn, 1985, p. 104). Wexler and Quinn attributed the differencesbetween male and female officers to the women’s fewer years as patrol officers andtheir concomitant lack of opportunity to gain competency in many of the tasks thata sergeant would be expected to control (p. 101) rather than to their beliefs that theylacked competency related to their status as tokens.

Wexler and Quinn (1985), and more recent studies, directly or implicitly take astheir starting point Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s study of tokenism and how “difference”may affect one’s actions in a group and also one’s self-perception and self-esteem.

Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) study of women in the workplace was itself based onEverett C. Hughes’ (1944) pioneering study of status and on sociologist GeorgSimmel’s view that “numerical modifications effect qualitative transformations ingroup interaction” (1977b, p. 965). Simmel’s concern was the impact of absolutenumbers; Kanter was concerned with how relative numbers (or proportions) affectedsocial types or social relations.

In a study of a small number of women who worked in a corporation pseudonymouslynamed the Industrial Supply Corporation (Indsco), Kanter saw skewed sex ratios as crit-ical in shaping group dynamics and identified three perceptional phenomena associatedwith what we now commonly refer to as a token (the few among many). She definedskewed groups as those in which there were a large preponderance of one type overanother (1977b, p. 966), which she defined as a ratio of approximately 85:15.

The overall percentage of women in United States policing today is estimated atapproximately 11% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002). Although some departmentscomprise more than 15% women, in the vast majority of police agencies women com-prise less than 15% of sworn officers and, therefore, meet Kanter’s definition of tokens.Even in America’s largest cities, with populations of 250,000 or more, where the per-centages of women are generally higher than in small departments, women in the year2000 made up 16.3% of all sworn officers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002). In thosefew departments in which women have exceeded token percentages, they have rarelyexceeded 25%.1 Thus, nowhere have women achieved Kanter’s balanced ratio ofapproximately 60:40 or even met her definition of a tilted group, in which the ratio ofdominants to tokens is approximately 65:35 (Kanter, 1977b, p. 966).

The importance of Kanter’s work, though, and its relationship to women in policingin all ranks—but especially in ranks above police officer—is not merely in her discussionof ratios, but in her description of how tokenism affects those who are few in number.She found that tokens were more visible than is the dominant group (colloquially wecould say they stand out in the crowd just by being there); their differences from thedominant group are exaggerated (they seem more different than they may actually be);and their qualities are distorted to fit preexisting opinions of them. As these preexistingopinions are rarely positive, tokens, according to Kanter, are faced with high visibility,isolation, problems assimilating into the group, and performance pressures that stemfrom a combination of these factors.

On the basis of analysis, Kanter posited that what earlier researchers haddescribed as women’s willingness to let others assume visible leadership (Megaree,1969) or fear of success (Levine & Crumrine, 1975) was really a fear of visibility(Kanter, 1977b, p. 975). Thus, most women in an environment in which they aretokens will find some way to fade into the background, with only the overachieversputting in extra effort and promoting themselves and their work at every opportunity(Kanter, 1977b, p. 974). According to Kanter, more recent analysis that women hadsomewhat lower levels of self-esteem than men did (Kling, Hyde, Showers, &Buswell, 1999) would also not account for the differences.

52 Police Quarterly

The occupational role dilemma of fading away and accepting the low expectationsfor tokens or fighting the stereotypes and maintaining a higher profile for women inpolicing was highlighted by Susan E. Martin (1979) in an article whose title graph-ically illustrated the dilemma. Women could be POLICEwomen or policeWOMEN.The POLICEwomen were those who wanted to be treated like their male colleaguesand hoped to counter stereotypes that women were unable to perform the duties of astreet patrol officer. They stressed their professionalism, they adhered to the groupnorms of the department, and they were ambitious, taking on special assignmentsand voicing interest in moving up the ranks. PoliceWOMEN were just the opposite;they accepted that male officers did not see them as equals, they avoided patrolassignments, and they used sexual stereotypes to their advantage.

Martin (1979), who conducted her research in Washington, D.C., among the firstgroup of women hired specifically for patrol assignments, clearly defined her twoopposites as ideal types, but believed that their behavior patterns had consequencesfor all women and for the men in the department (pp. 315-316). A major conse-quence of importance to upward mobility and promotional opportunities was that thepool of women considering promotion was far smaller than the actual number ofwomen in a department as only the POLICEwomen, who were fewer in number thanthe policeWOMEN, were ambitious (p. 319).

Although both groups resented the constant tests of their competency by malecolleagues, only the POLICEwomen sought to counter negative stereotypes byengaging actively in patrol work, making arrests, and competing with the men.PoliceWOMEN were not careerists and were not interested in promotion (Martin,1979, p. 322). Interestingly, because they presented no competition to the men andbecause they did not force men to rethink their views that women could not do patrolwork or could not supervise officers on patrol, policeWOMEN were more easilyaccepted by male officers. Part of this acceptance may also have been because theymade no professional demands on male officers; they tended to avoid socializingwith male officers and willingly accepted roles as either pets or mother confessors—neither of which threatened the men’s perceptions of themselves as protectors ofwomen (p. 321). Whether to avoid competing because of lower self-esteem orwhether to avoid even greater visibility by moving up in rank, these women did notaspire to higher rank and they presented no competition to men who did.

In a more recent study of a large Midwestern police department comprised of 720sworn officers serving a community of more than 300,000 people, Thomas S.Whetstone (2001) commented on the phenomenon that in departments of all sizesthroughout the nation it is not unusual for a large contingent of qualified officers—whether male or female—to decline to participate in the promotion process (p. 147).His study sought to discover why only 17% of eligible women and 24% of eligibleminority officers had participated in the promotion process to the rank of sergeant.There were 106 female officers (16%), of whom 24 were minority group members(overwhelmingly African American), although the number who participated in the

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 53

54 Police Quarterly

survey was somewhat smaller (Whetstone & Wilson, 1999, p. 132). For those who tookthe exam, regardless of race or sex, the most cited reason was to reach a personalgoal (Whetstone, 2001, p. 152).

For those who did not take the exam, the leading personal reason was an anticipatedloss of income, especially for men, and child care concerns, especially for women(Whetstone, 2001, p. 153). In fact, although these reasons may be more similar thanthey first appear, men may have been promoted into positions where there would befewer opportunities for overtime work; women might have faced the same issuecompounded by the need to make new, and possibly more costly, childcare arrange-ments if their assignment and shift changed. This interpretation is supported by thegenerally homogenous nature of the group’s responses, which indicated few differ-ences between the men and the women. Those differences, though, were consistentwith earlier observations that “women were more likely to be constrained in theiroccupational upward mobility by gender-specific normative expectations andresponsibilities” (Whetstone & Wilson, 1999, p. 132). The study did not addresstokenism-related concerns that the women may have had toward promotion butfocused, rather, on life choices, finding that familial constraints held greater sway inthe women’s decision-making process than departmental issues.

John T. Krimmel and Paula E. Gormley (2003) did focus specifically on tokenism.In a study of female officers in a number of departments in New Jersey andPennsylvania, they found that job satisfaction was correlated with proportionality.Although the women were generally happy with their chosen profession, women indepartments with less than 15% female officers had lower levels of job satisfaction,higher levels of depression, and lower levels of self-esteem than did women indepartments where they comprised more than 15% of sworn personnel. Specifically,those in departments where they could be classified as tokens were more likely toindicate they would change jobs, would not recommend the job to a friend, did notenjoy the job, felt tired, and did not feel their work was important (p. 83), all ofwhich factored into their lower self-esteem.

In a study of a medium-sized police department in the Pacific Northwest, TheresaLynn Wertsch (1998) considered how tokenism combined the issues of gender-appropriate behavior with barriers to upward mobility, and how these could not beseparated from societal and familial responsibilities women faced when makingcareer decisions. The department in which Wertsch conducted her interviews had afairly high percentage of women (9%) for its size, and for the time that the interviewswere conducted (1995). Wertsch interviewed most (66%) of the women in the policedepartment. The findings of this study revealed that the female officers identifiedfactors associated with tokenism, family commitments, and organizational structuresthat played a role in their decision to participate in the promotional process. She alsorevealed that the women complained of barriers to upward mobility that werecreated by their feelings of being trapped into gender-appropriate roles. This studyis important because it articulates the complexity of some of the variables that playa role in the promotion of female police officers.

Using a methodology similar to that of Wertsch (1998), the study presented in thisarticle expands on the discussion of female police officers’ responses to tokenism, aswell as how perceived token status affects female police officers’ decisions toparticipate in promotion. Conducted a decade after Wertsch’s study in a somewhatsimilar department, the current study examines the following research questions: Dofemale police officers experience tokenism in the workplace (specifically focusingon issues related to assimilation, visibility, isolation, and performance pressures)?Do female police officers believe that promotion is as available to them as it is formale police officers? And, finally, how does the perceived token status of the femalepolice officers affect their decision to participate in the promotion process?

Methods

Research Site

The research site for this study is a Midwestern municipal police agency located ina city with a population of approximately 100,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).According to 2000 Census figures, racial composition of the city includes 94.8%whites, .7% African Americans, and 4.5% other races (including American Indians,Asians, and Hispanics/Latinos). The city has a mixed economy (including retail,manufacturing jobs, etc.) and can be described as a university town because thesurrounding area is home to several universities and community/technical colleges.

The agency in this study employs 129 sworn police personnel. There are 109sworn patrol officers and 20 sworn police administrators. Police in this agency arepredominantly male (85%) and white (100%). The ages of patrol officers range from23 to 64 years old, with a mean age of 35 years. Patrol officers average 7.9 years ofservice, with a range of 1 to 33 years of service. Twenty-two percent of the patrolofficers in this agency have earned at least 60 semester credits or 90 quarter creditswithout earning a degree. Another 12.8% of the patrol officers have earned a 2-yeardegree, 61.5% have earned a 4-year degree, and 3.7% have earned a masters, law, ordoctorate degree. The minimum educational requirement for employment in theagency requires that all applicants must have completed the equivalent of 60 semestercredits or 90 quarter credits at an accredited college or university. This requirementhas been in place since 1990; before then applicants were required to have only a highschool diploma.

The ages of the department’s female officers range from 24 to 53 years (with anaverage age of 35 years). There is a wide range of years of service for female officers;from 6 months to 27 years (with an average of 11.9 years of service). Most of thefemale officers are married (78.5%), and most (64%) of the married female officersare married to fellow sworn members of the department. Almost half (43%) the femaleofficers have one or more children. More than three-quarters (78.5%) of the female

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 55

officers have earned a 4-year degree, while 14.8% have earned a 2-year degree, and6.7% have earned some college credits but no degree. In general, the education levelsof the female officers are higher than the total department education figures; forexample, more female officers (78.5%) have earned 4-year degrees compared to allother police personnel in the department (61.5%). More female officers (14.8%) haveearned 2-year degrees compared to other people in this police agency (12.8%).

The high education level of the women echoes findings by Wertsch (1998)according to which 94% of the women had completed university degrees (p. 27). Thehigh education level of women officers was also noted by Dorothy Moses Schulz(2004) in a study of women police chiefs and sheriffs, which found that the womenwere exceptional in their educational level and that all those leading large agencieshad earned either a master’s degree or a juris doctorate (JD; pp. 206-207). Althoughthe women studied by Schulz might, by virtue of their executive rank, be viewed asKanter’s “overachievers,” it does appear that women’s higher education levelscompared to male officers are consistent throughout the rank structure.

Female police officers represent 15% of all sworn positions within the department.This percentage of sworn female officers is high in comparison to the national averageof 12.7% for police agencies employing 100 or more sworn officers (Lonsway et al.,2002). When one considers the size of the city in which this study took place, thepercentage of female officers is well above the national average. According to U.S.Department of Justice figures for 2004, the percentage of female officers in municipaldepartments serving populations of between 50,000 and 99,000 was 8.9% andin departments serving populations between 100,000 and 249,000 it was 11%. Onlyin departments serving large cities (defined as those with populations of 250,000)did the percentage of female officers equal or exceed 15% (Martin & Jurik, 2007, p.58). Yet, despite this much higher-than-average percentage of female officers, as theycomprise only 15% of this police agency, it is possible to examine issues related totokenism based on Kanter’s early definition of the term (1977a, 1977b). Because thefocus of this study is on a token group within a police agency, the sample size issmall (n = 14). As a result of the small sample size, possibilities for statistical analysiswere limited; therefore, frequencies and percentages were used to quantify theresponses given by female officers during the interviews. Qualitative analysis of theinterview data provides descriptive quotes that will support and explain the frequenciesand percentages.

Data

With the help of the department’s human resources division, all sworn femalepolice personnel were given letters describing the purpose of the study, along withcontact information, if they were interested in participating. Face-to-face, structuredinterviews were conducted with most (74% or 14/19) of the sworn female policeofficers in this agency during the spring of 2006. Interview questions focused on

56 Police Quarterly

issues related to the promotion process, perceptions of tokenism, job satisfaction,and work-related stress and frustrations. On average, the face-to-face interviewslasted 45 min, with the shortest interview lasting 35 minutes and the longest inter-view lasting 90 min. Interview data was transcribed into Microsoft Access fordata management. Query analysis was used to identify patterns and themes thatemerged from the qualitative interview data.

Results

Kanter’s (1977a) discussion of tokenism in the workplace identified three“perceptual tendencies” related to tokens: visibility, contrast, and assimilation (p. 210).This section organizes the results of the data analysis according to Kanter’s threecategories of perceptual tendencies. The section concludes with an analysis of severalinterview questions that were focused on perceptions of the availability of promotionfor female officers in this police agency, how token status may influence the decisionto participate in the promotion process, and also any future plans of the interviewedfemale officers to participate in the promotion process.

Assimilation

Kanter (1977a) described assimilation of tokens as a process by which the tokenperson’s characteristics are distorted to fit the stereotypical role perceived to beappropriate by the dominant members of the group. Part of the assimilation processinvolves “role entrapment.” Role entrapment occurs when dominant members of thegroup force token members into limited or “gender appropriate” roles in the work-place (Kanter, 1977a). To explore this concept, female police officers were askedwhether they perceive that male officers treat them differently from the way the mentreat one another. In addition, the women were also asked whether they believe thatthere are any differences in calls for service and assignments given to them com-pared to those given to male officers. The women were also asked whether they hadever experienced being treated like a token female police officer, and also whetherthey would recommend law enforcement to another woman as a career choice.

All of the female officers were asked whether they had ever been treated like a“token female officer” during their tenure with the police department. More than half(64% or 9/14) stated that they had been treated like a token female officer one or moretimes while working in this police agency. Most of the examples they providedrevolved around a strong push for hiring and promoting female officers by the admin-istration, situations in which their positions as police officers were “sexualized” by citizens,and having to respond to male officers’ calls for service that involved interviewing sexualassault victims or conducting searches of female suspects.

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 57

58 Police Quarterly

When the FTO [Field Training Officer] program changed over to the PTO [PoliceTraining Officer] program I was told that I would become a PTO trainer because theywanted female officers to be part of this new program. I wanted to quit the position butit wasn’t that simple. I asked a supervisor how I could quit and he said “you can’t quit,they want female officers in some of these positions.” (FO2)2

When I was first hired there were many references made to the fact that I was oneof only a few women in the department. More recently, they have hired more females.It is like they want women in the department so badly that they will hire as many asoften as they can regardless of their qualifications. I feel like I am a statistic sometimesbecause the department focuses on how many women, not who the women are aspeople. I also feel singled out when it comes time for promotion. Supervisors con-stantly tell me that I should participate in promotion. I don’t want attention drawn tothe fact that I am a female cop—people are already aware of that. More attention makesit harder on me. (FO4)

I always get hit on by citizens while I am on duty. I have asked some of the male copsif that ever happens to them and they have all told me that it doesn’t happen to them. Ithink that guys hit on me because I am wearing the uniform. I have also had a male citi-zen walk up to a table of me and four other female officers having lunch and say “Is thisall of the female cops that your department has?” I felt like I was on display or something.Also having to search female citizens makes me feel like I stand out. (FO5)

More than half (64% or 9/14) the female officers reported that they have beentreated by male officers differently from the way other male officers have been treated.When asked to provide examples of how or when they were treated differently becauseof their sex, most (67% or 6/9) of the women identified verbal comments or conversa-tions that took place in their presence involving male officers and supervisors.

When I bid my shift and ended up in a different part of the city, one of my supervisorstold me to be sure to bring a bottle of Midol with me. (FO7)

When I first started in this department there were some guys that flat out told methat I shouldn’t be here. They have since retired but they made no secret of their feel-ings about women in law enforcement. (FO10)

Some of the male officers call the female officers “cracks” [referring to the femalebody part of a woman]. This is not something that they say to our faces but I have over-heard it myself during training. I think that things have improved since I first started,but there are still problems in this department. (FO14)

One-third of the women (33% or 3/9) identified the Investigations Unit as a partof the police agency that is particularly difficult for female officers in regard toacceptance and equal treatment by male officers.3

When I was in Investigations the environment was hostile. There were three women inthat Unit that either were harassed or left the job because of the climate. One of themended up having bad medical issues as a result of working there. I, too, ended up withmedical problems from all of the stress from the male detectives, and ended up goingback onto the streets. (FO12)

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 59

I was granted a position in Investigations for one year. They did not get me a desk,computer or even a phone with a contact number. I kept all of my stuff in a cardboard boxfor the entire year. Two weeks before I left Investigations there was a new desk, phoneand computer set up for the guy coming in after I left. I was pissed off. There have beenother women that have had problems in Investigations. This is one area where gendermakes a difference in how you are treated. There is no accountability in that Unit. (FO9)

I had a terrible experience in Investigations. I almost quit policing altogether. Therewere several other females that endured the same harassment I did while inInvestigations. Nothing was done about it when I complained to the administration. Tosome degree, that Unit is the same today as it was when I was part of it. (FO13)

Female officers were also asked whether they have ever experienced any differ-ence in the type of calls for service they received based on their sex.4 More than half(64% or 9/14) the women stated that there was no difference in the calls for servicethey received compared to the calls for service received by male officers. The femaleofficers (36% or 5/14) who did report a difference in calls for service identifiedsituations involving female sexual assault victims and searches of female suspects asactivities that seem to be reserved for female officers.

When there is a situation where they need female officers to search a female suspect,we [female officers] will get called away from our beat to do the search, and then aretasked with writing the report for someone else’s [male officers’] call. It is bad enoughthat they tear us away from the calls in our own beat areas, but on top of that we areleft with more paperwork at the end of the shift. (FO3)

It used to be really bad when there were fewer females working in the department.We used to have to handle nearly all of the sexual assault cases and interviews. But nowthat there are more women here, the extra work is evenly spread out among all of uswomen. (FO13)

Definitely when it comes to the searches of females. If you are the only womenworking at that time you have to leave your beat, no matter where it is, and drive acrosstown to do the search. The worst part is that you usually get stuck doing the report, too,even though we are not supposed to do that outside of our beat area. (FO7)

After discussing some of their experiences as females working in a male-dominatedprofession, each of the women was asked whether she would recommend lawenforcement to another female for a career choice. More than half (64% or 9/14) statedthey would recommend policing to other women as a career choice.

Being a police officer is an important job whether you are male or female. Sometimes thereare advantages to being a female police officer—like the times that you are dealing withjuveniles. They tend to listen to us more than the guys because they see us like motherfigures. We also police differently in that we will use voice commands before we jumpright into the physical part of the job—even if a physical approach is warranted. (FO1)

I would tell them about the challenges that they will face. For example, there is genderdiscrimination—not necessarily with the administration but more specifically with the

citizens and male coworkers. It is also very hard to balance family with the shift work.I would also tell her to have goals before she begins in the police department. You haveto know if you want to advance because you have to start preparing yourself while youare on the streets if you ever hope to be promoted. (FO8)

I would be brutally honest with them. This job is extremely destructive to our per-sonal lives, especially when it comes to having kids. This job is not easy. If a femaleofficer is not married to another cop it is difficult because he [her spouse] won’t wanther working with other males, or to be put in situations that are dangerous, such as sit-uations involving guns. Most people who are attracted to this job are adrenalinejunkies. So if a female can hack all of these things she will do okay. (FO13)

Over one-third (36% or 5/14) of the female officers stated that it would dependon the woman as to whether they would recommend law enforcement as a career.When asked to explain their answers, most of the women stated that it takes a cer-tain type of woman to do this kind of work. Most of their descriptions of “the rightkind of woman” for law enforcement centered on specific traits or qualities they feltwere necessary to be effective.

It depends on the type of person I am talking to. If she is someone that is strong, hastough skin, and is self-confident, I would tell her to do it. If you do not carry yourselfin a way that shows you are confident in yourself, you will not win the respect of thecitizens or your fellow officers. (FO4)

If the woman is career-oriented and having family is not a high priority to her . . .and of course if she doesn’t want to have kids. This job cuts into family time due to theschedule. (FO12)

She needs to have thick skin to be able to do this kind of work. It also helps to havemilitary experience because you learn quickly in the military how much being confi-dent and assertive is important if you are a female. (FO7)

She would have to be a strong person with great communication skills and be ableto deal with the nasty stuff we see on the streets. Some people wouldn’t be able to hackthis job. (FO6)

It is important to note that no female officers reported that they would not suggestlaw enforcement to another female as a possible career. This finding is significantgiven that more than half (64% or 9/14) the women stated that they have been treateddifferently at work or have been treated as tokens at some time during their employmentin this police agency.

Visibility

Because tokens comprise only 15% or less of the overall group, their difference(in this case sex) becomes more obvious or visible to others. As a result of theirincreased visibility, tokens might feel that they have to work twice as hard as theirpeers or have to prove themselves to group members. To examine Kanter’s (1977a,

60 Police Quarterly

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 61

1977b) concept of visibility, female officers were asked about their feelings of hav-ing to prove themselves to their peers.

More than three-quarters (79% or 11/14) of the female officers reported that theyhave felt they had to work harder than male officers to prove themselves to others.Some of the women stated that the pressure to prove themselves began as early as thepolice training academy. In most cases, the female officers stated that they had to provethat they could handle physical altercations, and also take control of their calls for ser-vice before their male colleagues felt the need to step in and take control.

In the academy, it is like you are being watched for what you can do physically. Onceyou leave the academy, people in the department already know what you are capable ofdoing based on what you did in the academy. I got hurt during the academy because Iwas out of shape and people gave me shit because they thought I was being lazy anddidn’t want to do the physical workouts. Now I have to prove what I can do and that Ican hold my own on the streets. (FO5)

I was at the top of my academy class for physical fitness. I could do more push-upsthan all of the guys in my class. This got around the department before I even hit thestreets. I think that I have earned their [male officers’] respect because of my level ofphysical fitness. (FO1)

I feel like I have to quickly take control of my calls so that the male officers knowthat I will respond quickly so that the situation doesn’t get out of hand. I don’t everwant them to assume that I wouldn’t step up and deal with my calls—all of them, eventhe ones that involve fights. (FO4)

I have to be more forceful in certain situations—like when guys try to take over mycalls. I sometimes have to say “I’ve got it” or “Back off,” and then they [male officers]will listen. Also, in situations where there is potential for physical confrontations. Therewas one time when I was putting this cranky drunk into the back of my squad car. Hestarted calling me names and out of nowhere this male cop grabs him [the drunk] andslammed him into the backseat. I literally had to yell at the male officer to make himstop because he was being so rough with the guy. He [the male cop] thought that hewas protecting me, but I didn’t need or ask for help. (FO12)

Kanter (1977a) described a “fear of retaliation” felt by some tokens when she dis-cussed a variety of performance pressures. More specifically, she stated that

when a token does well enough to show up a dominant, it cannot be kept a secret, sinceall eyes are upon the token, and therefore, it is more difficult to avoid the public humil-iation of a dominant. Thus, paradoxically, while the token women felt they had to dobetter than anyone else in order to be seen as competent and allowed to continue, theyalso felt, in some cases, that their successes would not be rewarded and should be keptto themselves. They needed to toe the fine line between doing just well enough and toowell. (p. 217)

Similarly, Martin (1979) found that male officers tended to prefer the female officerswho were less of a threat to them, specifically the female officers who did not try to

match their performance, which the men viewed as overachieving or outperformingmale officers. In the current study, a few of the women (27% or 3/11) mentioned thatthey had tried to be “overachievers” when it came to writing tickets and taking con-trol of calls for service in an attempt to earn the respect of male colleagues. Their“overachievement strategy” was not always successful.

During my first year, it felt like I wouldn’t get any respect from the male officers untileach of them deemed me worthy of their respect. They would watch to see if I couldhandle my calls and if I did it according to their expectations I gained respect fromthem. I also tried to write a lot of tickets and they got mad at me for it. There were sev-eral situations that were physical where I didn’t back down and they seemed to behappy about that. They just expected that I would have backed down from any physi-cal confrontations. (FO3)

When I first started out I gave out lots of citations. The guys on my shift got on mycase and told me to ease up on that. So I did, but then I got in trouble by my supervi-sor for giving out too few tickets. It is a no win situation. (FO11)

When I first hit the streets I was the leader in DUI [driving under the influence of eitheralcohol or drugs] citations. I was told by my male officers and supervisors to tone it downwith the citations. So I did. About a year after that a male officer was given an award forhis DUI citations and was also publicly acknowledged for it. I was pissed off. (FO13)

Another aspect of visibility for tokens occurs when they are forced or pressuredto take on duties or roles that make them stand out further from the rest of themembers of their organization. Kanter (1977a) noted that “on some occasions,tokens were deliberately thrust into the limelight and displayed as showpieces,paraded before the corporation’s public but in ways that sometimes violated thewomen’s sense of personal dignity” (p. 213). The perception that female officerswithin the agency are often “paraded before the public” by the police agency wasfrequently mentioned (64% or 9/14) during the interviews.

I was asked to talk for an hour at a local Girl Scout group meeting. I really did not wantto do it, but my supervisor said that he wanted to send a female officer to this event.(FO1)

When the local newspaper wanted to do an interview with someone from ourdepartment, the Chief told me that he wanted a female police officer to do the inter-view. I think that he wanted to showcase the fact that the department has a lot of womenon the force. It wasn’t really about the diversification in the department; it was abouthis bragging rights. (FO3)

It seems like every time the news media want a statement from the police depart-ment, they call on me. Yes, I do have good speaking skills but I have also been toldmany times that they want a female representing the department. It makes me feel likeI am “window dressing” for the department. They want it to appear as though they areso progressive with diversity, yet there are so many things going on within the depart-ment that hinder female officers from climbing the administrative ladder. (FO13)

62 Police Quarterly

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 63

The responses to this question highlight the role that police administrators play in theformation of a female officer’s token status within a predominately male organization.

Contrast/Polarization/Isolation

As a result of high visibility and pressures to assimilate into roles prescribed bythe dominant members of the organization, some tokens experience isolation(Kanter, 1977a, 1977b). To examine whether or not Kanter’s concept of “isolation”was present within the police agency in this study, female officers were asked aboutsome of the frustrations they face while on the job, feelings of isolation within thepolice agency, and also whether or not there is a sense of camaraderie among femaleofficers as a result of their token status.

Several sources of frustration were mentioned when female officers were askedabout the frustrations they face on the job. The most common source of on-the-jobfrustration mentioned by half (50% or 7/14) the women was dealing with disrespectand the lack of full acceptance by their male colleagues. A lack of communication withthe administration was another frequently mentioned source of frustration for some ofthe women (43% or 6/14). Other, less frequently mentioned sources of frustrationincluded being frustrated with the shift or beat area in which they were assigned towork (14% or 2/14), being lied to by citizens or interacting with “stupid” citizens (14%or 2/14), and problems associated with a new computer system (14% or 2/14).5

The women were also asked whether they believed that their male colleaguesexperience some of the same on-the-job frustrations. Half (50% or 7/14) the femaleofficers reported that their male colleagues likely do not face the same frustrationsthat they do (specifically the sex-related frustrations). The other half of the womenstated that their male colleagues would likely report similar frustrations related todealing with citizens, issues related to the administration, and problems arising fromthe computer system that had recently been adopted by the department. Existing lit-erature supports the assertion that, in general, male and female police officers reportsimilar frustrations with the administration (Haarr & Morash, 1999; Morash &Haarr, 1995; Whetstone & Wilson, 1999).

All of the female police officers were asked whether they had ever felt isolatedfrom male officers solely based on their sex. Most (79% or 11/14) reported that theydo not feel isolated from the men solely on this basis. When the women were askedto explain why they do not feel isolated at work they provided several explanations.One officer stated that she tried to “act like one of the guys” to fit in so that she isnot isolated from the group. Others stated that they did not pay attention to whetheror not they were isolated from the group. One female officer stated that she was usedto being left out of the group from her experience in the military before she beganher law enforcement career.

I act like one of the guys so they leave me alone. (FO9)I have not experienced that in this department. Maybe it is because I got so used to

it while I was in the military that I just don’t see it anymore. (FO7)I am not sure if it happens in this department. I feel more isolated because I am mar-

ried to a police administrator in the department than I do because I am a female. (FO8)

It is important to note that some (29% or 4/14) of the female officers (including oneof the officers who stated that she does not feel isolated at work) mentioned that theyhave very little or virtually no interaction outside work with their male colleagues.

I am not invited to the hunting and fishing trips they all go on. It is during those timesthat they get to know each other and position themselves for promotion. The adminis-tration is part of these social outings that women are not part of. I am also not asked todo things after or during work. It is complete isolation from the male officers from asocial aspect. (FO13)

The male officers on my shift all go out together once the shift is over—they neverinvite me. They all wait for each other to leave the police station but they never wait forme. It is clear that they feel camaraderie with each other but not with me. If the guysgo out for a beer after work I am never invited. I definitely feel isolated because I ama female. (FO3)

I take calls with guys [male officers] and there have not been any problems. Theguys invite me to lunch sometimes during our shift. I don’t do anything with them out-side of work, but that could be because of the shift I work or the fact that I live so faraway. (FO1)

Kanter (1977a) identified two potential responses to deal with isolation that resultfrom having token status:

They could accept isolation, remaining only an audience for certain expressive acts ofdominants. This strategy sometimes resulted in friendly but distant peer relations, with therisk of exclusion from occasions on which informal socialization and political activitytook place. Or they could try to become insiders, proving their loyalty by definingthemselves as exceptions and turning against their own social category. (p. 230)

To explore these potential responses to isolation, each of the female officers wasasked whether she felt a sense of camaraderie with other female officers in the policeagency. Half (50% or 7/14) the women reported that they felt a sense of camaraderiewith other female officers. Forty-two percent (6/14) stated they did not feel cama-raderie with other female officers, while the remaining 8% (1/14) of the women said“it depends on the woman.”

Upon further analyses, an interesting pattern emerged related to the age of eachfemale officer and her perception of camaraderie with other female officers. Theaverage age of female officers who reported that they did feel a sense of camaraderiewith other female officers was 41.85 years. The average age of female officers who

64 Police Quarterly

stated that they did not feel a sense of camaraderie with other female officers was 28years.6 This distinct difference in perceptions of camaraderie among younger andolder female officers became obvious when they were asked to further explain theirperception of camaraderie among female officers in their agency. Some of theyounger female officers mentioned that camaraderie is a gender-neutral feeling inpolicing, or that they just simply have nothing in common with the other female officers.

I don’t think that gender is necessarily the reason that people feel camaraderie withother people. It has to do with how well the person can do their job. (FO1)

I can relate more to the guys [male officers]. (FO6)I get along fine with the females on my shift as well as the males. But I don’t really

hang out with any of them off duty. (FO4)I don’t see it. I don’t think that it is a gender thing; I just don’t think that people like

me as a person. (FO9)

The explanations given by the older female officers made it clear that they feltthat having camaraderie with other female officers was a way to get support at workbecause there were so few women in the department. Several of the older femaleofficers added that they were hired at a time when there were even fewer women inthe department so they know what it is like to feel isolated.

I feel it among the women that have been here longer. A lot of the newer female officerswork a different shift and are of a different age so it makes it hard. (FO10)

I see most of the ladies that have been here a while band together. We know what itis like being one of a few women so it is important to have others for support. (FO12)

I have been here a very long time. The women that have been part of this organiza-tion for a long time are very close friends. We have had to be over the years—we areall each other have for on-the-job support. We try to support the younger females butthere is an age difference. (FO13)

It is logical that the older female officers would view camaraderie with otherfemale officers as important compared to the younger female officers given that theyhad experienced token status for a longer period of time. In addition, older, moreexperienced female officers have already “proven” themselves to others in thedepartment; whereas the younger, less experienced officers have yet to fully demon-strate their abilities.

Token Status and Its Impact on Promotion

If female officers feel that they are not supported as patrol officers, it is likely thatthey will be hesitant to participate in the promotion process. Their hesitation couldstem from the fear that they would also not be supported or respected by their malepeers if they were promoted into a management role. To explore whether female

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 65

police officers’ token status acts as a potential barrier to advancing up through theranks, each of the female officers interviewed was asked about her perception ofpromotion availability for female police officers in the department. The women werealso asked about the role that “sponsors” played in their decision to participate in thepromotion process, as well as any future plans to participate in the promotion process.

According to the interview data, more than half (57% or 8/14) the female officersreported that promotion availability is either “very good” or “good” for female policeofficers in this police agency. The remaining female officers responded that promotionavailability for female officers is either “fair” (36% or 5/14) or “poor” (7% or 1/14). Acommon explanation for their perception of promotion availability included the per-ception that any female officer is likely to get promoted if she applies for the positionbecause the administration wants so badly to promote female officers.7

After analyzing the interview data more closely, it became clear that the advicegiven to the female officers by male supervisors was creating a perception that theycould be promoted solely because they are women—not because they could be effec-tive leaders. Several of the female officers stated that their supervisors were tryingto be encouraging; however, by singling them out and telling them to participate inthe promotion process, their supervisors were actually causing the women to drawunwanted, negative attention from the male patrol officers.

Male supervisors within the agency could be identified as potential “sponsors” tofemale officers in regard to promotion. The influence of a “sponsor(s)” in regard topromotion was mentioned in 43% (or 6/14) of the interviews conducted for thisstudy. The female officers who mentioned a person or person(s) who could fitKanter’s (1977a) description of a “sponsor”8 identified one or more male supervisorseither within or outside their district/beat area. In contrast to Kanter, the influence ofa “sponsor” in this study had a negative effect on the decisions of the female officersto participate in the promotion process.

The attention I have received from my supervisors prevented me from testing this pasttime because there is a stigma for females that test for the position of sergeant. The ideais that if you are a woman, you will get it [promotion] no matter what your qualifica-tions are. (FO2)

If there was a more positive view of the promotion process I would do it. The viewtoward promotion is so negative right now that I am unsure as to whether or not I wantto become part of that. (FO3)

I would not participate in promotion if I still feel like they are just looking for afemale to promote and not the most qualified person for the position. (FO6)

I would want people to know that I got promoted because I am a good cop, not becauseI am a woman or to become a piece of window dressing for the organization. (FO13)

To examine if female officers’ token status would influence their decision to par-ticipate in the promotion process in the future, each of the female officers was askedto describe what her desired rank would be in 5 and 10 years from the time of the

66 Police Quarterly

interview. More than one-third (36% or 5/14) stated they would most likely still be inthe position of patrol officer in 5 years. Slightly fewer (29% or 4/14) reported that theyhoped to be promoted to the rank of sergeant in 5 years. A few of the remaining femaleofficers stated that they wanted to be in the position of detective (21% or 3/14), in acivilian position (7% or 1/14), or be retired from law enforcement (7% or 1/14) in 5years. In 10 years, 21% (3/14) hoped to be in the rank of lieutenant, 22% (3/14) in therank of sergeant, and 36% (5/14) in the position of detective. The remaining femalepolice officers hoped to remain patrol officers (7% or 1/14), be in a civilian position(7% or 1/14), or be retired from law enforcement (7% or 1/14) in 10 years.

Discussion

Some of the research findings from the current study echo research findings inearlier studies on tokenism. For example, most (79%) of the female officers in thepresent study reported that they felt they had to work harder than male officers.Wertsch (1998) found that 69% of the female police officers she interviewedbelieved they had to work harder than male police officers in their agency. Kanter(1977a) would have predicted these findings based on her assertions regarding suchfew women working in a male-dominated organization. Also, when female policeofficers were asked where they hoped to be in the police organization in 5 years,slightly more than one-third (36%) in the present study stated that they would remainin patrol, while another 29% stated that they hoped to be in the position of sergeant.Similarly, Wertsch (1998) found that 31% of the female officers she interviewedwanted to remain in a patrol position, while another 32% reported that they hoped tobe promoted to sergeant in 5 years. These findings suggest that Kanter’s (1977a)perception of tokenism or an awareness of token status by female police officers ispresent in the current police agency.

There are, however, also some significant differences in the findings from the cur-rent study compared to findings from some of the previous studies on tokenism. First,64% of the female police officers in the current study reported that they had beentreated differently from male police officers in their department, and that they had alsobeen treated like tokens at some point in their law enforcement career. But despite thisperceived differential treatment, more than half (64%) the female officers reported thatthey would recommend law enforcement as a career choice to other women; while theremaining 36% reported that it would depend on the women as to whether they wouldrecommend policing to other women as a career choice. It is important to note thatnone of the female police officers stated that they would not recommend law enforce-ment as a career to other women. This finding contrasts sharply with research con-ducted by Krimmel and Gormley (2003) who found that most female police officerswould not recommend law enforcement to other women as a career choice. Becausemore than a third of the women interviewed for the current study answered that their

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 67

recommendation would depend on the other women, it would appear that althoughthese women have suffered the effects of tokenism, they still believe that a career inpolicing requires women to display a certain level of competence and that they them-selves feel sufficiently competent to be successful in their careers.

There is also a significant difference in research findings in regard to feelings ofisolation among the female police officers. In the current study, most (79%) of thefemale police officers reported that they did not feel isolated at work because theyare women working in a male-dominated profession. In contrast, Wertsch (1998)reported that 69% of the female police officers she interviewed felt isolated at workbecause of their sex. Kanter (1977a) also described how token female workers feltisolated from their male colleagues at Indsco (the company in which she did herresearch) because of their sex.

And, finally, there is a difference in research findings regarding perceptions of pro-motional availability for female police officers compared to male police officers.Wertsch (1998) discovered that 87% of the female officers she interviewed reportedpromotional availability in their police agency as either “very good” or “good.” Thepresent study also found that female officers felt that promotion was available to them:57% of them reported that promotional availability for female officers in their agencywas “very good” or “good.” Most of the female officers reported that their male super-visors consistently encouraged them to participate in promotion. But interview datarevealed that this encouragement by male supervisors actually dissuaded many femaleofficers from participating in promotion. They felt that they would be promoted solelybecause they are female, not because they would be effective leaders.

These findings differ significantly from assertions made by Kanter (1977a)regarding the availability of promotion for females working in predominantly maleorganizations. Her work highlighted the struggles that female workers of Indsco con-fronted as they tried to climb the corporate ladder. This finding raises importantimplications for affirmative action in hiring and promotion, because it may indicatethat too strongly encouraging women to apply for positions or for promotions orimplying that they will be hired or promoted as long as they fulfill the minimumrequirements may actually discourage—rather than encourage—them to participatein the process. One implication is that those who view themselves as competent donot want to be selected or advanced solely on the basis of their token status or forreasons that may meet the needs of the department or the community but that do notenhance their own feelings of competence or self-worth.

Despite the importance of the findings of previous research, specifically Kanter’swork on women in the workplace, the findings of the current study—particularlythose relating to the reluctance of female officers to participate in the promotionprocess—imply that tokenism in the workplace should be reconsidered. We are notsuggesting that tokenism does not exist or that female workers do not face challengesin traditionally male professions; instead, we assert that there may be more complexissues that have not been identified in earlier research.

68 Police Quarterly

Our findings support the work of a number of researchers who have found thatnumbers and percentages often do not provide a full enough picture of workplacedynamics. In the previous studies that questioned aspects of how tokenism influencedemployee and workplace decision-making, the focus was not on the women havingreached higher than token numbers, but on whether male tokens suffered the sameeffects as women owing to their low percentages in such fields as nursing, socialwork, child care, clerical work, and teaching below the college-level.

In a specific comparison of female police officers and male nurses in theNetherlands, E. Marlies Ott (1989) found that the effects of tokenism on men werethe opposite on women; specifically, men resisted women entering their occupationsbut women did not resist men entering women-dominated fields. At the time of herresearch, Ott observed that in general in the Netherlands men were moving intotraditionally female occupations faster than women were moving into traditionallymale occupations (p. 43)—which is not the case in the United States. She found thatwhile male police officers did not want to see an increase in female police officers,female nurses would have preferred to see men become approximately one-half theworkforce, primarily because the men were more down-to-earth and detached,gossiped less, were more appreciated by the patients, and took away the FlorenceNightingale image of nursing (pp. 52-53). She concluded that “men increasinglywant to keep their domain for themselves while women remain willing to share theirdomain with men” (p. 53). She attributed this to men’s higher overall status insociety, leading women to view the presence of men in their workplaces positivelyrather than negatively because getting higher status members to join the groupincreases the entire group’s status.9

Janice D. Yoder (1991), in a review of studies of men in what she termed “gender-inappropriate occupations,” found that the men “did not experience performance pres-sures, isolation, and role encapsulation” (p. 183) similar to Kanter’s findings aboutwomen. Noting that Kanter (1977b, p. 196) had acknowledged that sex was a masterstatus that permeated most interactions, Yoder nonetheless concluded that Kanter’sfocus on proportionality may have failed to pay sufficient attention to what was “reallythe effect of intrusion of lower-status workers into a formerly all-dominant-status workgroup and the competitive threat,” that this was what led to the negative consequences forthe tokens, and that the consequences would continue as the numbers of lower-statusworkers increased (pp. 185-186). Yoder’s research into women in the military (Yoder,1989) and women in firefighting (Yoder & McDonald, 1998), in both of which womencontinue to be tokens, has sought to consider issues beyond the skewed nature of theworkforce. A similar conclusion was drawn by Lynn Zimmer’s (1986, 1988) studies ofwomen working in men’s prisons; she found a sex-neutral theory such as tokenism oflimited value in explaining the experiences of either men or women in a society wheresex remains important. She observed that the focus on tokenism may actually hinderwomen’s progress because it detracts from sexism in the workplace and in the largersociety (1988, p. 64).

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 69

70 Police Quarterly

Reinforcing the need to look beyond a specific workplace, Christine L. Williamslooked at men’s underrepresentation in four female-dominated professions—nursing,librarianship, elementary school teaching, and social work. Similar to Yoder’s (1991)findings, Williams (1992) found that not only did men not suffer the negative affects oftokenism, they advanced so quickly in their fields that she described their advantagesas similar to a glass escalator (p. 253) rather than the glass ceiling women faced inmale-dominated fields such as policing, corrections, firefighting and virtually allwhite-collar professions. The men received preference in hiring and were generallyprovided with career advancement opportunities that women were not offered.Contrary, though, to the female officers in the present study, the men did not see thispreference as singling them out negatively and the vast majority of the men tookadvantage of the opportunities presented to them. The only areas where the menfaced the classic problems of the token were externally; clients or outsiders madeassumptions about their sexuality, thinking that even if they were not homosexual,they must have been passive, wimpy, or asexual (p. 261). Williams’ findings supportZimmer’s belief that Kanter’s focus solely on the proportions of men and women inthe workplace neglects men’s privileged position in society that follows them intoany profession (p. 261).

The studies that considered men’s privileged position did not mention race at all; itwould be of interest to see whether minority men in women’s professions also benefitfrom the glass escalator and whether white women would as readily accept minoritymen as adding to the prestige of their positions as they did white men in Williams’study. In addition, if a sex-segregated workplace also provides advantages to menand disadvantages to women, the female police officers’ comments in this study thatthey avoided promotional opportunities because they did not want to benefit frompositive discrimination may indicate that something other than the traditional roleencapsulation identified with tokenism is preventing them from moving ahead intheir careers—possibly the combination of society and family expectations asWhetstone (2001) identified earlier.

As women continue to be hired by law enforcement agencies in a slow butincreasing pace, it will become even more important to understand how they can bebetter assimilated into what has traditionally been a male-dominated profession. Inaddition, with so few women reaching the ranks beyond patrol officer, it is criticalthat police administrators continue to think about ways to increase female presence inthe upper ranks. Even though the research findings presented in this article cannotbe generalized beyond the police agency participating in this study, the researchfindings shed new light on how tokenism continues to impact female police officers’aspirations for upward mobility through promotional advancement.

Notes

1. In a study by the National Center for Women and Policing published in 1998, the departments withthe highest percentages of female officers were Pittsburgh with 24.8% and Washington, D.C., with 24.6%

(see National Center for Women and Policing, 1998). Both departments had at some time been under consentdecrees and there are indications that in Pittsburgh, where women had also filled 37.5% of the commandpositions, once the consent decree was no longer in effect, the percentage of women in the departmentdeclined. The only other cities in which women comprised at least 20% of the department in 1998 wereDetroit, Miami, Philadelphia, and Toledo, Ohio, all of which except Miami had also been under courtorders to increase the percentages of women (Janofsky, 1998).

2. A code was assigned to each of the female officers interviewed for this study ranging from FO1 toFO14.

3. The Investigations Division has three units: (a) Criminal Investigations Unit that is subdivided intothree teams: Personal Crimes, Property Crimes, and Financial Crimes, (b) Narcotics Unit that investigatesboth narcotics and vice crimes, and (c) Intelligence Unit that focuses on the sex offender program, crim-inal intelligence, and crime analysis. The Criminal Investigations Unit employs one sergeant and eachteam is headed by a detective (career grade/rank higher pay then patrol/investigator, permanent position).The teams are staffed by investigators (patrol officers temporarily assigned to the division on 4 to 6 yearrotations). The Narcotics Unit is staffed by one sergeant and four investigators. The Intelligence Unit isstaffed by two detectives. The detectives have permanent ranked positions and thus have both formal andinformal status within the police department. Investigators are rotating patrol officers who are selected ina competitive process. Investigators have the same pay grade as patrol officers. They have some limitedinformal status but it is usually based on the individual’s demonstrated abilities in investigations, inter-viewing, knowledge of law/procedures, etc., which is the basis for the status rather than merely beingselected as an investigator. This status is also subject to whom you ask, for example, a young investiga-tor may not get much status from a veteran patrol officer, especially if the veteran had previously com-pleted a tour as an investigator.

4. All the dispatchers in this agency are female; therefore, if there are any discrepancies in calls forservice based on sex they are the result of the prioritization and assignment of calls for service by femaledispatchers. In contrast, appointed assignments given to female officers are usually determined by sworn,male supervisors.

5. These percentages do not add up to 100% because some the women reported multiple sources ofon-the-job frustration.

6. It is important to note that there was one outlier in the category of female officers who stated thatshe did not feel a sense of camaraderie with other female officers. If this outlier were not included in thisgroup, the average age of the female officers who did not feel a sense of camaraderie with other femaleofficers would have been 25.83 years. This results in an even more dramatic split between the ages of thefemale officers and their perceptions of camaraderie with other female officers.

7. At the time of the data collection there was only one female in a sworn supervisory/managementposition in this agency (this includes the ranks of sergeant through police chief).

8. According to Kanter (1977a), “Sponsors are often thought of as teachers or coaches whose functionsare primarily to make introductions or to train a young person to move effectively through the system”(p. 180). More specifically, sponsors serve three important functions in the role of promotion: (a) “sponsorsare often in a position to fight for the person in question, to stand up for him or her in meetings ifcontroversies are raised, to promote that person for promising opportunities”; (b) “Sponsors often providedthe occasion for lower level organization members to bypass the hierarchy: to get inside information, toshort-circuit cumbersome procedures, or to cut red tape”; and (c) “Sponsors also provide an important signalto other people, a form of reflected power. Sponsorship indicates to others that the person in question hasthe backing of an influential person, that the sponsor’s resources are somewhere behind the individual”(pp. 181-183).

9. Ott referred to two studies in the United States that did not find that male nurses had the advantagesshe observed. See Fairhurst and Snavely (1983) and McGranahan (1985). She posited that the differentresults may have been caused by different methodologies but that cultural differences may also haveresulted in female nurses in the United States being less differential to male nurses or that the nurses in

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 71

the United States may have been more aware that the number of men in their profession could increasevery rapidly. Although Ott does not state so, the latter could enhance the position’s status but possiblydiminish their professional aspirations.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Police departments in large cities, 1900-2000. Washington, DC: U.S.Justice Department.

Fairhurst, G. O., & Snavely, B. K. (1983). A test of the social isolation of male tokens. Academy ofManagement Journal, 26, 353-361.

Haarr, R. N., & Morash, M. (1999). Gender, race, and strategies of coping with occupational stress inpolicing. Justice Quarterly, 16, 303-336.

Hughes, E. C. (1944). Dilemmas and contradictions of status. American Journal of Sociology, 49, 353-359.Janofsky, M. (1998, June 21). Pittsburgh is showcase for women in policing. The New York Times, p. 14.Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to

token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990.Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 470-500.Krimmel, J. T., & Gormley, P. E. (2003). Tokenism and job satisfaction for policewomen. American

Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 73-88.Levine, A., & Crumrine, J. (1975). Women and the fear of success: A problem in replication. American

Journal of Sociology, 80, 964-974.Lonsway, K., Wood, M., & Spillar, K. (2002, December). Officer gender and excessive force. Law and

Order, pp. 60-66.Martin, S. E. (1979). POLICEwomen and PoliceWOMEN: Occupational role dilemmas and choices of

female officers. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7, 314-323.Martin, S. E., & Jurik, N. C. (2007). Doing justice, doing gender: Women in legal and criminal justice

occupations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.McGranahan, C. (1985). The influence of sex ratio and sex status on male and female nurses’ attitudes.

Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.Megaree, E. I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 53, 377-382.Morash, M., & Haarr, R. N. (1995). Gender, workplace problems and stress in policing. Justice Quarterly,

12, 113-140.National Center for Women and Policing. (1998). Equality denied: The status of women in policing. Los

Angeles: Author.Ott, E. M. (1989). Effects of the male-female ratio at work: Policewomen and male nurses. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 13: 41-57.Police Executive Research Forum. (1981). Survey of police operational and administrative practices—

1981. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Schulz, D. M. (2004). Breaking the brass ceiling: Women police chiefs and their paths to the top.

Westport, CT: Praeger.U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Retrieved January 25, 2002, from http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.htmlWertsch, T. L. (1998). Walking the thin, blue line: Policewomen and Tokenism today. Women and

Criminal Justice, 9(3), 23-61.Wexler, J. G., & Quinn, V. (1985). Considerations in the training and development of women sergeants.

Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13, 98-105.

72 Police Quarterly

Whetstone, T. S. (2001). Copping out: Why police officers decline to participate in the sergeant’s promotionprocess. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 147-159.

Whetstone, T. S., & Wilson, D. G. (1999). Dilemmas confronting female police officer promotional candidates:Glass ceiling, disenfranchisement or satisfaction? International Journal of Police Science and Management,2(2), 128-143.

Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions.Social Problems, 39, 253-267.

Yoder, J. D. (1989). Women at West Point: Lessons for women in male-dominated occupations. InJ. Freedman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (4th ed., pp. 523-537). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender and Society, 5, 178-192.Yoder, J. D., & McDonald, T. W. (1998). Measuring sexist discrimination in the workplace: support for

the validity of the schedule of sexist events. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 487-491.Zimmer, L. (1986). Women guarding men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Zimmer, L. (1988). Tokenism and women in the workplace: The limits of gender-neutral theory. Social

Problems, 35(1): 64-77.

Carol A. Archbold is an assistant professor at North Dakota State University in Fargo, North Dakota. Sheearned her PhD at the University of Nebraska-Omaha in 2002. Her research interests include policeaccountability and liability, race and the criminal justice system, and qualitative research methods. Shehas published articles in such journals as Police Quarterly, Policing: An International Journal of PoliceStrategies and Management, and the Journal of Crime and Justice. In 2004, she published a book on thefirst national study of risk management in policing, Police Accountability, Risk Management and LegalAdvising (LFB Scholarly Publishing).

Dorothy Moses Schulz, PhD, is a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY), where sheteaches courses in criminal justice, police history, police administration, and women in policing. She is aretired captain with the Metro-North Commuter Railroad Police Department and its predecessor railroad,Conrail. She was the first woman to hold a management rank in either department. She is the author ofBreaking the Brass Ceiling: Women Police Chiefs and their Paths to the Top (Praeger, 2004), and FromSocial Worker to Crimefighter: Women in United States Municipal Policing (Praeger, 1995).

Archbold, Schulz / Making Rank 73