THE GENDERED WORKPLACE IN KENYA: A COMPARATIVE …

THE GENDERED WORKPLACE IN KENYA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNICIANS IN PUBLIC AND

PARASTATAL SECTOR WORK SETTINGS

Munyae M. Mulinge*

Abstract: Workplace conditions for male and female agricultural technicians in public and parastatal sector work settings in Kenya are analyzed to test the hypothesis that, relative to the public sector, the potential for differential treatment based on gender is likely to be higher in the parastatal sector. Compared to those in the public sector, female technicians in the parastatal sector perceived greater workplace disadvantages relative to their male counterparts. These can be explained in terms of fewer formal rules and regulations in the sector to check differential treatment of employees. The results demonstrate the importance of the social organization of the workplace in understanding gender inequalities in employment settings.

1. INTRODUCTION

Historically, the drive toward gender equality in Kenya can be traced to the period immediately after independence, when the government took a landmark step by adopting an ideology of African Socialism. The ideology, whose objectives are laid down in Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965, hoped to bring about equality of women and men in terms of participation in development and in societal rewards and opportunities (Republic of Kenya 1965; Stitchter 1977; Miller and Yeager 1994), among others. The basis for the new ideology was the considerable social, economic, and political inequalities that women, relative to men, had experienced throughout the colonial period (Hughes and Mwiria 1989). The colonial state, for example, neglected women’s education and training and only favoured males in the provision of paid labor needed by settler economies (Stitchter 1977). Most female employees served as unskilled labor in agriculture and those who were formally employed earned considerably less than male employees (Boserup 1970; Kenya Colony and Protectorate 1955). This ideology, it could be argued, symbolized a desire by the new government to promote equal representation and treatment of the sexes within the various institutions in the country. It sought to boost women’s participation in education, in the labor market, and in politics.

The second impetus for advocating women’s rights in Kenya during the immediate post-independence period was the launching of the United Nations Decade for Women in Mexico in 1975. This sparked off writings about the plight of women, focusing on issues such as land rights, employment and legal rights. The process of reflection and advocacy for gender equality in Kenya was to be accelerated by the preparation for, and the actual United Nations Decade for Women Conference, held in Nairobi in 1985. Indeed, the Kenyan women who attended the Mexico Conference lobbied for the holding of the * Department of Sociology, University of Botswana, Private Bag 0022, Gaborone, Botswana,

Phone: 267-3552766 [Office], 267-307775 [Residence], E-mail: [email protected]

52 EASSRR, vol. XVII, no. 1 (January 2001)

1985 meeting in Kenya with a view to enhancing the struggle for equal rights for Kenyan women. The conference appears to have motivated Kenyan women to re-evaluate their position in society and assert themselves in the struggle for equality with men. Soon after the conference, the subject of the unfair economic and social role of women in development in Kenya assumed a prominent position. In the debate that has ensued, Kenyan women have been concerned with equality of opportunity in education, the labor market, government (political) appointments, political representation, land rights and legal rights, both in marital relations and in the public arena (Hughes and Mwiria 1989; House-Midamba 1996; Kameri-Mbote and Kiai 1993). The campaign for equal rights has also touched on the wide-ranging area of culture and particularly societal structures embedded in culture that constrain women’s struggles for equality.

A closer look at the available knowledge pertaining to women’s status in the labor market in Kenya reveals that most of what exist are macro-level data that paint only an overall picture. Also, these macro-level data, however valuable, are sparse and incomplete and, in general, there is a lack of “..valid, reliable, timely, culturally relevant and internationally comparable data” on gender inequalities in Kenya and other developing nations (Adhiambo-Odul 1995:9; Nzomo 1995:65). Even more significantly, there exists inadequate research at the micro-level that would allow for a more complete understanding of gender differential experiences in the workplace in general and/or the degree to which workplace conditions experienced by female and male employees may differ, in particular.

The purpose of this study is to provide data to help fill the gap in what is known about gender inequalities in the workplace in Kenya. It presents more micro-level data that allow us to document gender inequalities in the modern (formal) workplace in Kenya rather than just show aggregate societal patterns. More specifically, the study presents a comparative analysis of the workplace conditions faced by women and men working in the modern public and parastatal agricultural sectors in Kenya. Guided by arguments from worker control theory in the labor markets and organizations literature (e.g., Edwards 1979; Halaby 1986; Lincoln and Kalleberg 1990; Vallas 1993), it advances the hypothesis that women are more disadvantaged in less formal collaborative work settings, where they work side-by-side with men, than in formal work settings, where they work independently of men. While the former would be true of the parastatal sector where male and female researchers work cooperatively in research teams, the latter would apply to the public sector where males and females operate independently as extension workers serving specific contact farmers in capacities determined by their training. Most female extension workers in the public sector, nevertheless, tend to specialize in Home Economics while their male counterparts specialize in crop or animal production.

Documenting gender inequality in the modern workplace in Kenya is important because the existence of differences in pay and access to positions of authority between women and men at the aggregate societal level do not necessarily suggest that the more day-to-day modern workplace conditions differ. In fact, it is possible that gender inequalities are not found for other important work conditions (e.g., social support from

Munyae M. Mulinge. The Gendered Workplace in Kenya

53

supervisors, job security, autonomy to make decisions affecting one’s job, task significance of one’s work). These kinds of data rarely exist for Kenya in particular and for most developing nations in general. Hence, the need for studies that would provide such data.

2. EXPLAINING GENDER INEQUALITIES IN THE LABOR MARKET

A variety of explanations of gender inequality in the workplace have been advanced by social scientists. These include cultural beliefs, men’s actions, employers’ actions, human capital differences, women’s own preferences and sex segregation in the workplace (Becker 1964; Reskin and Hartmann 1986; Reskin and Padavic 1994). Concerning cultural beliefs, it is argued that assumptions about individuals based on sex that characterize different cultures are responsible for women’s disadvantaged position in the labor market. Three types of beliefs are particularly important for the understanding of women’s exclusion from the workplace, their restriction to certain occupations and their inferior earnings. That is, beliefs related to women’s role in the home, those related to male-female relationships and those related to the differences between men and women (Crampton 1997; Reskin and Padavic 1994; Jackman 1994; Reskin and Hartmann 1986). The first assumes separate spheres for women and men by prescribing the home for women and the workplace for men. This legitimates their exclusion from the public sphere including the workplace. The second type of beliefs assumes that women are nurturing, lack reason (are irrational) and are governed by emotions. The third type of beliefs assigns inferior status to women relative to men, arguing that women lack aggressiveness, strength, endurance and tolerance while men are competitive and assertive. As such women require men’s care. Such beliefs shape women’s occupational outcomes by excluding women from positions of authority, encouraging segregation in the workplace and justifying their lower pay.

Gender-role socialization also contributes to inequality in the workplace because ‘it might lead women to be oriented more to their families and men more to their jobs’ (Reskin and Padavic 1994:41-42). The differences in socialization for males and females are considered to incline them to seek only those jobs that society has deemed acceptable for their sex. Gendered socialization may also encourage a sexual division of labor that reserves certain jobs and positions for males, rewards them for their work and frees them from domestic chores. By orienting women to the home and family, gender-role socialization pushes them to choose jobs that may combine easily with their domestic/family responsibilities.

Human capital differences between men and women provides a third important explanation of gender inequalities in the labor market. It views women’s exclusion from the labor market and their disadvantaged position in the workplace in terms of their inferior education, training/skills and experience (Becker 1964; Jacobs 1989). Sex inequalities in the workplace are also a consequence of men’s desire to preserve their privileged position in the labor market (Collins 1974; Goode 1982; Anderson 1982; Milkman 1987). The fear among men that women may outperform them, lower the prestige of their work, or undermine their (men’s) privileges in other realms such as the


family, community and national political life is said to push men to discriminate against women in the workplace. Women are excluded from certain jobs, denied opportunity for certain skills and training, offered low wages and denied access to positions of authority, among other forms of discrimination. Employers’ actions can also contribute to sex inequality in the workplace. Employers, for example, may prefer males to females for certain positions or types of work when recruiting or during job assignments (Reskin and Padavic 1994; Reskin and Hartmann 1986).

3. THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE LABOR FORCE IN KENYA: AN OVERVIEW

Based on the available (macro-level) data neither the government’s adoption of the ideology of African Socialism nor the renewed push for gender equality born of the 1985 Nairobi UN Decade for Women Conference has enabled women to become equal partners with men. Little, if any, progress has been made. Women still have less access to education and to positions of political power. With specific reference to the labor market, major gender inequalities persist in the broad areas of participation rates, earning power, mobility (advancement) chances and further training (Francis 1995; House-Midamba 1996; Kibwana 1995; Landau 1995; Miller and Yeager 1994; Nzomo 1995; United Nations 1995). While women’s participation in paid labor arrangements (formal sector) has continued to grow since independence, no dramatic changes have taken place and women continue to be under-represented. While women comprised about 11.6% of the formal labor force by 1954, their representation had only improved to 12.7% of Africans employed in the formal sector by 1964 (Ray 1967). This proportion improved slightly to 14.8% by 1972 (Republic of Kenya 1972), reaching 22% and 23.1% by 1987 and 1994, respectively, (Republic of Kenya 1988, 1995). Except for the few highly educated women, Kenyan women have remained concentrated in the lowest-paying and least-skilled jobs and occupations (United Nations 1995; House-Midamba 1990, 1996; Kameri-Mbote and Kiai 1993; Republic of Kenya 1982) both in the manufacturing and in the public sectors. Although the existence of seniority pay-based systems have reduced pay differences especially between men and women in entry level positions and for those with equivalent qualifications in the public sector, the lack of promotion among women employees is likely to lead to wage differentials among female and male employees of comparable training and experience.

The existing data also suggest that women remain underrepresented in policy-making and management level positions (Francis 1995; House-Midamba 1990, 1996; Kibwana 1995; Landau 1995; Nzomo 1995). They occupy very few of the jobs that offer opportunities for advancement to positions of greater decision-making, authority, responsibility, prestige, self-fulfilment and higher pay in public, parastatal and private sector organizations. By 1986, for example, women occupied about 7.9% of top-level positions and 21.1% of middle-level positions in the modern sector in Kenya (Hughes and Mwiria 1989). In addition, relative to men, women have been shown to be less likely to experience cross-sectoral mobility (Hughes 1986; Njenga 1986). Finally, women employees in Kenya tend to be less likely to receive further training either off-the-job or


55

on-the-job (Francis 1995; House-Midamba 1996; Kibwana 1995; Nzomo 1995; United Nations 1995).

4. THE STUDY SETTING: THE MODERN AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

This study focuses on individuals who are formally trained in agriculture or in an agriculture-related field such as plant breeding, horticulture, agronomy, plant pathology, entomology, and soil conservation, and are employed in the modern workplace. The people are either engaged in educating farmers about better farming techniques, commonly known as extension services, or in agricultural research. These personnel are referred to as agricultural technicians throughout the rest of the paper. The agricultural technicians work in one of two workplace settings: the public sector or the parastatal (semi-public) sector. The public sector refers to the Ministry of Agriculture, the leading employer of agricultural technicians in Kenya. Agricultural technicians study for the public sector and serve as extension personnel in the District Agricultural Extension Services branch of the national Division of Agricultural Education. Their duties include informing farmers about innovations, demonstrating to them how to adopt and properly utilize them, and making follow-up visits to monitor the adoption rate and success in the utilization of the new technology. Although, in the public sector, workshops and training sessions are conducted and supervised by district or divisional extension coordinators, each extension specialist works alone and is responsible for a number of farmers in a particular geographical area.

The agricultural technicians analyzed for the parastatal sector work setting were agricultural researchers employed by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). KARI, the largest parastatal organization in Kenya, was established in 1979 to conduct research in agriculture, as well as in numerous related areas. The organization is made up of seven national centers, five regional centers and eleven sub-centers. Each KARI center is headed by a director and there are committees that review research programs annually. The defining characteristic of the centers is the research teams headed by a lead scientist/researcher. Each research team has responsibility for a designated area such as plant breeding or developing seed varieties. The team members work collaboratively in more informally structured groups to develop their mandated technology and then disseminate it to the farmers via the extension workers in the public sector.

Both KARI researchers in the parastatal sector and extension specialists in the public sector work in settings with career structures characterized by limited internal labor markets. They enter their service at entry ports (referred to as job groups) determined by their level of training. There are certain guaranteed (automatic) promotions based entirely on tenure, but promotions beyond these early levels are determined by competition with other candidates from within and without the organization. Because of the more direct government involvement in the public sector, a closer adherence to a seniority criterion is likely, resulting in fewer differences based on ascribed, as well as performance, characteristics. Finally, the day-to-day activities are more formally structured for the extension workers than for the researchers, even though in both sectors the organizations have formal structures that involve rules and regulations and centralization. The fact that the female and male extension specialists work largely


independently of each other in a more formally structured setting, while the female and male agricultural researchers in the parastatal sector work more informally and collaboratively to solve problems in another setting is expected to have significant implications for the work conditions women and men experience.

5. STUDY HYPOTHESIS AND GUIDING THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS

There are three possible outcomes when examining the work conditions of women and men in the Kenyan workplace: (1) that the work conditions are the same for women and men, (2) that men experience better work conditions, and (3) that women experience better work conditions. However, given that Kenya is still a strongly patriarchal society (Nzomo 1995; Kameri-Mbote and Kiai 1993; Shaw 1995; House-Midambi 1996), there is little likelihood that the first and third outcomes would be true. That is, female workers are very unlikely to experience similar or better workplace conditions than their male counterparts. This is held to be true even for those in the modern sector where similarly trained women and men work, since, as documented earlier, African socialism and attempts to create gender equality in Kenya have not been successful. Indeed, women do not fare better than men even in those developed nations where there is less patriarchy and considerably stronger measures have been taken, designed to produce gender equality. It is the second hypothesis, namely, that women experience worse work conditions than their male counterparts, which is likely to be supported by this study.

Worse work conditions for women in the modern sector could be due to a number of factors. First, the long entrenched tradition of patriarchy is still strong and defines gender roles in all phases of life (Francis 1995; Shaw 1995; House-Midambi 1996). However, with one exception, patriarchy should have a relatively constant effect across different types of work settings. The exception is with regard to the modern and traditional workplaces. Because the modern workplace relies on educated workers working in structured workplaces with explicit terms of employment, gender differences are expected to be smaller than in the rural settings, where the traditional African gender roles are more rigidly adhered to and accepted (Landau 1995; House-Midambi 1996). Since this study focuses on the modern workplace and in just one industry, agriculture, it is expected that the effect of patriarchy will be constant. However, while patriarchy may still be a prominent force, gender-related processes that have been found to operate in other societies to produce and perpetuate gender inequalities are thought to be operating just as strongly in Kenya. It is these processes that are of interest to this study. To investigate them, the study goes beyond just hypothesizing and documenting gender differences to hypothesize where these gender differences are likely to be the greatest and explain why.


57

Based on the extensive literature on worker control (Clawson 1980; Edwards 1979; Halaby 1986; Halaby and Weakliem 1989; Lincoln and Kalleberg 1990; Vallas 1993), it is argued that gender related factors (other than patriarchy) that may be operating to produce gender inequalities in the workplace in Kenya, should produce different degrees of inequality across different work arrangements within the modern agricultural sector. Based on this literature, workers are mainly controlled either by “the market” or by “the bureaucratic hierarchy.” Market control operates through the dictates of supply and demand and investment in human capital. In a market characterized simultaneously by high demand and low supply, workers, particularly those with general (portable) skills, are difficult to control by an employer. These can easily transfer their services to another employer. Control by hierarchy, on the other hand, operates through organizational structures. With supply and demand held constant, employers rely on “bureaucracy” (rules, regulations and career ladders) to control employees. This argument has recently been extended by Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) in their attempt to explain what produces satisfied and committed employees. Their corporatist control argument posits that employers manipulate organizational structures to indirectly control employees. Organizational (bureaucratic) rules and regulations are said to be impersonal and, in principle, to be applied equally to all with the objective to protect workers from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. As such, these formal structures legitimate the authority structure of the organization in the eyes of employees (Halaby 1986).

Following the ‘worker control’ literature, the employment settings covered by this study can be dichotomized as follows: more bureaucratic and less bureaucratic workplaces. The former is represented by the public sector where extension work is carried out and is thought to produce for workers (both women and men) work conditions that, although they may not be exactly what they would prefer, are perceived as legitimate because the general rules and regulations are applied to all. Not only will the bureaucracy produce more equal treatment by gender, but any inequalities that do exist are less likely to be perceived, because the structure is perceived as legitimate. This view is advanced taking cognizance of the fact that the seemingly impersonal nature of bureaucratic rules does not necessarily guarantee equal treatment for male and female employees. Existing literature (Reskin and Hartmann 1986; Reskin and Padavic 1994) indicates that such rules can discriminate against certain workers on the basis of gender or even race, particularly through the process of labor segregation and segmentation. With specific reference to the public sector employees under study, for example, segregation may result in women extension workers being confined to Home Economics while their male counterparts dominate crop production. The capacity for impersonal bureaucratic rules to produce discrimination is illustrated by the proliferation of anti-discrimination legislation even in those countries where work organizations can be considered to be highly bureaucratic.

The less bureaucratic workplace, on the other hand, is represented by the parastatal sector where agricultural research is conducted. As described earlier, the parastatal work setting is based on collaborative work among research team members. There is much less of a bureaucratic structure, because the goal is to solve a problem, and innovation and discovery, rather than “doing it according to the book”, are considered important in


solving the problem. This setting, then, does not provide the formal rules and regulations that simultaneously direct workers’ behaviour and also protect them from differential treatment. Consequently, the potential for differential treatment based on gender (or other characteristics) is hypothesized to be greater in these research team-work settings relative to the public sector. In addition, gender differential treatment in the parastatal sector could be construed in terms of the highly held assumptions regarding the ‘sustainability’ of scientific research, innovation and discovery by women and mixed gender team work. Agricultural research is highly dominated by males and, as such, the work of the handful of women is not likely to be taken seriously.

6. ASSESSING GENDER INEQUALITIES IN THE WORKPLACE

The worker control argument presented above does not specify which work conditions will be worse for women in the research teams (collaborative task groups). However, following Berger, Wagner and Zelditch (1985), it is argued that the status hierarchies that are likely to emerge in both collaborative work settings and in settings where men and women work independently will accord men higher status than women. As a result, male employees are likely to enjoy more chances to participate in the group (action opportunities), more attempts to solve the group’s problems (performance outputs), more positive evaluations for performance outputs (reward actions), and more opportunities to change the opinions of group members (influence). Women, on the contrary, are perceived as inferior workers and are expected to be low performers. They will be given less autonomy and less significant tasks to perform, be rewarded less (e.g., pay and promotions), be given fewer resources and information for doing their jobs, find themselves in more stressful situations, and will not receive the same level of social support as their male counterparts. In the public sector, however, the hierarchy of gender related differences are masked by the classification of both males and females as extension agents even when they perform differentially valued work. As such, women in such a setting may be considered inferior workers and as low performers but may not perceive inequality.

This study utilizes more conventional labels to group the workplace conditions reflected above into four major categories, namely, intrinsic factors, extrinsic factors, workplace support, and workplace stressors. Consistent with the above arguments, gender differences that favour men are expected to exist in the work conditions of collaborative work teams (parastatal sector), but not among extension specialists (public sector).

6.1 Intrinsic Factors

Intrinsic factors are benefits inherent in the work itself. Two intrinsic factors - autonomy and task significance - are analyzed by this study. Autonomy refers to the degree to which employees are offered the freedom, independence and discretion to make decisions pertaining to the substantive and procedural aspects of their job such as


59

scheduling, and determining the procedure to be used in executing the task (Heckman and Oldham 1975). Task significance, on the other hand, is defined as the degree to which an individual’s role contributes significantly to the overall organizational process (Heckman and Oldham 1980).

6.2 Extrinsic Factors

Extrinsic factors represent those benefits that are not inherent to the work itself but instead are the by-products of doing the work. Those analyzed here are promotional opportunities, past promotions, pay, and job security. Promotional opportunities are defined as the degree of potential vertical mobility within the organization (Price and Mueller 1986a). Past promotions refer to the actual frequency of upward mobility experienced by the employee. Pay represents the wages and salaries received by employees for services rendered. Finally, job security is the extent to which an employee is guaranteed his/her job as long as she/he is cautious and performs at a minimal level of competence (Leonard 1977).

6.3 Workplace Support

Four support conditions are analyzed in the study. These are supervisory support, work group cohesion, grievance procedures, and socialization practices. Supervisory support is defined as the degree to which supervisors are friendly, helpful and supportive to their subordinates (Mottaz 1985; Michaels and Spector 1982). Work group cohesion refers to the degree to which employees of an organization form close informal relations in their immediate work units (Price and Mueller 1986a). Grievance procedures is the extent to which appeal procedures are available to employees to air their complaints (Stolzenberg and Winkler 1983; Freeman and Medoff 1984). Finally, socialization practices is defined as the degree to which employing organizations familiarize/acquaint (new) employees with the workings of the organization (Jones 1986; Pascale 1985).

6.4 Workplace Stressors

The final category of workplace conditions analyzed in the study are what is referred to as stressor. Those examined include routinization, work overload, resource inadequacy, role ambiguity and role conflict. Routinization is the degree to which a job is repetitious and lacks variety (Heckman and Oldham 1975; Perrow 1967). Work overload is defined as the extent to which job performance required in a job is excessive. Resource inadequacy represents the degree of insufficiency in the resources (infrastructural, material, and equipment) that are necessary for the employee to execute duties with the minimum of discomfort (La-Anyane 1985). Role ambiguity refers to the degree to which there is a discrepancy between the amount of information a person receives and the amount necessary to perform the role adequately (Kahn, Wolfe, and Schoek 1964). Role conflict is defined as the degree to which incompatible demands are made upon an individual by two or more persons (Kahn, Wolfe, and Schoek 1964). This use of the concept is different from that found in the gender analysis literature where it refers to the incompatible demands made on women by their jobs and their domestic responsibilities.

7. DATA AND METHODS


The study analyzes a sample of 1,229 Kenyan agricultural technicians. Out of this total, 824 were extension workers in a public sector work setting while the remaining 405 served as researchers in a parastatal sector employment setting. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the data from the two work settings. All workplace conditions studied, except pay, were measured with employee responses to a multiple items questionnaire. Interviewees were asked to respond to each item on a Likert-type scale with five response points. This is standard practice in organization research (Cook Hepworth, Wall, and Warr 1981; Price and Mueller 1986b). Information on the measures and scales is presented in table 1 and in the Appendix. Most of the scales have been used in numerous studies in the past and have been judged to have acceptable validity and reliability. Control variables (discussed below) are also included in the table.


61

Table 1. Measurement information for variables

Variable Number of Items Range Alpha

Work Conditions

Intrinsic Factors Autonomy 3 1-15 .85 Task significance 3 1-15 .72

Extrinsic Factors Promotional opportunities 4 1-20 .84 Past promotions 1 0-5 n.a. Pay 1 500 - 30,000 n.a. Job security 3 1-15 .81

Support Conditions Supervisory support 3 1-15 .74 Work group cohesion 3 1-15 .77 Grievance procedures 3 1-15 .65 Socialization practices 3 1-15 .88

Stressors Routinization 3 1-15 .90 Work overload 3 1-15 .87 Resource inadequacy 3 1-15 .74 Role ambiguity 3 1-15 .76 Role conflict 3 1-15 .73

Control Variables Positive affectivity 3 1-15 .83 Negative affectivity 3 1-15 .83 Education 1 7-22 n.a. Firm specific training 3 1-15 .97 Work motivation 3 1-15 .74 Tenure 1 1-37 n.a.

As outlined earlier, the underlying objective of this study is to compare the workplace conditions for men and women in the public and parastatal sector work settings separately. This involves the examination of mean differences in perceptions about the fifteen workplace conditions outlined earlier. T-tests are utilized to test for significance between female and male (unadjusted) mean scores within each sector. However, to arrive at mean differences that more accurately represent the degree of inequality between men and women, it is necessary to control for the possibility that other factors may be responsible for the unadjusted mean differences in workplace conditions. Therefore, adjusted mean differences for workplace conditions are obtained and tested using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). In all, six control variables – positive


affectivity, negative affectivity, education, firm-specific training, work motivation and tenure – are examined.

It is possible that women and men differ in how they perceive the same work conditions and this could account for mean differences. For instance, some individuals are more positive in outlook whereas others are more negative. These tendencies have been referred to as positive and negative affectivity. The existing literature strongly suggests that these are general personality traits that are relatively stable over time (Staw, Bell, and Clausen 1986; Watson and Clark 1984). Should gender differences in these exist, then male and female perceptions of the same work conditions would be biased and mean tests would be misleading (Agho, Mueller, and Price 1993; Brief et al. 1988). Hence, the need to control for employee dispositions of positive and negative affectivity. In addition, it is possible that women and men differ in the level of human capital they bring to the workplace. Since pay is partly a function of human capital (Becker 1964), it is important to control the employee inputs of education and firm- specific training, both of which should increase pay and conditions such as autonomy and the task significance of one’s work. The employee input, work motivation, is also controlled because motivation differences by gender could result in performance differences that could lead to differences in pay and the types of jobs that are assigned to female and male employees. Finally, women have only recently made inroads into agricultural technical jobs traditionally held by men and their period of tenure will obviously be shorter. Because this could account, for example, for lower pay, greater role ambiguity, less autonomy, less job task significance and greater routinization for women, there is a need to examine mean differences with tenure controlled.

8. RESULTS

To provide an initial picture of the ways in which the public and the parastatal sector work settings are similar and different, the analysis commenced with a presentation of descriptive data for the two sectors before testing for within-sector gender differences. ANOVA with post hoc Scheffé tests was used to test for work condition differences between the sectors. Table 2 shows differences without consideration of gender. Of the 22 variables, eleven had means that were significantly different for the two sectors. There were no differences in intrinsic factors but significant differences were observed in the extrinsic factors of past promotions and pay with both factors being higher in the parastatal sector. Concerning support conditions, employees in the public sector were higher in three of the four conditions analyzed. These are supervisory support, grievance procedures and early job-related socialization. For the five stressors analyzed, only for work overload was a significant difference observed. The public sector employees experienced greater work overload compared to those in the parastatal sector. In addition, there were public-parastatal sector differences for five of seven control variables analyzed. The public sector was found to be higher in mean firm-specific training, tenure and employment of women but lower in mean education and work motivation relative to the parastatal sector.


63

Table 2. Descriptive data for agricultural technicians in the public and parastatal sectorsa

Public Sector (N=810) Parastatal Sector (N= 389)

Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev

Work Conditions

Intrinsic Factors Autonomy 9.01 3.07 9.02 3.04 Task significance 12.35 2.06 12.48 2.03

Extrinsic Factors

Promotional opportunities 11.49 3.91 11.68 3.83 Past promotions 0.75*** 0.85 1.01 1.08 Pay 3529.01*** 1419.26 6915.17 2512.57 Job security 11.64 2.35 11.52 2.40

Support Conditions Supervisory support 11.09** 2.26 10.68 2.23 Work group cohesion 10.80 2.16 10.85 2.32 Grievance procedures 9.03** 2.66 8.57 2.50 Socialization practices 10.00** 2.98 9.50 3.21

Stressors Routinization 8.29 3.02 8.00 3.06 Work overload 8.45*** 3.06 7.35 2.88 Resource inadequacy 9.64 2.88 9.87 2.77 Role ambiguity 5.16 2.08 5.18 2.15 Role conflict 7.62 2.56 7.45 2.40

Control Variables Positive affectivity 9.83 2.69 9.89 2.93 Negative affectivity 7.73 2.75 7.48 2.75 Education 13.05*** 2.00 15.12 2.26 Firm specific training 9.21*** 3.13 7.61 3.12 Work motivation 12.07*** 2.13 12.56 2.04 Tenure 12.35*** 7.89 6.29 5.54 Proportion Male 0.62*** 0.48 0.75 0.43

a Significance tests are for sector mean differences with t-tests. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***P<.001 (2-tailed tests)

Overall, the results did not produce clear patterns pointing to the public or parastatal sector as the “better” work setting. The key guiding argument for the hypothesis of cross-sectoral gender differences in workplace conditions as stated earlier was that bureaucratic control would be greater among the extension specialists in the public sector


compared to the research teams in the parastatal sector. The data presented above showed some, but not strong, support for this claim. Formalized grievance procedures and at-entry socialization are higher among the extension personnel, as would be expected in a more bureaucratic organization. However, there were no differences across the two sectors in role ambiguity, role conflict, promotion opportunities, job security or optimization.

8.1 Gender Differences among Public Sector Extension Personnel

Table 3 presents the unadjusted and adjusted means for perceived workplace conditions for extension personnel in the public sector. There were no significant gender differences in either unadjusted or adjusted means in intrinsic factors (autonomy and task significance). That is, female and male agricultural technicians in the public sector did not perceive their jobs to offer significantly different levels of autonomy and task significance. With regard to extrinsic rewards, there were no significant gender differences in unadjusted and adjusted means for promotional opportunities. Men experienced more past promotions without controls but the difference was pushed to non-significance after controlling for employee dispositions and inputs. While no job security differences were observed without controls, women perceived greater security once the controls were introduced. Finally, both the unadjusted and adjusted means for pay were significantly lower for women than for men. Female extension workers in the public sector on average earned substantially less than their male counterparts even after taking into account possible gender differences in the employee dispositions of positive and negative affectivity and the inputs that the employees bring to the job. In fact, controlling for employee dispositions and inputs appeared to increase the gender gap in income rather than lower it.


65

Table 3. Gender differences in workplace conditions in the public sector (N = 810)

Variable Unadjusted Adjustedb Female Male Female Male

Work Conditions Intrinsic Factors

Autonomy 8.84 9.12 8.96 9.00 Task significance 12.04 12.42 12.24 12.41

Extrinsic Factors

Promotional opportunities 11.30 11.61 11.32 11.60 Past promotions 0.60 0.86*** 0.70 0.75 Pay 3386.36 3616.53* 3351.61 3651.29*** Job security 11.80 11.55 11.83 11.52*c

Support Conditions Supervisory support 10.93 11.19 11.02 11.09 Work group cohesion 10.54 10.96** 10.61 10.90* Grievance procedures 8.80 9.17 8.89 9.08 Socialization practices 9.93 10.05 9.98 10.00

Stressors Routinization 8.45 8.20 8.39 8.26 Work overload 8.33 8.53 8.37 8.49 Resource inadequacy 9.85 9.52 9.68 9.69 Role ambiguity 5.20 5.13 5.21 5.12 Role conflict 7.41 7.74* 7.36 7.79*c

Control Variables Positive affectivity 9.76 9.88 Negative affectivity 7.82 7.67 Education 13.22 13.03 Firm specific training 9.33 9.14 Work motivation 12.02 12.10 Tenure 9.97 13.81***

a Significance tests are for gender mean differences with t-tests. There are 451 males and 265 females.

b The means are adjusted for gender differences on the six control variables.

c Significant but not in the hypothesized direction. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***P<.001 (1-tailed tests for work conditions; 2-tailed for controls).

The results for the public sector also showed that female and male extension personnel did not perceive differential treatment in the workplace with regard to support conditions. While male employees experienced greater work group cohesion (see


unadjusted and adjusted means), no gender differences were obtained for supervisory support, grievance procedures or socialization practices. An examination of workplace stressors reveals that female and male employees did not differ significantly in routinization, work overload, resource inadequacy or role ambiguity. However, the sexes differed significantly in terms of the amount of role conflict experienced, with males being higher in the perceived level of role conflict. Finally, for the control variables, the only gender difference was for tenure. Men had worked an average of 3½ years more than women.

Overall, once the control variables were introduced, women and men were the same on eleven of the fifteen work conditions analyzed. Relative to men, women received lower pay and perceived less work group cohesion. But they perceived greater job security and experienced less role conflict than their male counterparts. What emerged was a picture of relative gender equality in the public sector. As hypothesized, women were not found to be disadvantaged relative to men when the sexes work largely independently of each other.

8.2 Gender Differences among Research Personnel in the Parastatal Sector

As evident from table 4, the parastatal sector was characterized by greater gender differences in workplace conditions relative to the public sector. Female and male employees differed significantly in unadjusted means for nine out of the fifteen work condition variables studied. After controlling for employee dispositions and inputs, the sexes differed significantly in eight of the fifteen workplace conditions. Women reported less autonomy and task significance in their work. They perceived fewer promotional opportunities, earned less, experienced less work group cohesion and considered their work organization not to have provided them with adequate at-entry job socialization. In addition, women reported lighter work loads than men and experienced greater role ambiguity. With regard to the six control variables, the only differences obtained were for positive affectivity and tenure. Male employees were more positive in outlook and had served for longer periods than their female counterparts.


67

Table 4. Gender differences in workplace conditions in the parastatal sector (N = 389)a

Variable Unadjusted Adjustedb Female Male Female Male

Work Conditions Intrinsic Factors

Autonomy 8.24 9.27** 8.40 9.11* Task significance 12.00 12.64** 12.00 12.62**

Extrinsic Factors Promotional opportunities 10.76 11.98** 10.89 11.84* Past promotions 0.82 1.02 0.88 1.06 Pay 6546.88 7035.84 6545.02 7037.90** Job security 11.42 11.55 11.50 11.47

Support Conditions Supervisory support 10.34 10.80* 10.45 10.69 Work group cohesion 10.08 11.10*** 10.16 11.02*** Grievance procedures 8.23 8.68 8.34 8.57 Socialization practices 8.76 9.75** 8.88 9.62*

Stressors Routinization 8.62 7.79** 8.47 7.93 Work overload 6.38 7.67*** 6.40

7.66***c Resource inadequacy 10.09 9.80 9.97 9.93 Role ambiguity 5.99 4.92*** 5.94 4.96*** Role conflict 7.56 7.41 7.50 7.47

Control Variables Positive affectivity 9.32 10.08*Negative affectivity 7.71 7.41 Education 15.19 15.11Firm specific training 7.26 7.68 Work motivation 12.82 12.51 Tenure 5.26 6.63***

a Significance tests are for gender mean differences with t-tests. There are 285 males and 91 females.

b The means are adjusted for gender differences on the six control variables.

c Significant but not in the hypothesized direction. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***P<.001 (1-tailed tests for work conditions; 2-tailed for controls).

In sum, considerable gender inequality in work experiences were obtained for the parastatal sector compared to the public sector work settings. As hypothesized, women


perceived themselves to be disadvantaged relative to men when they worked together collaboratively, but not when they worked independently of one another.

9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this study, it is evident that there exist clear differences in perceived workplace conditions for women and men employed in the parastatal sector but not in the public sector. After controlling for employee dispositions and inputs, relative gender equality was observed among female and male extension specialists in the public sector work environment. Women extension workers in this sector were disadvantaged only in terms of income. The significant income differences between men and women could be viewed as a reflection of the lack of promotion among women employees. On the other hand, female employees in the parastatal sector were disadvantaged in terms of eight of the fifteen work conditions analyzed relative to their male counterparts. The work conditions for which females suffered disadvantages relative to males were spread across all four categories of workplace conditions studied. At a more theoretical level such findings strongly supported the general hypothesis drawn from literature on worker control, which suggested that fewer formal rules and regulations give less protection to workers and allow for gender based differential treatment. Consequently, women in less formal collaborative work settings, in this case the parastatal sector, are likely to be more disadvantaged relative to men compared to those in work settings characterized by greater organizational control and in which the sexes work largely independently of each other.

The striking differences in workplace experiences for women in public and parastatal sectors could also be viewed in terms of differential expectations. The labor market in Kenya presents a hierarchy of employment sectors in which the public sector ranks lowest, the parastatal sector occupies a middle position and the private sector rates highest in terms of attractiveness. It can be argued that employee aspirations are likely to increase as they move from the lower to higher levels in the hierarchy of employment sectors. Thus, women researchers in the parastatal sector were likely to have had greater expectations relative to women extension workers in the public sector. The fact that women in Kenya are mainly confined to public sector jobs and are less likely to experience cross-sectoral mobility (Hughes 1986; Njenga 1986) renders this position even more credible. Women who have ventured into the parastatal sector are likely to be those who are career-oriented. As such, they may not only have high expectations from their jobs, but are also more likely to express disappointment whenever they construe gender based differential treatment in the workplace. In addition, women researchers in the parastatal sector are relatively higher in human capital and this disposes them toward higher expectations.

Although cultural traditions and patriarchy are critically important in understanding the perpetuation of gender inequality in Kenya (Nzomo 1995; Kameri-Mbote and Kiai 1993), two factors deserve special mention. The first is the unexpected consequences of the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) imposed since 1986 by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for economic revival. These are primarily macroeconomic strategies emphasizing economic liberalism, deregulation of prices,


69

privatization of public enterprises and cutbacks in social services and employment. These programs are viewed as unsuccessful and have met with scathing criticisms. With particular reference to Kenya, they are believed to “…have contributed to economic deterioration and generated political and social crises” (Nzomo 1995, 48). In addition, SAPs are accused of entirely neglecting human and social adjustment problems, and “…the social costs have weighed most heavily on the low-income population, the vast majority of whom are women” (Nzomo 1995, 43). The Kenya Constitution is the second factor perpetuating gender inequalities. Discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, political opinions, or colour or creed is not allowed by the Kenyan constitution. However, “discrimination on the basis of sex is not expressly outlawed by the Constitution of Kenya or any labor relations law” (Kibwana 1995, 14).

At a more specific level, the disadvantages suffered by female researchers in the parastatal sector work setting with respect to the work conditions of autonomy, task significance, at-entry job socialization, work load (females reported lighter work loads) and role ambiguity suggests that women researchers are not taken seriously by their employers. That is, women are viewed to be passive and ineffective employees relative to their male counterparts and thus are not given the opportunity to influence matters that affect their job, are assigned only those tasks that are not central to the survival of the organization, are not given proper at-entry job orientation, do not receive clear job requests and are assigned less tasks than their male counterparts. For a society such as Kenya where patriarchy is still relatively strong (Nzomo 1995; Kameri-Mbote and Kiai 1993; Kibwana 1995), such an argument would not be far fetched. Here, males are for the most part treated as the legitimate breadwinners. The incomes of women who are in formal employment are considered to be supplementing those earned by their spouses. Also, some employers consider family demands to be a major barrier to women’s careers and professional advancement and such an attitude is likely to make management hesitant to assign female workers meaningful and clearly specified tasks or even to familiarize them adequately with the workings of the organization.

Another issue of concern emanating from this study’s findings would be the (results’) implications for changing gender inequality in Kenya and in developing nations in general. Although gender inequality has been more of a policy concern in Westem societies than in the developing nations, it is now definitely a global concern (Bradshaw and Wallace 1996). While there exist substantial data at the aggregate and macro-level that documents this inequality in developing nations, data in the more micro social science tradition to help us understand what produces and perpetuates the inequality are lacking. Western social scientists generally assume that basic social relationships are fairly resilient cross-culturally. This, of course, is an empirical question. The data presented by this study strongly suggest that arguments developed and tested in basically Western settings can be meaningfully applied in developing nations where gender inequality is, by most standards, much more extreme than in developed nations.

With specific reference to Kenya, there are a number of steps that have been identified for reducing gender inequalities. These include: (1) Improving the proportion of women’s representation in the labor force and in the political arena, (2) participation in the economy altering culturally embedded attitudes about sex roles, (3) changing laws


that are responsible for gender based economic, social and political discrimination, (4) government and non-government organizations being more affirmative about the employment and treatment of women, (5) the active involvement of traditionally important women’s organizations, (6) the active involvement of women themselves in promoting gender equality, and (7) advocating better and gender-sensitive educational opportunities that would improve women’s chances for employment (Khasiani 1993; Kinuthia 1993; Nzomo 1993, 1995; Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1995). The emphasis, however, appears to be on the representation of women in the labor force and in the political arena. Historically the Kenyan workplace has been gender segregated. Women were not a significant part of the formal labor force during the precolonial and colonial periods and today they constitute less than 25 percent of the wage-paid labor force. As a result, the existing (development) literature (House-Midamba 1990; Kameri-Mbote and Kiai 1993; Nzomo 1995) tends to place a premium on increasing the participation of women in the labor force and in the political arena as the major method of countering gender imbalances in the labor force in Kenya. While this may be true, the data presented by this study suggest that mere increase of participation of women in the labor force is not enough. The context within which the increased participation takes place is equally important if equality is to be attained. To illustrate, it was found that in settings where educated women and men work independently of each other, there was virtual equality in the work conditions they experienced (save in pay), but in work contexts where women and men with similar qualifications worked collaboratively, women were significantly disadvantaged in the work conditions they experience relative to men. This suggests that, at least initially, the more women in these developing countries enter the labor force and work alongside men, the more they will experience the inequalities that have been documented in this study.

Furthermore, the study results supported the earlier conclusion emerging from the existing macro-level literature that neither the introduction of the ideology of African Socialism nor the renewed clamour for gender equality emanating from the 1985 Nairobi UN Women’s Decade Conference have achieved much by way of gender equality in Kenya in general and in the workplace in particular. Although women’s inclusion in modern sector employment appears to have been widened, female workers have not been guaranteed equal treatment with male employees. Women workers, at least in some sectors of the Kenyan economy, continue to suffer disadvantages in the workplace even when gender differences in factors such as employee inputs and dispositions are taken into account. This suggests that having an ideology and lobby groups that advocate equality between the sexes in the various spheres of economic, political and social development does not adequately redress inequalities between the sexes. The emphasis should now shift to other areas that would bear more tangible fruit such as putting in place a legal framework that would protect women in the labor market and in other spheres of life. A consequence of such a step would be the establishment of laws and offices for equal opportunities and equal worth for female and male employees in Kenya.

To conclude, two facts are worth reiterating. First, that the results of this study underline the need for merging macro- and micro-theories and research to understand gender inequalities. Social science journals are replete with gender-difference studies


71

that utilize the now available large longitudinal macro-level data sets. Rather than examine directly the processes that are operating in the workplace based on gender composition to produce inequalities, these studies only make assumptions (claims) about these processes. Often they rely on percentage of female (e.g., in an occupation, a job, a firm, an organization or a workplace) as a critical variable that is related to the outcome variables under investigation. The more micro data presented in this study demonstrate the importance of the work context in the understanding of gender inequalities. Although the two work settings studied had more men than women, the data showed that it was the social organization of the work place that was critical in producing gender inequalities. Second, that, unlike earlier assumptions by Women and Development advocates, the quest for gender equality cannot be resolved ‘through a quick fix’ emanating from well meaning policies. However, the progress made since independence in education, employment and political participation should not be underestimated. REFERENCES

Adhiambo-Odual, J. 1995. Gender advocacy research: Opening statement at the ‘Women and Autonomy in Kenya: Policy and Legal Framework Seminar’, 17-18 February. In Women and autonomy in Kenya: Policy and legal framework, edited by K. Kibwana, 8-11. Nairobi: Claripress.

Agho, A. O., J. L Price, and C. W. Mueller. 1992. Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65: 185-196.

Agho, A. O., C. W. Mueller, and J. L. Price. 1993. Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46:1007-1027.

Anderson, K. T. 1982. Last hired, first fired: Black women workers during World War II. Journal of American History, 69: 82-97.

Becker, G. S. 1964. Human capital. Columbia University Press: New York.

Berger, J. M., D. G. Wagner, and M. Zelditch, Jr. 1985. Introduction: Expectations states theory-review and assessment. In Status, rewards and influence: How expectations organize behaviour, edited by J. Berger and M. Zelditch, Jr., 1-72. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boserup, E. 1970. Women’s role in economic development. London: Allen and Unwin.

Bradshaw, Y. W., and M. Wallace. 1996. Global inequalities. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Brief, A. P., M. J. Burke, J. M. Robinson, and J. Webster. 1988. Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 193-198.

Clawson, D. 1980. Bureaucracy and the labor process. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Collins, R. 1974. Conflict sociology. New York: Academic Press.


Cook, J. D., S. D. Hepworth, T. D. Wall, and P. B. Warr. 1981. The experience of work. London: Academic Press.

Crampton, R. 1997. Women and work: Research in modern Britain. London: Oxford University Press.

Edwards, R. 1979. Contested terrain. New York: Basic Books.

Freeman, R. B., and J. L. Medoff. 1984. What do unions do? New York: Basic Books.

Francis, E. 1995. Migration and changing divisions of labor: Gender relations and economic change in Koguta, Western Africa. Africa, 65: 197-216.

Goode, W. J. 1982. Why men resist. In Rethinking the family, edited by B. Thorne and M. Yalom, 131-47. New York: Longman.

Heckman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60:151-170.

_____. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Halaby, C. N. 1986. Worker attachment and workplace authority. American Sociological Review, 51: 634-649.

Halaby, C. N., and D. Weakliem. 1989. Worker control and attachment to the firm. American Journal of Sociology, 95: 549-591.

House-Midamba, B. 1990. The United Nations decade: Political empowerment or increased marginalization of Kenyan Women? Africa Today, 37-38.

House-Midamba, B. 1996. Gender, democratisation, and associational life in Kenya. Africa Today, 43: 289-306.

Hughes, R. R. 1986. Some equity and efficiency implications of the expansion of higher education in Kenya. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Hughes R. R., and K. Mwiria. 1989. Kenyan women, higher education, and the labour market. Comparative Education 25, no. 2: 179-195.

Jackman, M. R. 1994. The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jacobs, J. A. 1989. Revolving doors. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press.

Jones, G. R. 1986. Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy and Management Journal, 29: 262-279.

Kahn, R. L., D. Wolfe, and J. Schoek. 1964. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Kameri-Mbote, P., and W. Kiai. 1993. The women’s movement in Kenya: An overview. In The Women’s movement in Kenya, edited by S. A. Khasiani and E. I. Njiro, 7- 20. Nairobi: Association of African Women for Research and Development.


73

Kanungo, R. N. 1982. Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 341-349.

Kenya Colony and Protectorate, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. 1955. Statistical Abstract. Nairobi: Government Printer.

Khasiani, S. A. 1993. The impact of the women movement on institutions in Kenya. In The women’s movement in Kenya, edited by S. A. Khasiani, and E. I. Njiro, 111-129. Nairobi: Association of African Women for Research and Development.

Kibwana, K. 1995. Summary of research findings on law reform and the quest for gender equality. In Women and autonomy in Kenya: Policy and legal framework, edited by K. Kibwana, 1-28. Nairobi: Claripress.

Kinuthia, C. 1993. Women groups in Kenya with special reference to housing and community development. In The women’s movement in Kenya, edited by S. A. Khasiani and E. I. Njiro, 39–58. Nairobi: Association of African Women for Research and Development.

La-Anyane, S. 1985. Economics of agricultural development in tropical Africa. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Landau, L. B. 1995. What role can history play for the newly urbanized women of Kenya and Tanzania. Ufahamu, 23: 29-54.

Leonard, D. K. 1977. Reaching the peasant farmer: Organizational theory and practice in Kenya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lincoln, J., and A. Kalleberg. 1990. Culture, control and commitment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Michaels, C. E., and P. E. Spector. 1982. Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 53-59.

Milkman, R. 1987. Gender at work. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Miller, N., and R. Yeager. 1994. Kenya: The quest for prosperity. 2nd edition. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Mottaz, C. 1985. The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as determinants of work satisfaction. The Sociological Quarterly 26, no. 3: 365-385.

Njenga, A. W. 1986. Career patterns and prospects among women and men agriculturalists, veterinary doctors and engineers. Kenya Education Research Awards (KERA) report.

Nzomo, M. 1993. The Kenyan women’s movement in a changing political context. In The women’s movement in Kenya, edited by S. A. Khasiani and E. I. Njiro, 131-149. Nairobi: Association of African Women for Research and Development.

_____. 1995. Summary of research findings on the impact of SAPs on the female gender in Kenya. In Women and autonomy in Kenya: Policy and legal framework, edited by K. Kibwana, 43-66. Nairobi: Claripress.


Pascale, R. 1985. The paradox of ‘corporate culture’: Reconciling ourselves to socialization. Californian Management Review, 27:26-40.

Perrow, C. 1967. A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32: 194-208.

Price, J. L., and C. W. Mueller. 1981. Professional turnover: The case of nurses. New York: SP Medical and Scientific Books.

_____. 1986a. Absenteeism and turnover among hospital employees. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

_____. 1986b. Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Ray, R. S. 1967. The structure of employment in Kenya. In Education, employment, and rural development, edited by J. R. Sheffield. Nairobi: East African Publishing House.

Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Labour. 1972. Annual Report. Nairobi: Government Printer.

Republic of Kenya. 1965. African socialism and its implications for development policy and planning. Seasonal Paper No. 10. Nairobi: Government Printer.

_____. 1988. Report of the Presidential Working Party on education and manpower training for the next decade and beyond. Nairobi: Government Printers.

_____. 1995. Economic survey. Nairobi: Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and National Development.

Reskin, B. F., and H. I. Hartmann. 1986. Women’s work, men’s work: Sex segregation on the job. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Reskin, B. F., and I. Padavic. 1994. Men and women at work. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Rizzo, J. R., R. J. House, and S. I. Lirtzman. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15: 150-163.

Shaw, C. M. 1995. Colonial inscriptions: Race, sex, and class in Kenya. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Staw, B. M., N. Bell, and J. A. Clausen. 1986. The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 56-77.

Stolzenberg, R. M., and J. D. Winkler. 1983. Voluntary terminations from military service. Santa Monica: Rand.

Thomas-Slayter, B., and D. Rocheleau. 1995. Gender, environment, and development in Kenya. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Reiner.

United Nations. 1995. The world’s women, 1995: Trends in statistics. New York: United Nations.

Vallas, S. P. 1993. Power in the workplace. Albany, New York: Suny Press.

Watson, D., and L. A. Clark. 1984. Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96: 465-490.


75

APPENDIX

Measurement

Multiple-item scales are used to measure most of the work conditions that are analyzed in the study. Unless indicated otherwise, all items were coded “strongly agree” (1) to “strongly disagree” (5). R indicates the coding was reversed for the item. Alpha coefficients for reliability are given for the multiple-item scales.

Intrinsic Factors

Autonomy was measured by three items as follows: I control the scheduling of my work; I influence the things that affect me on the job; I have inputs in deciding what tasks or parts of tasks I will do. The alpha was .85. Task significance was measured using a short form of a seven-point scale developed by Mottaz (1985). Employees responded to the following three out of the seven items used by Mottaz: My work is a significant contribution to the successful operation of my department; My work is really important and worthwhile to my department; I often feel that my work counts for very little around here (R). The alpha was .72

Extrinsic Factors

Promotional opportunities was measured by a four-item scale as follows: I have the opportunity for advancement; I am in a dead-end job (R); I can move up quickly in my present job; I have a good chance to move up in this organization. Past promotions was captured utilizing the actual number of times the employee had experienced a promotion within the work organization. The alpha was .84. Income was measured in terms of Kenya Shillings received by the employee from the work setting per month before taxes and other deductions were made. The variable was measured categorically with 22 categories. The category midpoints in shillings were assigned and a Pareto estimate was used for the open-ended upper category.

Job security was measured using a three-item scale developed specifically for this study. Employees responded to the following items: I will be able to keep my present job as long as I wish; my job is not a secure one (R); I am secure in my job. The alpha was .8 1.

Support Conditions

Supervisory support was assessed utilizing the following items: When things get tough in my job I can rely on my supervisors for help; My supervisor is willing to listen to my job-related problems; my supervisor is helpful to me in getting my job done. The alpha was 74. Work group cohesion was measured by a three-item scale shaped around a scale developed by Price and Mueller (1981, 1986a) to assess the extent to which employees have close friends in their immediate work units. Employees responded to the items: Individuals in my work group are very friendly; People in my work group take personal interest in me; I very much look forward to being with the people in my group each day. The alpha was .77. Grievance procedures was measured utilizing the following three items: Whenever I have complaints to make someone is always there to listen to me; my job has well-laid down grievance procedures accessible to all employees; it is often frustrating trying to file a complaint in my job (R). The alpha coefficient is .65.


Socialization practices was measured using three items developed following Pascale (1985) as follows: Virtually all new employees in my job are required to identify and articulate the firm’s shared values (i.e., the purpose or mission that ties the firm to society, the customer and its employees); In my job nobody cares to familiarize new employees with the in-depth workings and expectations of the firm (R); As a new employee in my job I was required to undergo an intensive in-service course to acquaint myself with the goals and expectations of my organization. The alpha was .88.

Stressors

Routinization was operationalized by a three-item scale adopted from Price and Mueller (1981, 1986a) as follows: My duties are repetitious in my job; My job has variety (R); I have the opportunity to do a number of different things in my job (R). The alpha was .90. Work load was measured using the following three items (Rizzo, House and Lirtzman 1970): I do not have enough time to get everything done in my job; I have to work very fast in my job to keep up with my work; My workload is too heavy in my job. The alpha was .87. Role ambiguity was measured using three items as follows (Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970): I do not know exactly what my responsibilities are in performing my job; I know exactly what is expected of me in my job (R); I know how to get my job done. The alpha was .76. Role conflict was measured using the following three items (Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman 1970): 1 get conflicting job requests from my administrator/supervisor; I get conflicting job requests from my co-workers; job requests from my administrator and co-workers are often conflicting. The alpha was .73. Resource inadequacy was measured using three items similar to those used by Halaby and Weakliem (1989) as follows: I have difficulties in getting enough help and equipment to get my job done; Most times I cannot do my job because of lack of adequate transportation; I have enough support services to do my job (R). The alpha was .74.

Control Variables

Positive affectivity was measured by a scale developed by David Watson and used by Agho, Mueller and Price (1992) and Agho, Price and Mueller (1993). Employees responded to the items: It is easy for me to become enthusiastic about something I am doing; I often feel happy and satisfied for no particular reason; I always seem to have something pleasant to look forward to. The alpha was .83. Negative affectivity was also measured with Watson item: Often I get irritated at little annoyances; my mood often goes up and down; I sometimes feel miserable. The alpha was .83. Education was measured by the number of years of formal schooling and training the employee had. Firm-specific training was measured utilizing the following three-item scale: Doing my job depends on knowledge and skills teamed while working for this organization; The skills and knowledge I acquired through formal education/training have been adequate for me to perform my job competently in this organization (R); The skills I use to carry out my duties in my job only fit my present work setting. The alpha was .87. Work motivation was measured using three items based on Kanungo (1982): Work is something people should get involved in most of the time; Work should only be a small part of one’s life (R); Work should be considered central in life. The alpha was .74.


77

Finally, tenure was measured by the length of time (the number of years) the respondent was employed by the current organization.

Documents

THE GENDERED WORKPLACE IN KENYA: A COMPARATIVE …