Workplace Productivity and Gender Issues

Workplace Productivity and Gender IssuesThe Changing Workforce: Demographic Issues Facing Employers by U.S. General AccountingOffice; Federal Workforce Quality: Measurement and Improvement by Advisory Committeeon Federal Workforce Quality Assessment; A Question of Equity: Women and the GlassCeiling in the Federal Government by U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board; The ChangingWorkforce: Comparison of Federal and Nonfederal Work/Family Programs and Approache ...Review by: Mary Ellen GuyPublic Administration Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1993), pp. 279-282Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110144 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 09:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:25:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110144?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


TOPS: THOSE OTHER PUBLICATIONS I BevlyA.CigleEditor

Workplace Productivity and Gender Issues Mary Ellen Guy, University of Alabama at Birmingham

U.S. General Accounting Office, The Changing Workforce: Demographic Issues Facing Employers. (Washington, D.C.: GAO/T-GGD-92-61, July 1992), 11 pp.

Advisory Committee on Federal Workforce Quality Assessment, Federal Workforce Quality: Measurement and Improvement. (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20419, August 1992), 38 pp.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government. (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20419, October 1992), 55 pp.

U.S. General Accounting Office, The

Cbangfng Workforce: Comparison of Federal and Nonfederal Work/Family Programs and Approaches. (Washington, D.C.: GAO/GGD- 92-84, April 1992), 127 pp.

55T~hen it comes to employment, the facts of the matter are that

V employers want to recruit and retain the best and the brightest; government and business are competing for the same workers; and the competition is stiff. The theory of competition is meant to work for both employers and employees. For employers, those who offer the best opportunities, benefits, and work environment get the best workers. For employees, those who are more productive achieve more: more promotions, more money, more power, more status, more autonomy-in other words, more of whatever inducements an employer has to offer. This is how incentives are supposed to work. But

the deck is stacked differently for over half of the public workforce. The incentive system that is supposed to motivate workers advantages men while it disad- vantages women. This results in an underutilization of a major segment of every agency's human resources.

Work/family programs and productivity concerns go hand in hand. In the absence of consideration for the private obligations of public employees, the discussion of productive work environ- ments rings hollow. And in the absence of consideration for productivity enhancements, the discussion of the changing workforce has no conclusion. This essay juxtaposes these topics and uses four recent publications to draw them together. The first piece is an 11- page testimony by Rosslyn S. Kleeman, Director of Federal Workforce Future Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), presented to the Subcommittee on Census and Population, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives.

The Changing Workforce: Demographic Issues Facing Employers

In this testimony, Kleeman succinctly describes how the workforce is changing. She points out that agencies and companies that have adapted to the changed workforce are reaping divi- dends in terms of improved recruitment, retention, and productivity. Her testimony avoids reliance on forecasts by the

Hudson Institute that are controversial, such as the projection that there will be a skills mismatch between the abilities of new workers and the increasing skill requirements of new jobs, and that there will be a labor shortage by the year 2000. Kleeman, instead, emphasizes only those forecasts over which there is general agreement.

Her testimony, which relies heavily on data reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, provides graphs to show how the women's labor force participation rate has increased since 1950 and how the men's participation rate has fallen. Graphs also show how the participation rates of married women with children have increased dramatically since 1960, and how the aging of the baby boom generation will affect the labor force.

This testimony provides a quick overview of changing demographics and serves to accentuate the need to think smarter about workplace policies. Most dramatic of the demographic changes in the workforce is the wholesale entry of women into the civilian labor force. Between 1950 and 1990 there was more than a 200 percent increase in the number of women working or looking for work. (Labor force participation means working or looking for work in civilian employment.) More specifically, in 1960, less than 19 percent of manied women with children under age 6 were working or looking for work. By 1990, nearly 60 percent of all married women with children under age six were in the labor force. In 1960, 39 percent of married women with children ages 6-17 were in the labor force. In 1990, 75 percent of these women were in the labor force. In 1960, less than 32 percent of working husbands' wives were in the labor force. By 1990 that percentage was nearly 70 percent. Between 1976 and 1990 the percentage of the federal workforce that was women rose faster than in the nonfederal sector. The number of federal professional and administrative jobs held by women in the federal government rose by 162 percent-ten times faster than the rate for men.

Public Adinistration Review * May/June 1993, Vol. 53, No. 3 279



This dramatic increase in the num- bers of working women turns a bright light on the vacuum that is created by the absence of employment structures that are designed to accommodate workers' family obligations. Because fewer and fewer households have care- givers in the home during working hours, more employees face the challenge of trying to manage personal responsibilities such as child care and elder care from the worksite. Traditional human resources policies, such as rigid work schedules and leave programs, are not conducive to achieving a work/family balance. The result is higher turnover, absenteeism, lower morale and lower productivity. Policies that employers are adopting to help employees balance their work/family responsibilities include flexible work schedules, increased use of part-time employment, job sharing, flexible benefits, dependent-care spending accounts, flexible work place arrangements, use of sick leave to care for family members, child care centers and referral programs, elder care assistance, and counseling and training programs. The key element in each of these programs is increased flexibility to accommodate workers' needs.

Kleeman testified that the percentage of employers in medium and large private sector firms offering child care assistance was five times greater in 1989 than in 1985. The percentage of state and local government employees eligible to receive child care assistance more than quadrupled between 1987 and 1990. This testimony is readable, chocked full of information and insights, and provides useful guidance for managers who want to set the stage for recruiting and retaining the workforce they need. The other side of the coin, from an employer's perspective, is that employers are pressed to enhance quality and productivity in the midst of President Clinton's call for pay freezes and position cuts. The next report reviewed addresses quality improvement issues.

Fedlerl Workforce Quality: Measurement and Improvement

The federal civilian workforce com- prises 3 million employees in more

than 800 different occupations in 100 different agencies. The federal government must aggressively compete with the private sector and with state and local governments for its share of workers who have the skills and abilities to carry out its many missions. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) established the Advisory Committee on Federal Workforce Quality Assessment to address federal workforce quality issues.

The Advisory Committee frames workforce quality as resulting from three interrelated components: inputs, organizational processes, and outcomes. Inputs are individual attributes and environmental forces. These are influenced by organizational processes to produce individual, team, and organizational outcomes. The Advisory Committee urges organizations to con- tinually assess their levels of workforce quality in light of changing circum- stances and to take steps to stimulate continuous improvement. They recom- mend that OPM develop measures that go beyond traditional assessment of cognitive abilities to encompass all of the attributes that predict high-quality work and retention at practical levels. Also recommended is that departments and agencies emphasize the connection between the quality of the work environment and the quality of individual, team and organizational performance. In addition, it is suggested that OPM accept flexible work situations as a means of enhancing recruitment and retention.

The Advisory Committee examined where the federal government stands on family-friendly policies, since these are increasingly important in attracting and retaining a quality workforce. They conclude that the government has not capitalized fully on some of the benefits it offers, such as alternative work schedules and flexiplace opportunities. The Advisory Committee reports that the federal government has failed to use the availability of such programs as inducements in its recruiting efforts. It recommends that OPM emphasize as much flexibility as possible as a means of enhancing recruitment and retention. The report also says that Department and agency heads should make sure

that evaluation and reward and recog- nition systems emphasize delivery of high-quality services and programs.

The anxiety about workforce quality and workplace productivity is being played out in the federal government through reports such as these. Because of the challenges to government and the complexity of its many missions, the goal of increasing workforce quality is a critical one. What fails to show up in writings on workforce productivity is the linkage between organizational culture and the treatment of women in the workplace, including how such treatment affects productivity.

The third report reviewed describes the status of women in the federal bureaucracy and shows that qualified, productive women are promoted at lesser rates than men are, are often stereotyped as being less committed to their work regardless of whether they have family obligations, and are penal- ized for having family obligations. Since women comprise over half of the public workforce, these discriminatory practices exacerbate productivity prob- lems.

A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the Federal Government

This report defines elements of the glass ceiling that range from the tangible to the intangible. Its aim is to shine a bright light on the status quo in the federal government and to move a step closer to achieving a workforce that is both productive and representative. The report was released in October 1992 and follows close on the heels of other works that document the pres- ence of a glass ceiling for women in government. It reconfirms other findings that show that women, overall, are promoted less often over the course of their government careers than men who have comparable education, expe- rience, and skills.

In the federal executive branch, women hold almost 66 percent of the jobs in GS 1 through 8, including 86 percent of all clerical jobs. But only about 1 out of 4 supervisors and 1 out of every 10 executives are women.

280 Public Adzninstion Review * May/June 1993, Vol. 53, No., 3



This is especially noticeable at the GS 9 and 11 levels, which are the gateway positions for advancement into senior levels. While an average of 44 percent of men in GS 9 jobs are promoted each year, only 33 percent of women in GS 9 jobs are promoted. And 21 percent of men in GS 11 jobs are promoted each year, while only 15 percent of women are. The report warns, and correctly so, that the federal government is underutilizing a major segment of its human resources.

The glass ceiling is as tangible and verifiable as the dearth of women in top posts and the scarcity of family- friendly work policies. It is as amor- phous as unexamined perceptions and cultural stereotypes. To capture the barriers to women's career advancement, the investigators used data from OPM's Central Personnel Data File, focus groups of women and men in grades GS/GM 13-15 and members of the Senior Executive Service, and a government-wide employee survey. The main area of concern was whether women are moving at the rate they should be through the pipeline, or whether their progress is hindered. The report finds that by the year 2017 women will comprise over half of the workforce in the executive branch but will continue to hold considerably fewer than half of the jobs in grades above GS 12. In fact, if current trends continue, women will still hold less than 33 percent of senior executive jobs and only slightly more than one- third of GS/GM 13-15 jobs.

By combining numerical data, survey responses, and focus group discus- sions, the report produces a well- rounded look at the situation. It reminds the reader that an individual's prospect for advancement can be affected by a host of organizational fac- tors such as access to developmental opportunities, significant work assign- ments, mentors and networks. These result from stereotypes that preclude women from even being considered for some promotions. For example, when it comes to relocations, comments during the focus groups showed that women are often not asked to relocate while their male peers are. There is an assumption that women's careers are subordinate to their husbands' and that their childcare obligations preclude

them from moving. In fact, there is little difference in the percentage of women (4 percent) and the percentage of men (7 percent) who reported that they had refused to relocate during their federal government career.

The deeper that one delves into the data, the more one sees that cultural images govern promotion at least as much as actual performance. Although people point to childcare obligations of women and use that to explain why men should be favored over women for promotion, the assumption holds whether or not the woman has children. For instance, the report points out that during the first five years of their careers, women with and without children advance at approximately the same rate, while both groups of women received significantly fewer promotions than men with and without children during the same 5 years. Thus, early in their careers, women are less likely to be viewed as committed to their jobs, whether or not they have children. In focus groups the same views were expressed in 1991 as were expressed generations ago. The report quotes one man as saying "look, he's a male, and he has a family to support- if anybody should get a promotion it should be him" (p. 21). Another man said 'It's just easier to talk to a guy even if you don't know him, compared to a woman. I mean there are just certain things that you automatically think that you and the other guy have in common, and you automatically think that you and the woman do not have in common. It could be the basketball game the night before..."(p. 27). Comments such as these illuminate the discomfort that many men have with women who are their peers or superi- ors. This discomfort is costly to government because it sends the message to women that the rewards for productivity that are present in the system for men are not present for women. It is attitudes such as these that produce a reluctance to entertain family-friendly workplace policies, since women are presumed to bear the burden of family obligations.

Government's interest in productivity extends beyond that of its own workforce. The last report reviewed examines how nonfederal employers assess the need for work/family pro-

grams, how they implement them, and how they evaluate their effectiveness in enhancing employee recruitment, retention, and productivity.

The Changing Workforce: Comparison of Federal and Nonfederal Worlk/Family Progs and Approaches

This reports survey findings on the utility of flexible work arrangements, elder care and child care programs, leave policies, and other work/family programs that help employees balance work and family responsibilities. It was guided by Rosslyn Kleeman in her capacity as GAO's Director of Federal Workforce Future Issues. Employers surveyed included large U.S. corpora- tions such as 3M, Aetna, American Express, AT&T, DuPont, Hewlett- Packard, IBM, and Levi Strauss & Co., as well as the Arlington County, Virginia school system, the states of California and New York, and Ventura County, California.

The GAO found that these organizations viewed their work/family issues strategically, establishing work/family offices or positions and forging individual programs into an integrated support system designed to improve employee recruitment, retention, and productivity. Flexible work arrangements include allowing employees to work at home, set their own work hours, customize their benefits, or use untaxed portions of their salaries to pay certain expenses like dependent care costs. Also included are leave policies, such as allowing employees to use their sick leave to care for family members and unpaid time off for family reasons, child care, and elder care programs.

The report cites three stages of implementing family friendly policies. The first is when employers have one or several work/family initiatives in place, but no coordination between them. With no coordinated locus of responsibility among programs, concerns are viewed as women's issues, rather than business issues. The second stage encompasses a more inte-

TOPS: Those Odter Pubications 281



grated approach, with organizations offering a package of several policies and programs to respond to a variety of work/family concerns. Responsibility for the work/family issue is assigned to an individual, often at the vice president or director level. Top level com- mitment begins to emerge. In Stage III organizations, the culture is changed. Work/family issues are linked to strate- gic planning; the development of work/family policies is seen as a continuous dynamic problem solving pro- cess.

This GAO bluebook is useful for anyone who is in a capacity to advise about family-friendly programs. The report goes into detail on the types of programs offered and how officials evaluate them. The 127 page report includes photographs, an index, and a bibliography. It is well informed, readable, and informative.

It should come as no surprise that such work/family programs challenge traditional organization culture and that managers often resist them even though they are not necessarily costly to implement. It is not unusual for employers to engage in a paralysis of analysis-assessing needs and analyz- ing costs and benefits, instead of moving into family-friendly policies. The comments from the focus groups cited in A Question of Equity exemplify the cultural myopia that obscures the vision and makes it so difficult for managers, both public and private, to see how family-friendly policies will help them achieve more productive work environ- ments.

In conclusion, the difference that

"differentness" makes in policies that govern workplace structures is pro- found. The connection between different needs and different workplace structures is making its way to center stage. The timely publications reviewed here help in this regard. They align personnel policies with demographics of the workforce. Between the lines is a thread that weaves them all together.

Career development and turnover are dollars-and-cents issues. The notion of advancement from within is that it is an incentive to produce. Employers need to enhance two dimensions of the workplace: an incentive system that advantages the best employees and dis- advantages the worst, regardless of gender; and a system of employment structures that accommodate family obligations of workers so that the best employees are not torn between high performance on the job or meeting their family obligations.

The lessons learned from these reports are three-fold. First, tomorrow's labor force is different from yesterday's. By 1990 60 percent of all women were in the civilian labor force, meaning that employment structures must stretch to accommodate the family obligations of working parents. In order to recruit and retain the best in this changed workforce, structures that have been taken for granted for decades now must adapt.

Second, rather than placing working mothers on "mommy tracks" where incentives to advance are minimal, employers need to treat working mothers just as they do working fathers. By

doing so, the employer wins. The most productive employees, regardless of gender, are encouraged to strive for further advancement and are rewarded for their productivity.

Third, the glass ceiling, the changing workforce, and public productivity rep- resent a synergy that few practitioners and scholars appreciate. To attempt to discuss them separately is to fail to understand how much things have changed. There is a black hole in the content of the argument when worker productivity is discussed in isolation from the glass ceiling that precludes women's advancement. One begets the other.

Productivity is a people issue. Form must follow function when it comes to workplace policies and productivity. This includes structuring work so that it accommodates the needs of the workforce while meeting the goals of the organization. Programs such as flex- time, on-site or near-site childcare, employee assistance programs, off-site workplaces, and personal development opportunities provide examples. Trying to make today's and tomorrows workforce fit into the procrustean bed of yesterday's policies hampers productivity. These reports make that crystal clear.

Mary E. Guy is director of the MPA Program and professor of political sci- ence and public affairs at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Her research focuses on management theory and gender as a contingency in organizational behavior. She is editor of Women and Men of the States: Public Administrators at the State Level.

282 Public Administon Review * Ay/June 1993, Vol. 53, No., 3



Documents

Workplace Productivity and Gender Issues