Response to #1
In the journal article, “Individual Change Won’t Create Gender Equality in Organizations,” written by Alison Wynn, a critical point is brought up regarding holding decision-makers accountable for reducing gender inequality within an organization. In Emilio J. Castilla’s article, she explores this idea. Castilla proposes that being more transparent when making pay decisions would reduce the pay gap by employee gender, race, and “foreign nationality.” Castilla delves into her study of reward decisions in the workplace, where she notes the introduction of new organizational procedures, accountability, and transparency has affected almost 9,000 employees positively. Before this, however, there was a large gap in “performance-based rewards” that resulted in unfairness towards women, who could also be ethnic minorities. They also received less money than men, who also happened to be citizens of the United States. Castilla notes that after attaining accountability and transparency, however, this gap was reduced.
I believe this approach is crucial for reducing gender inequality within organizations, and it adds to Wynn’s article perfectly because one wrong turn when it comes to being accountable and unbiased can cause vast marginalized intersectionality. When decision-makers decide to be biased and pay White men more, for example, women are oppressed. First, women are oppressed, but racist bias is brought into the picture when ethnic women are oppressed. Multiple biases then co-exist, backtracking greatly when it comes to reducing inequality. Although Castilla’s proposal initially involves gender inequality, it also simultaneously involves racial inequality as well. Many intersectional components of marginalization can be reversed when decision-makers are trained to be more transparent. By starting within an organization, employees and bosses can really look inward and not blame a larger picture for an easy “out.
Response to #2
In Wynn’s article, “Individual Change Won’t Create Gender Equality in Organizations,” I believe an employee or a person soon to have a higher position within a company would benefit the most from reading this article. I do not believe Wynn’s article is vague at all. Still, if it were directed towards executives within an organization, her tone would be more analytical, presenting more data and evidence that executives would understand. Wynn also subtly hints at a larger picture through her writing. People can not simply acknowledge that they are “good” but work together to change the structures that ultimately increase gender inequality. As cliché as it sounds, working together towards specific issues is crucial, and Wynn laid out these issues perfectly. Although not specifically written, I believe one of Wynn’s main points is that there needs to be a framework for an issue, or else people are not able to see the issue. In a TED talk I recently watched, Kimberlé Crenshaw said just this. If there is no framework (for example, a commonly seen issue regarding police violence against women), there is no priority for the injustice.
I believe Wynn is trying to open the eyes of future employees or new employees ahead of time. Although she focuses on gender inequality within the workplace, Wynn tries to set up solutions and a framework for all inequalities. Wynn notes, “These recommendations can help fight bias and inequality on many dimensions, beyond just gender. While my research specifically focused on a gender equality initiative, similar research must be done examining other types of initiatives to ensure organizations can address all types of inequalities.” To effectively create change, people must address and acknowledge the most marginalized first, prioritize them, set a framework for change, and carry this mindset onto other injustices. This quote works for the audience I have mentioned because it introduces a certain demeanor for young adults that regard future change towards equality.
Hi Kathleen,
Emilio J. Castilla’s article seems to get at an idea I’ve been wondering about all summer. Why aren’t CEOs held accountable for improving diversity and inclusion in a measurable way? Perhaps we live in a society that values profits above all else? Or perhaps there hasn’t been enough pressure placed on corporate leaders to make improvements? I can’t recall ever reading an article where a CEO had to step down because he or she did not achieve diversity goals. I agree with Castilla that transparency in the way performance-based rewards are distributed would make a difference, but I wonder how that would work for employees who hold positions where performance is hard to quantify, or when other factors are considered, like positive attitude or willingness to help out on non-job related tasks. Transparency is definitely a start.
I like your analysis of the Wynn article as well. I agree with you that sometimes people cannot see an issue unless a framework is created to help them see it. But I also think frameworks can be limiting especially if created in one environment and applied to another. I’m not sure that a framework that can improve gender inequalities would work for racial inequalities, for example, or if a framework that works in the technology industry would work in the construction industry. Perhaps every organization needs to go through some kind of internal process to discuss areas of improvement and frame the issues that are unique to their situation. The framework that would emerge from that process might have a better chance of success.
Frameworks aren’t one-size-fits-all (any more than anything else is), but as you point out, they give us ways to start processing what we see in front of us. Theoretical frameworks can help us to order our thinking and make it easier for us to move forward with that thinking–in this regard, it may help to consider the parallel with the TSIS templates we’ve been using. Those templates don’t do the thinking for us–that work is on us–but they do help us to structure and order what might be a messy compilation of thoughts. They function as *tools* for intellectual work.
Good work, Kate–it’s useful to think about how theoretical frameworks can help us to move forward, both because they can allow us to organize our ideas and because they make the abstract concrete. What’s concrete is ultimately assessable–we can look at it and gauge how it’s working–and that’s a key step toward what Dylan is asking for: ACCOUNTABILITY.