Conclusions and Recommendations - The intersectionality of gender, race and class : implication

39 Chapter 2: Key Conceptual Framework

“We … find it difficult to separate class from sex oppression because in our lives they are most often experienced simultaneously” – Combahee River Collective (Cole, 2009).

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter the key conceptual framework used in this study is introduced. The development of studies in intersectionality and their contribution to academia are explored. I will also examine the concept of the labyrinth, which I believe interlinks with the studies on women and career progression in the workplace.

2.2 Intersectionality of gender, race and class

The idea of the self-having multiple identities is not new (Stirrat, Meyer, Ouellette and Gara, 2008). An individual is normally categorised in terms of their core identities. The first identity document for a human being is a record of birth or a birth certificate. This document requires details of race and sex as a minimum and those are primary categories of identity. An individual cannot be just race without having a sex identity; the two must go hand in hand as the identities intersect, meaning that they exist at the same time. Intersectionality has been important in articulating the fact that multiple identities combine to bring about different experiences for people in both their everyday and professional lives. Hence where more than one category of identity is oppressed or discriminated against, “the simultaneous experiences of all the (different) identities result in different meanings and experiences than what could be captured by consideration (of a single category alone)” (Stirral et al, 2008:91).

Critical race theorists Jean-Marie et al (2009) concur with this finding as critical race theory considers among its major themes “the intersection of race, class and gender”. Moreover, sociologists argue that constructs such as race and gender affect a person’s beliefs about their capabilities and define their opportunities (Cole, 2009).

Hence the consideration of a single category of identity may lead to other experiences that emerge from another category being undermined or indeed ignored and yet they are important in order to arrive at an understanding of the total experiences of an individual. The term "intersectionality" was born out of feminist discourse during the second wave of feminism (Biklen, Marshall and Pollard, 2008). It was attributed to Kimberle Crenshaw, a legal scholar and critical race theorist (Cole, 2009). The intersectionality discourse has been predominantly the preserve of feminist scholars and critical race theorists. It was within the studies of critical race theory that the double jeopardy of race and gender for black women came to the forefront (Jean-Marie et al, 2009).

During the years leading to the term being coined, the major movements in the USA were based either on race or gender and failed to take into account the intersection of these categories of identity (King, 1998). At this time, black feminists were trying to find a balance in conversations where they could be recognised as black women. Hitherto, the term “black” had immediately conjured up images of men. So any discussions on black

grouped black men and women together and focused on the experiences of men, which were then assumed to be the same for women (Biklen et al, 2008). Similarly, the leadership studies of the 1970s and 1980s on women focused on the experiences of middle to upper class white women without attention being paid to women from other classes and races (Jean-Marie et al, 2009). It was assumed that the experiences of middle and upper class white women were reflective of the experiences of all women regardless of their race or class. This would have meant that discussions on discrimination of women in the workplace would have centred on sexism as experienced by white women and ignored the fact that for black women there is a "double jeopardy" of race and gender (Jean-Marie et al, 2009). Jean-Marie et al (2009:566, 576) recognise that "Black women experience situations in which their authority is undermined, their competence compromised and their power limited", and that they “view the world from discrete perspectives based on their social positions, … and within the confines of the larger social structures of race and gender”.

Within feminist studies, intersectionality has encouraged the study of women's experiences to consider the

"multiple identities" of women in terms of race, gender, social class and sexual orientation as the main categories of identity (Cole, 2009). The advocates of intersectionality have rightly argued that considering one element of a woman's identity will lead to a partial understanding of the total picture, which, while true, will also be incomplete. For example, a black (African) female chartered accountant working in a corporate organisation will have experiences that are informed by gender, race and class as well as the institutional environment. A white woman with a similar academic and professional profile will not experience issues related to race even though she may face gender-related issues. A black male, on the other hand, will not experience gender-related issues although he may come across the race and class experience. An intersectionality lens will consider the experiences of a black woman from a gender, race and class perspective simultaneously as part of the total experience and not the different individual categories. The poem of the "Six blind men and an elephant" below further illustrates the importance of "seeing" and discussing the full picture and total experience in research.

Figure 2: The Elephant and six blind men

Six blind men and the elephant - John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant, (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation, might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant, and happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl:

"God bless me! But the Elephant is very like a wall!"

The second, feeling of the tusk cried, "Ho! What have we here?

So very round and smooth and sharp? To me, 'tis mighty clear This wonder of an Elephant, Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal, and happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, thus boldly up he spake:

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand, and felt about the knee:

"What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain," quoth he, "the Elephant, is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, said: "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an Elephant is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun about the beast to grope, Then, seizing on the swinging tail that fell within his scope.

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

As the poem wraps up, the six men are heatedly debating the nature of the elephant and none understands what the others have "seen". They obviously have different ways of seeing the elephant based on the part that they touched. Each perspective provides some information about what the elephant is like, but none conveys a full sense of what the elephant is like. All of these perspectives need to be taken into account when considering the nature of the elephant (Powell, 2012). All the parts described above are part of the elephant but no one part is a description of the full elephant. It is only when the different parts are put together that the full picture of the elephant can emerge. The elephant, in hearing the discussion, probably starts to wonder about who he really is and possibly needs someone to consolidate what each person saw to describe who he is.

This poem aptly describes the limitations of leadership studies with regard to women, especially non-white women. Diversity studies have previously focused on one or two diversity attributes and ignored the effects of

“multiple intersecting attributes" (Richardson and Loubier, 2008). Studies examining the interaction of multiple factors in leadership style have been rare, usually focusing on one or two attributes (Harrison, Price and Bell, 1998; Jackson, Joshi and Erhardt, 2003; Richardson and Loubier 2008). Hence the concept of intersectionality was offered “to describe the analytic approaches that simultaneously consider the meaning and consequences of multiple categories of identity, difference and disadvantage” (Cole, 2009:170).

The following quotations paint a very clear picture of what intersectionality is and what it is not. I have deliberately quoted them verbatim, as in trying to summarise and put them into my own words, I felt that I lost the essence of what the authors wanted to convey.

"Intersectionality is the idea that social identities such as race, gender and class interact to form qualitatively different meanings and experiences ... Thus a theme that runs through different perspectives on intersectionality is that one cannot reduce identity to a summary of the social groups to which a person belongs. Instead, these social groups interact with each other to create specific manifestations that cannot be explained by each alone”

(Warner, 2008). "The premise of intersectionality theory is that people live multiple, layered identities derived from social relations, history and the operation of power. In other words, people are members of more than one category or social group and can simultaneously experience advantages and disadvantages related to those different social groups" (Richardson and Loubier, 2008). “An intersectional approach neither constructs categories like race, class, gender and sexuality as autonomous categories of analysis nor attempts merely to add one category to another, in a process known as additive analysis” (Zerai, 2000). The intersectional framework examines all three categories of race, class and gender “together or simultaneously to get some sense of the ways these spheres of inequality support each other to maintain the status quo” (Zerai, 2000:185). The approach recognises “race, class and gender as interlocking spheres in which domination occurs” (Zerai, 2000).

"Intersectionality makes plain that gender, race, class and sexuality simultaneously affect the perceptions, experiences, and opportunities of everyone living in a society stratified along these dimensions … To understand any one of these dimensions [researchers] must address them in combination; intersectionality suggests that to focus on a single dimension in the service of parsimony is a kind of false economy. This insight invites us to approach the study of social categories with more complexity and suggests ways to bring more nuance and context to our research on the social categories that matter most in a stratified society” (Cole, 2009).

For the purposes of this study, the lens of intersectionality enables me to view through the different identities in order to understand the "whole woman" as opposed to understanding her from just a gender or race or class perspective.

43 2.3 Definition of the labyrinth and its characteristics

The labyrinth, a term that was introduced into leadership literature by Eagly and Carli (2007), speaks to the various issues in career progression in a manner that makes them seem as if they intersect. Eagly and Carli (2007) are of the firm view that the biggest barrier to women’s career progress “is the sum of many obstacles along the way” and as long as the problem is misdiagnosed, the correct cure cannot be prescribed. While acknowledging the existence of a glass ceiling in the career path of a woman, they do not see it as an absolute obstacle as there are women who have broken through it and are in executive positions. The authors go on to say that the journey to the top is more of a “labyrinth” with the metaphor being used to convey the idea that while the route to the top consists of “twists and turns”, it has a “viable route to the centre”, which means that the

“goals are attainable”. The obstacles identified in the glass ceiling research have overshadowed those of the labyrinth because the latter has mainly been ignored.

The labyrinth consists of several obstructions as identified by Eagly and Carli (2007) and many other researchers who have studied gender dynamics in the workplace (Caproni, 1997; Felmlee, 1984; Heather- Bigg, 1894; Klatt et al, 2016; Ryan, Haslma, Herby and Bongiorno, 2011). The obstacle of vestiges of “prejudices” advocates the fact that women are disadvantaged at most levels of the organisation and not just at the top. Even in similar roles, men on average are paid more and ascend the career ladder more quickly than women. This is not a new finding and research on gender dynamics has included the gender pay parity which has been a concern from the 1800s and continues to exist to this day (Diehl and Dzubinski, 2016; Guy and Fenley, 2014; Heather-Bigg, 1894;

Hogg, 1921). While the issue of equal pay for equal work is important and needs to be addressed, it cannot be a limiting factor to the quest for women to make it to the top in organisations.

Another obstacle is the “resistance to women’s leadership” due to stereotypes of the attributes of leaders, men and women (Klatt, Eimler and Kramer, 2016; Schein, 1973, 1975). Women are associated with transformational leadership traits which are not in line with the traditional transactional nature of men’s leadership traits (Braun, Stegmann, Hernandez Bark and van Dick, 2016; Klatt et al, 2016; Ryan et al, 2011; Schein, 1973, 1975).

Consequently, women are not seen to have the leadership characteristics which are associated with effective leadership. The issue of the differences in leadership styles between men and women is a challenge not only from a societal perspective, but from men as well. Where women have shown a more masculine style of leadership, they have been criticised for it, leaving them with the double-bind of being "doomed" if they have a transformational style of leadership and "damned" if they show masculine traits in their leadership style (Catalyst, 2007; Klatt et al, 2016; Ryan et al, 2011).

The demands of family life also present an obstacle in the careers of women. Women unarguably do the lion’s share of household and childcare duties (Caproni, 1997; Daniel, 2004; Felmlee, 1984; Greenhaus et al, 2010;

Thompson, 1904). Decision-makers continue to have the perception that households’ demands, especially children, prevent women from being able to fulfil their work obligations (Felmlee, 1984). This issue is worse in patriarchal societies where taking care of the household and raising children are often seen as women’s work and sharing it with a partner is not even a thought in the minds of both men and women.

Investment in social capital is a necessity in the life of a career-minded person who wants to progress in the workplace. However, due to household demands, women are left with very little time for networking (Diehl and Dzubinski, 2016; Eagly and Carli, 2007; Wirth, 2001, 2003). Several obstacles have been identified which relate to family responsibilities. Working long hours is often seen as a reflection of commitment and this works against women who have young families and cannot put in long hours when children need supervision at home.

However, in the countries under study, domestic help and childcare are readily available. I am from Zimbabwe, where the extended family culture is still strong. There is almost always a relative who has completed their high school and is undergoing tertiary education in the city or awaiting to start tertiary studies while living with the family – more so a family where the mother works. Hence the supervision of home and children can be shared with the household help or another family member.

Investment in “socialising, politicking and interacting with outsiders” is a crucial part of workplace advancement (Eagly and Carli, 2007). Social networks may be more necessary than skilful performance of the job. Within the workplace, women tend to socialise among themselves and among their hierarchical levels and this partitioning of friendships also limits their ability to interact with the decision-makers – whether male or female. This issue speaks to the glass partitions (Elsesser and Lever, 2011) that I discuss in a later paragraph. This lack of integration across the levels could also be driven by the fact that women might be concerned that they could be seen as “sucking up” to management by their peers. I am reminded of a friendship I had with a senior internal auditor in an organisation where I was a general manager (direct report to the chief finance officer). My friend and I had lunch together in the office canteen and a few days later she told me that someone had said to her, “I see you are now rubbing shoulders with general managers!”

In addition to making time to invest in the social aspect of the workplace, it is important for women to find a

“career sponsor” (Diehl and Dzubinski, 2016; Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989), preferably a man, who can take an interest in her career and build her “legitimacy”. In my workplace experience, this recommendation often proved to be a "kingmaker". The men with "equity" in the workplace were the voices that were heard when it came to promotion and salary decisions. On the executive committee, as well as at other informal meetings where performance and succession planning were discussed, the voices of these career sponsors got contracts drawn up and salaries reviewed even outside of the policies of the organisation.

The “labyrinth” needs management intervention for it to be a transversible maze. These interventions may serve as the map to help women navigate the twists and turns that will get them to the executive floor. One of the recommended interventions is to increase people’s awareness of the psychological drivers of prejudice toward female leaders, and to work to dispel these perceptions. This suggestion refers to deliberate programmes to raise awareness of the importance of gender diversity in the workplace. Women started entering the workplace in larger numbers during the World Wars and have been growing in number ever since (Alesina et al, 2013;

Loizides, 2011; Toossi, 2002; Vallentin, 1932; Wang, 1989). The current crop of leadership consists of "baby boomers" and their offspring. These are people who have been at school and tertiary institutions with girls and women and competed with them for marks and recognition. Furthermore, in countries such as the USA and South Africa, with a long history of the segregation of minorities, diversity is obvious. Hence it is highly improbable that lack of awareness of gender diversity can be a problem in the 21^st century. There could be another dynamic at play that prohibits women from being able to increase their numbers at leadership level to be in line with their representation in the population and the workforce.

The lack of family-friendly policies and unwillingness on the part of organisations to allow staff members with family responsibilities more time to prove themselves worthy of promotion is another twist in the maze of career progression for women. Family-friendly policies such as company-sponsored childcare and flexi-time serve to support women who want to stay on in the workplace but have home-care responsibilities. Having these options enables them to have both and they do not have to sacrifice one for the other. Having a “time-based” career progression allows more time for employees who are capable of reaching high levels of achievement to accomplish their goals (Eagly and Carli, 2007; Greenhaus et al, 2010). Organisations should consider providing an opportunity for women who leave the organisation to have children to return when their circumstances

In document The intersectionality of gender, race and class : implications for the career progression of women leaders in Southern Africa (Page 46-200)