STRUCTURAL TO ADDRESS STRUCTURAL BARRIERS:

WHY IT’S INCUMBANT ON, AND ADVANTAGEOUS FOR,

ORGANIZATIONS TO REDUCE BARRIERS TO POWER AND

ADVANCEMENT FOR WOMEN OF COLOUR.

By

SHEMEENA SHRAYA

Integrated Studies Final Project Essay (MAIS 700)

Submitted to Dr. Mike Gismondi

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

December, 2015

ABSTRACT

This paper examines gendered and racialized white-male norms associated with

that are deeply embedded in organizational and societal culture. Particular emphasis is paid to the experience of women of colour and how gendered and racialized norms impact their progression to leadership positions. An intersectional frame is used to

interrogate the barriers that gendered and racialized environments pose for women of

colour, and the strategies typically proffered to women of colour are examined. This

paper contends that is it necessary for organizations to undergo structural change that

unmasks and acknowledges the white-male norms associated with leadership and authority, in order for women of colour and other subordinate employee groups to move

into positions of leadership and address gaps in leadership capacity.

2 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...... 2

Introduction ...... 4

Organizational Context and the Leadership Pipeline ...... 5

Women of Colour in Organizations ...... 9

Why an Interdisciplinary Approach? ...... 11

The Racialized Organization ...... 13

The Gendered Organization ...... 15

Women of Colour as Gendered and Racialized: Importance of and an

Intersectional Frame...... 18

Strategies and Structural Change ...... 21

Going Forward ...... 23

References ...... 25

3 Introduction

Demographic shifts, including projected retirements of the baby boomer population, have resulted in fewer experienced leaders in the ‘leadership pipeline’ who are available for senior leadership positions. These demographic changes are exacerbated by the fact that there are large segments of the labour force (women, people of colour

[specifically women of colour], and others with multiple non-dominant identities), that are not seen as having leadership ‘potential’, or the qualities associated with traditional leadership/authoritative styles, and are therefore not being developed to advance and build the leadership capacity necessary to move into senior positions. This invisibilizing of segments of the labour force is a result of the deeply hidden and ingrained racialized1

(white) and gendered (male) norms embedded in organizations. Women of colour (WOC) are particularly disadvantaged and marginalized in organizations as they are visible embodiments of difference in opposition to the white male norms which make up the status quo, and therefore encounter structural barriers not only at the advancement stage, but in terms of: recruitment; employment status (full-time vs. contract); performance evaluation; rate of pay; and access to organizational resources among other things.

Research in the areas of organizational behavior, management studies, and critical race studies among others, have looked at this issue from different angles to determine how to develop potential leaders and address the marginalization of different

1 Racialization is the socially constructed process of assigning racial constructions via stigma and labels to the activities of minority peoples. Through this process groups come to be designated as different, and on that basis subjected to different and unequal treatment. Racialized groups include people who might experience differential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, language, religion or culture. Racialization can extend to specific traits and attributes, which are connected to racialized people and deemed to be abnormal and of less worth. Besides physical characteristics of people, other characteristics that are commonly racialized are accent, speech, name, clothing, diet, intelligence, beliefs, practices and habits. (University of Guelph, 2010)

4 employee groups. Much of this research has centered on (a) the development of formal mechanisms of inclusion, and (b) what strategies marginalized employees can employ to work through barriers to their career progression and development. This paper asserts that it is the informal organizational processes, based on racialized and gendered organizational norms, that pose the greatest barriers for non-dominant employee groups - specifically WOC- and that it is not only incumbent on, but advantageous for, organizations to expose, challenge and change those white male norms to reduce barriers to power and advancement for WOC.

Organizational Context and the Leadership Pipeline

Canadian labour force projections predict a “shrink in absolute size after 2016”

(McMullin & Cooke, 2004, p.iii) which will result in what Roy, Hensen & Lavoie (1996) see as both, a quantitative shortage of employees in the leadership pool, and a qualitative shortage of employees with necessary skills and experience to fill senior leadership positions (Roy, Hensen & Lavoie, 1996). This is an issue that spans across the private and public sectors, with additional factors such as the globalization and the increased global competition for talent (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2007), and the effects of downsizing measures undertaken in the public service (most drastically in the 90’s but continuing through the last fifteen years through periods of economic downturn), that have left the public sector with decreased numbers of employees in the middle management pool that have the required skills and experience to take on senior leadership roles. Organizations have responded by undertaking formalized succession planning strategies in an attempt to fill the anticipated senior vacancies, which include development and training programs to cultivate leadership ‘pipelines’ of internal

5 employees (Gilmore, 1988). These succession planning strategies and other formal leadership development mechanisms, have been developed and implemented primarily in the private sector, and are also being adapted for use by public sector organizations which have the additional challenge of “incorporating those systematic changes in large scale, bureaucratic, unionized environments with highly regulated, and often inflexible human resource policies and guidelines” (Shraya, 2013, p. 4).

At the same time as major demographic shifts in the population, the labour force in Canada, the US and the UK, as well as other industrialized western European countries is increasingly made up of racialized individuals. According to Block & Galabuzi (2011), there were over 5 million racialized Canadians (16.2%) enumerated in the 2006 Canadian

Census, and estimates by Statistics Canada project that by 2031 one in three Canadians will be racialized. Thus in attempting to address the leadership deficit, and in conjunction with the development of formalized succession planning strategies and tools, organizations have responded to changing population profiles and undertaken diversity initiatives in the workplace. Both private and public institutions have extolled the value of a diverse workforce, with the productive value of diversity and diverse perspectives seen as beneficial tool in promoting more informed and nuanced decision making that can better prepare organizations to deal in increasingly globalized markets. In literature from the private sector, there was additional emphasis on the effects to the bottom line of organizations through the potential loss of business from consumers who perceived organizations as being non-representational (at best), and discriminatory to employees (at worst), as well as from resource loss through the ‘leaking pipeline’ (Price Waterhouse

Coopers, 2008). For the public sector, diversity initiatives have been framed as necessary

6 to fulfill espoused mandates regarding social responsibility, social justice and equality

(Block & Galabuzi, 2011, Gonzalez, 2010).

The emphasis on internationalization and the value of diversity posits that “as more diverse and globally connected organizations are increasingly being created, more creative and diverse types of leadership will be required,” and as such, “leadership style diversity will need to match global diversity” (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010, p. 177).

This stands in contrast to the reality of organizational commitment to diversity as evidenced by where diversity is represented in organizations. Diversity continues to be represented in much higher frequency at entry-level positions than higher-level positions

(Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2012). Murrel et al., (2008) explain this by arguing that “while lower ranks within the organization may be used as examples of effective human resource policies and programs for enhancing diversity, a lack of diversity exists within senior leadership in most organizations,” which they attribute to

“systemic barriers facing underrepresented demographic groups, including women and people of colour” (Murrell et al, 2008, p.275). These systematic barriers include the

“gendered and racialized norms of these environments” that have had “implications for women of all races,” with “particular consequences for women of colour” (Durr &

Harvey Wingfield, 2011, p.558). Durr & Harvey Wingfield, (2011) suggest that women of colour are “employed within this new found bureaucratic configuration of organizational norms,” that are “dictated by historical customs, which have been a traditionally white male citadel,” so that women of colour “do not fit either” (Durr &

Harvey Wingfield, 2011, p.558).

7 For women, and specifically WOC, who “predominate in lower level managerial ranks and are only marginally represented at the executive level” (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis,

2010, p. 172), formalized succession planning mechanisms and diversity initiatives may have had an impact on entrance into organizations but not on advancement. According to

Eagly & Karau (2002), “explanations for this sparse representation of women in elite leadership roles traditionally focused on the idea that a lack of qualified women created a

‘pipeline problem’” (Eagly & Karau, 2002, p.573). They contend however that the

“convergence of the sexes on many human capital variables raises questions abut the sufficiency of such explanations,” which makes it “vital to evaluate whether is one of the causes of women’s rarity in major leadership positions” (Eagly & Karau, 2002, p.573). Betters-Reed & Moore (1995) go further stating that “given that women of colour represent the fastest-growing part of the future workforce, their development for management succession is a critical issue for businesses in the USA,” and that “women of colour will not be significantly represented in managerial ranks without a paradigm shift” (Betters-Reed & Moore, 1995, p.24). While it should be noted that most of the literature on succession planning and diversity initiatives focused on diversity in terms of recruitment versus diversity in advancement, building on the work of Eagly & Carli

(2007), Sanchez-Hucles & Davis (2010) point out that:

“despite convincing evidence of the effectiveness of female leaders, (a) people

often prefer male bosses, (b) it is still harder for women to be promoted into

leadership roles than it is for men, (c) it is more difficult for women to be seen as

effective leaders than it is for men, and (d) leadership hurdles are higher for

8 women of colour than for White women and for men ” (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis,

2010, p. 177).

The juxtaposition of organizations investing in succession panning and diversity initiatives to fill projected leadership gaps, with the reality that marginalized employee groups, specifically WOC, in those organizations continue to encounter barriers to advancement, points to the fact that there are deeper issues impacting the success, or lack of success, that have to be addressed, challenged and changed before structural barriers can be reduced. In fact, Murell et al., (2008) argue that “people of colour may act as a miner’s canary – an indicator of conditions that are challenging not only for numerical minorities but also for majority groups in that same organization” (Murrell et al, 2008, p.276), whereby the reduction of structural barriers faced by non-dominant employee groups, will be advantageous for the organization and all employee groups.

Women of Colour in Organizations

The term ‘women of colour’ is an umbrella term that includes any/all women who are identified or self-identify as any ethnicity except ‘white’ or anyone who is ‘othered’ racially. Research often discusses WOC as a broad category with some breakdown into component groups: Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American in the US; Black Minority

Ethnic (BME) in the UK; and Visible Minority2 and Indigenous in Canada. The experiences of some women of colour, specifically Black, Indigenous and Native

American women, include specific experiences of historical trauma and legacies of

2 Visible Minorities - Visible minority refers to whether a person belongs to a visible minority group as defined by the (federal) Employment Equity Act and, if so, the visible minority group to which the person belongs. The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour" (Statistics Canada, 2012).

9 relating to anti-blackness, and of Indigenous and Native

American women that are unique to those constituent groups, and include structural barriers deeply embedded in society that are not experienced by all WOC. For Indigenous and Native American women in particular, the underrepresentation in organizations has severe impacts in terms of availability of role models and social networks. There are unique negative associated with many different groups of racialized women

(Wyatt & Silvester, 2015) and while the experience of every woman who is racialized is not the same, WOC is used as the lens with which to see their experience in relation to non racialized women, men, and racialized men.

Though racialized workers are the fastest growing segment of the Canadian workforce and leadership pools are expected to dwindle due to retiring baby boomers, racialized workers, particularly women of colour: have more barriers to employment; are more likely to experience unemployment and underemployment; and have lower rates of pay than non-racialized workers, even when age, education, country of birth are accounted for (Block & Galabuzi, 2011). Even second-generation racialized women only make 56.6 cents for each dollar made by a non-racialized second-generation man (Block

& Galabuzi, 2011). In organizations, WOC are represented in highest numbers at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy, often in precarious contract employment, and are thus not fully reflected in the organizations diversity count, are not able to access leadership and professional development opportunities available for full time employees, and are severely underrepresented in senior and leadership roles (Tatla, 2010). At the same time, Castilla 2008 (as cited by Nkomo & Al Ariss), found that “white men received higher salary increases and bonuses compared to ethnic minorities (and women)

10 and non-US-born employees with the same performance evaluation scores, in the same job unit, with the same supervisor and the same human capital” (Nkomo & Al Ariss,

2014, p.396). Adding to that is the fact that, “while most groups attain power through homosocial reproduction – selecting candidates that most closely reflect themselves – white men and white women have greater opportunities for such reproduction compared to racial and ethnic minorities because of their dominant positions” (Nkomo & Al Ariss,

2014, p.396). Women of colour, are responsible for navigating gendered and racialized barriers in all aspects of their employment including advancement, and for the most part this is done without any role models in senior leadership positions (Catalyst, 1993).

Why an Interdisciplinary Approach?

Leadership and succession planning theory have historically been studied via a multidisciplinary approach with theory drawn from the fields of organizational behavior, management studies, psychology and sociology, with its methodology being primarily applied in the private sector. Early leadership research mostly “ignored the role of demographic differences such as gender and race, in part because it was largely conducted by white male researchers who were mostly uninterested in such differences”

(Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010, p. 172). Betters-Reed & Moore (1995) argue that in fact, “management education may assume difference as deficient and encourage assimilation by the minority group to ‘fit’ the majority group’s philosophy,” where “the implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption has been that women would succeed if they adopted the characteristics of effective white male managers” (Betters-Reed & Moore,

1995, p.28). Similarly, Showunmi et al., (2015) point out that “traditionally, leadership theory thus suppressed and neutralized ‘difference’ including considerations of how

11 gender and race/ethnic dimensions may impact leadership” (Showunmi et al., 2015, p.2).

They posit that “leadership stereotypes tend to be linked to white, male, heterosexual, middle class attributes,” and that while “leadership theorizing has generally shifted from individual to relational dimensions (transformational leadership),... researchers have tended to minimize how such relationships may be influenced by social identity and status inequality” (Showunmi et al., 2015, p.2).

To fully examine this topic, it is necessary to use feminist, critical race, and critical whiteness theories to understand the social location, experiences and barriers of

WOC who must operate in, and navigate, gendered and racialized environments.

From , the idea that instead of organizations being gender-neutral spaces where organizational actors are not limited or constrained by their gender or gender stereotypes, organizations are in fact deeply gendered spaces that create an appearance of neutrality (Bendl, 2008), provides a context for how embedded gender

(male) norms effect advancement for women. Theory in this discipline argues that the assumption of neutrality has created environments with hidden, gendered, and gendering, gender subtexts, with men and masculinity being privileged, and gender distinctions and hierarchies being reproduced. This means that women are always compared to a disembodied ideal worker (Acker, 1990) based on a male norm, whereby women are positioned as lesser in both “the material part of their work as well as the stereotypical expectations and perceptions and reactions from others” (Billing, 2011, p.314).

Critical race and critical whiteness theories add to this context with ideas related to whiteness as an organizational norm, in which “whiteness became normalized as the universal organization culture and the culture all had to embrace in order to be perceived

12 as ‘good’ employees” (Nkomo & Al Ariss, 2014, p.397). Here, the “legitimization of everyday practices as natural, not racialized,” has entrenched “whiteness as an ideology,” where whiteness has “naturalized the status quo in the workplace” so that “what is actually positioned as normal is racialized” (Nkomo & Al Ariss, 2014, p.397).

To adequately examine the barriers in accessing organizational power and advancement for WOC, theory from organizational behavior, feminism and critical race and whiteness studies need to be integrated to provide a context and framework for understanding their experiences. According to Sanchez-Hucles & Davis (2010):

“because organizations are by nature hierarchical and leadership by definition is

the accumulation of and exercise of power and authority, to ignore aspects of

identity is to ignore the unequal manner in which hierarchies and systems of

power provide opportunities for leadership” (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010, p.

178).

They propose that because “status and power influence leader emergence and definitions of leader effectiveness,” an “explicit consideration of power and social class differences in leadership research will yield more nuanced theories of leadership emergence and effectiveness” (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010, p. 178). Developing this integrated approach will require an interrogation of theory from relevant disciplines to synthesize and integrate insights and learning, and contribute learning towards new understanding.

The Racialized Organization

Critical race and critical whiteness theory, has situated whiteness as an ideology that is embedded in organizational culture so that:

13 “whites do not have to acknowledge their race in organizations as only racial/ethnic

minorities are viewed as having race” which means “the advantages that whites as a

group enjoy are not explicitly acknowledged and remain invisible in the workplace”

so that “the positioning of whites as raceless allows white employees to view their

ascendancy to top positions and better paying jobs as the natural outcome of

individual effort and merit, overlooking the possibility that the ascendancy came at

the expense of excluded groups” (Nkomo & Al Ariss, 2014, p.395).

This means that whiteness and its associated norms have to be navigated by people of colour. Here the primacy of whiteness in organizations means that “benefits accrue to those groups who occupy a social location of power or who engage in the performance of power” and those racialized as white are able to maintain a “material and psychic distance from the entire issue of racialized inequality” (Levine-Rasky, 2011, p. 247).

What this means is that although all organizational actors are working in environments that are racialized, the dominant or superordinate group are able to operate as if organizations are ‘post-race’ meritocracies. This leaves non-dominant groups to navigate structural barriers that are invisibilized, thereby denying the “the legitimacy of racial/ethnic minorities’ experiences of discrimination and inequality” (Nkomo & Al

Ariss, 2014, p.396), so that, “structural properties of ‘race,’ racialization, , white- skin privilege, and asymmetric relations become transformed into structural principles of social organization” (Guess, 2006 p.661). Nkomo & Al Ariss (2014) describe organizational ‘whiteness’ as more than just ideology. They state that ‘whiteness’ is a system of inclusion for those perceived as white that involves: who has access to material resources; which groups possess workplace power; which employees are perceived as

14 ‘good employees’ that fit into organizational culture; and the naturalized construction of oppressive (white) power and ideology though the legitimization of routine practices as non-racialized (Nkomo & Al Ariss, 2014).

The Gendered Organization

Both feminist and organizational theory have addressed many issues that need to be navigated and negotiated by women in the workplace. Embedded male norms, gendered organizations, gender subtexts, and the underpriviledgeing of female bodies against privileged masculine characteristics related to authority and leadership, are all explored in relation to women’s’ workplace experiences and advancement into leadership positions. There is an understanding that certain organizational actors (men), have traditionally held both organizational and societal power, and that women have to work to push through gendered barriers, even while operating under the rhetoric of gender neutrality and equality (Murrell et al, 2008). As male norms are the default, women are always gendered and “are represented as the only gendered subjects, disturbing the smooth running of otherwise genderfree organizations” (Kelan, 2008, p. 429).

Various metaphors have been used to reference the difficulties women encounter specifically related to advancement into leadership positions including the ‘’

(barriers to senior positions) and the “glass cliff” (senior positions associated with high risk of failure). According to Wyatt & Silvester (2015), the ‘labyrinth’ metaphor proposed by Eagly & Carli (2007), is more appropriate, as it better describes the

“elaborate maze that individuals must navigate in order to reach the prize at the center: achievement of a leadership role” (Wyatt & Silvester, 2015, p.1245). The labyrinth metaphor, doesn’t limit the focus to the “absolute barriers to leadership positions that

15 occur at the penultimate stage of individuals’ careers,” which most often “fail to encompass the complexity and variety of barriers faced by individuals throughout their leadership journeys,” (Wyatt & Silvester, 2015, p.1245). Instead, the labyrinth metaphor takes into account complex, uneven journey of upward progression that involves “diverse challenges, indirect forays, and ventures into foreign territory rather than following a straight line to the top” which involve the requirement for women to demonstrate both agentic and communal skills as well as create social capital” (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis,

2010, p. 172).

Leadership style is very much contested terrain for women. Women are often caught in a double-bind where if they employ the agentic leadership characteristics typical of male leadership styles they are negatively perceived as gender-role violators, but if they instead use communal leadership styles typical of ‘feminine’ gender roles, they are seen as weak and ineffective. This backlash against perceived role violation, “not only serves to maintain cultural stereotypes, but perhaps more importantly, it promotes the status quo of male power,” whereby “agentic women striving for leadership roles are perceived to be overly dominant, intimidating, and arrogant, and thus ‘too powerful’ (for a woman),” and “as a result, they are disliked and discriminated against, thereby paving the way for men to gain access to, and maintain, positions of power” (Phelan & Rudman,

2010, p.814). In trying to counteract their perceived ‘lack of fit’ between being a woman and a leader, women are forced to choose between being respected or liked – a choice men are not forced to make in the same way or with the same frequency (Phelan &

Rudman, 2010).

16 Although there have been shifts towards leadership styles that privilege communal characteristics (transformational), over agentic (transactional) ones, “agentic characteristics (have become) even more important for higher level offices,” meaning that the “incongruity between the female and leader roles is likely to be most extreme at the highest levels of leadership” (Eagly & Karau, 2002, p.577). Additionally, when transformational styles or characteristics associated with emotional intelligence

(typically considered feminine approaches) are seen to have merit, and are used by men,

“what was seen as weak is now though of as flexible; what was emotional now combines with the rational to bring balance, (and) …the concept of ‘greater good’, once inappropriate in the competitive world of business, is now visionary” (Appelbaum et al,

2003, p. 49).

Kelan (2008) argues that because women are forced to operate in gendered organizations under the guise of gender-neutrality and equality, “women feel equal and may lose sight of continuing sources of inequality,” so that “although women are not doing better, they believe their position has to do with ‘personal failure’ instead of structural barriers” (Kelan, 2008, p. 439). Kelan (2008) continues that women are

“resistant to using notions of gender inequality to make sense of their situation, preferring instead to individualize their experience,” which therefore “makes it impossible to point towards collectively experienced phenomena as reasons for inequality,” and which may result in gender being taken off the table, even though “power continues to operate along gendered lines, (and) these processes are not voiced or made visible in discourses”

(Kelan, 2008, p. 439). Kelan goes on to state that “what is evident is that the challenge

17 for the analysis of management texts is no longer to bring women in, but to explore how gender is used.” (Kelan, 2008, p. 439).

Women of Colour as Gendered and Racialized: Importance of

Intersectionality and an Intersectional Frame

As a result of the racialized and gendered norms that are embedded in organizational structure and culture, WOC have to operate from multiple subordinate- identity positions -not just in terms of advancement to leadership positions- but at every point in their employment and career trajectories. Access to both organizational resources in the form of formal and informal mechanisms, and to organizational power in the form of: senior leadership positions; having voices at important tables; and inclusion in social networks and affinity groups where leadership potential is judged and organizational norms and values are communicated via social relationships, is limited and differentially available to WOC as a result of their othered status. Having to navigate both gendered and racialized organizations requires using an intersectional frame that acknowledges their multiple subordinate-identity positions. Intersectionality3 theory developed over the last 30 years, and “has been fed by the civil rights, antiracism, rights, (trans rights), environmental movements, and the Black , as well as by peace initiatives and quests for indigenous self-determination” (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010, p. 175). It “arose from black feminist thought,” and “developed as “an incisive critique of mainstream feminism” (Levine-Rasky, 2011, p. 240), to address the fact that “gender is

3 Intersectionality- an analytical approach for understanding the ways in which the different and multiple identities people embody (race, gender, ethnicity, immigration status, class, sexual orientation etc.) overlap and combine to contribute to unique and layered simultaneous experiences of privilege, oppression or disadvantage, or experiences of multiple oppression that cannot be reduced or explained by the study of one particular identity alone (Bagati, 2008).

18 always raced and race is always gendered,” and that “for racialized women, social problems were not only marked by but by racism” (Levine-Rasky, 2011, p. 241).

According to Sanchez-Hucles & Davis (2010), “women of colour were overlooked in the initial discussions of feminism and they asserted that research in this area should explicitly discuss how social positions and group membership change experiences of social identity” (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010, p. 175).

An intersectional frame involves having consideration for the fact that unlike those with single-identity non-dominant membership, those with multiple-identity non- dominant membership, have to navigate and negotiate multiple points of oppression.

Referencing Anthias (2005), Levine-Rasky (2011) describe the dialogue around intersectionality as having “moved away from initial formulations of double and of race/class/gender locations” so it is now “better conceptualized as involving both social position – identity and access to symbolic and material resources – and social positioning –in which different groups define, negotiate and challenge their positions” (Levine-Rasky, 2011, p. 242). This acknowledges that individuals can be members of multiple identity groups based on gender, ethnicity/race, ability, sexuality, class etc., and occupy differing social locations in different areas of their lives with the attendant privileges or .

An example of the use of an intersectional frame in regards to WOC and leadership is in the recasting of the ‘glass ceiling’ to reflect barriers specific to different

WOC, including the ‘concrete ceiling’ for African American women, the ‘adobe ceiling’

19 for Latinx4 women, and the ‘’ for Asian women (Murrell et al, 2008, p.276). While this serves to provide a level of differentiation between the experience of white women and WOC, it does better at recognizing that there are differences between women and women of colour, than it does of articulating how those differences manifest.

What it does do is clearly differentiate that WOC have to navigate and negotiate gendered and racialized contexts. Betters-Reed & Moore (2005) call this the ‘whitewash dilemma,’ where “white women have gained significant access to the middle and some access to the top of organizational hierarchies while women of colour trail behind” (Betters-Reed &

Moore, 1995, p.24). They attribute this to racial and ethnic differences being ignored and argue that this “essentially creates a racial and ethnic hierarchy within organizations”

(Betters-Reed & Moore, 1995, p.24).

Sanchez-Hucles & Davis explain that not only can WOC not always be sure which aspect of her identity is the cause of any discrimination she faces, but that WOC

“may be unsure of which aspects of their identities are responsible for the reactions of others, and, as a result, may have difficulty determining an appropriate response”

(Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010, p. 173). Stereotypes WOC have to navigate can be based on their gender, their race/ethnicity, or a combination of both which can include sex specific racial stereotypes. While stereotypes about skills and aptitudes have to be negotiated by white women, for WOC, stereotypes are first about identity, and then skill level, which requires WOC to “display leadership competence while simultaneously conforming to European American prototypes representing traditional ethnic, racial and gender behavior” (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010, p. 174). Sanchez-Hucles & Davis go

4 The term Latinx is used instead of the gendered Latino or Latina “in order to escape the implicit gender binary there and include all possible gender and sexual identities, the final gender-determining syllable is increasingly being replaced with an X” (Logue, 2015, para 3).

20 on to say that WOC report being: ‘more visible’ yet ‘socially invisible’; more isolated with less power and opportunities; and subject to more misperceptions and greater stereotyping as compared to white women, who are “more likely to be seen as members of the dominant group, to be selected for sponsorship, and to be supported for higher level positions. (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010, p. 175).

An intersectional approach is therefore necessary to provide an analysis of the differing, layered, and nuanced multiple complexities that WOC have to navigate in their labyrinth’s.

Strategies and Structural Change

While there is ample literature regarding barriers faced by WOC, strategies to address racialized and gendered barriers are for either women OR people of colour, not specifically for WOC. Barriers for WOC include the same barriers faced by women

(stereotyping and preconceptions, managers reluctance to risking with women in line manager positions, lack of careful career planning and planned job assignments, exclusion from informal channels of communication and counterproductive behavior of male co-workers, Shraya, 2013), as well as barriers based on their race/ethnicity including; stigma of discrimination and based on ethnicity, lack of minority women as mentors and role models in senior leadership, and less peer support (by other ethnic women) due to their small numbers (Catalyst, 1993).

Strategies related to gender OR diversity are related to three broad categories: compensation for difference5; equal opportunity or equality claims and structural reform6;

5 “Women were often seen as lacking certain qualities and personal traits such as self-confidence and self- esteem, aggressiveness an dominance, emotional control and sound judgment. To overcome their deficiencies and compensate for their lacks in the managerial market, women were advised to have

21 and feminine alternatives or special contributions7. In these strategies, it is the responsibility of the WOC to both assimilate to white male leadership norms by changing and adapting her own behavior, and represent diversity (thereby providing tacit approval) for the organization she works in. The majority of these strategies place responsibility for change on the shoulders of the WOC, even though organizations benefit from the advancement of WOC as espoused by their purported organizational commitment to, and valuing of diversity. The strategies directed at organizations including the adoption of succession planning mechanisms, mentorship programs and development programs that are built to take into account issues related to diversity, all fail to address the embedded male and white norms in organizations. According to Showunmi et al., (2015), an understanding of racialized and gendered norms embedded in organizational culture is necessary as “there is a tendency to downplay the active part people in positions of power and privilege play in policy-making and the organization of labour which prevent the full participation of minorities in society” (Showunmi et al., 2015, p.13). They believe the

“acknowledgment and problematization of privilege is crucial to gaining a deeper understanding of leadership and the workings of organizations” (Showunmi et al., 2015, p.13). Similarly, Betters-Reed & Moore contend that many organizations that are currently engaged in diversity initiatives “need to confront the contradiction between

compensatory education and attend training programs for attitudinal change and self-improvement” (Brandser, 1996, p.8). 6 “Concern at the low proportion of women managers perhaps arises in most cases because it is seen as a reflection of fundamental inequalities and injustices in society and working life as a whole (Billing & Alvesson, 1989, p.65). “ The fundamental problem is the structural and cultural conditions and social processes which lead to a bias in favour of males” (ibid, p.67). 7 “The fact that most women have lacked formal authority over others and control over resources means that by default they have had to find other ways to accomplish their work. As it turns out, the behaviors that were natural and/or socially acceptable for them have been highly successful in at least some management settings” (Rosener, 1990, p.124).

22 their expressed value of diversity and their failure to (structurally) empower white women and women of colour” (Betters-Reed & Moore, 1995, p.34).

Strategies need to move away from being focused on what WOC can do to modify their behavior or make up for their differences and ‘other’ status, to unmasking and naming the gendered and racialized norms that organizational cultures are embedded with. Betters-Reed & Moore suggest that organizations start with a “‘cultural audit’ which aggressively analyses statistics to identify patterns of organizational discrimination,” to identify the “formal and informal paths of power” (Betters-Reed &

Moore, 1995, p.36), so they can be analyzed for cultural bias. From there the responsibility for change shifts from those with the least organizational power, to those with the most, to the benefit of all. This will problematize the issue for everyone instead of being framed as one centered on the minority group and on “fixing ‘them’ or letting

‘them’ educate the majority group” (Betters-Reed & Moore, 1995, p.26). This will benefit WOC and other marginalized and multiple-identity subordinate groups, and will also benefit organizations as there will be more alignment between organizational values related to diversity and equality. Additionally, when WOC and other marginalized groups see the alignment of organizational values and organizational policies and procedures, there is more potentially for them to align themselves to organizational values as they will be able to see this commitment in practice as apposed to the dissonance that comes from hearing that diversity is important but never seeing it represented or practiced.

Going Forward

In November 2015 “Because its 2015” made headlines as the rationale for Justin

Trudeau’s decision to name a cabinet with full gender parity (CBC, November 6, 2015).

23 This example of a paradigm shift includes structural change to address structural oppression executed at the highest level of government. This is an example of the kind of structural change that is necessary to unmask and address the white male norms embedded and entrenched in organizations. Not only did it highlight the structural factors that operate as barriers that non-dominant groups have to face but it will hopefully make it harder to go backwards in the future now that people will see more minority group members as leaders. This move also demonstrated that however daunting change appears for an organization, especially when dealing with contentious issues such as and , there is merit and advantage in swift, large scale change instead of progressing at pace that everyone (dominant culture) feels comfortable with. It is only through this kind of large scale structural change by organizations that embedded norms can be acknowledged, and their underlying be interrogated and changed, so that segments of the labour force that are currently invisibilized when assessing and developing leadership capacity, can move in to fill existing and projected leadership gaps.

This will be advantageous and beneficially for organizations, women of colour, and all subordinate employee groups.

24 References Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.

Gender and Society. 4(2), 139-158.

Anthias, F. (2005). Social Stratification and Social Inequality: Models of Intersectionality

and Identity. In F. Devine, M. Sauvage, J. Scott & R. Crompton (Eds.),

Rethinking Class: Culture, Identities and Lifestyle (pp. 24-45). New York, NY:

Palgrave MacMillan.

Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., Miller, J.C. (2003). Gender and Leadership? Leadership

and Gender? A Journey through the Landscape of Theories. Leadership &

Organizational Development Journal 24(1), 43-51.

Bagati, D. (2008). Women of Colour in U.S. Securities Firms: Women of Colour in

Professional Services Series. Retrieved from:

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-color-us-securities-firms—women-

color-professional-services-series

Bendl, R. (2008). Gender Subtexts – Reproduction of Exclusion in Organizational

Discourse, British Journal of Management, 19, 50-64.

Betters-Reed, B. L., Moore, L.L. (1995). Shifting the Management Development

Paradigm for Women. Journal of Management Development, 14(2), 24-38.

Billing, Y.D. (2011). Are Women in Management Victims of the Phantom of the Male

Norm? Gender, Work & Organizations, 18(3), 298-317.

Block, S., Galabuzi, G-E. (2011). Canada’s Colour Coded Labour Market: The Gap for

Racialized Workers. For the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the

Wellesley Institute. Retrieved from

25 http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National

%20Office/2011/03/Colour%20Coded%20Labour%20Market.pdf

Brandser, G.C. (1996). Women – The New Heroes of the Business World? Women in

Management Review, 11(2), 3-17.

Canadian Press (2015, November 6). ‘Because it’s 2015’: Trudeau forms Canada’s 1st

gender-balanced cabinet. CBC. Retrieved from:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/canada-trudeau-liberal-government-cabinet-

1.3304590

Castilla, E.J. (2008). Gender, Race and Meritocracy in Organizational Careers, American

Journal of Sociology, 113(6), 1479-1526

Catalyst (1993). Successful Initiatives for Breaking the Glass Ceiling to Upward Mobility

for Minorities and Women. Cornell University Digital Commons. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=

key_workplace&sei-

redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3

Dj%26q%3Dsuccessful%2520initiatives%2520for%2520breaking%2520the%252

0glass%2520ceiling%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CDEQFjAA

%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%252Fcgi%

252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1116%2526context%253Dkey_workpla

ce%26ei%3Dx7wqUbOtLsjF0QGJxoGQBA%26usg%3DAFQjCNFAE_P1lucJiL

qxCXWv0zqmVre8cQ%26sig2%3D565FX9b5KYHry_DtqPAphg%26bvm%3Db

v.42768644%2Cd.dmQ#search=%22successful%20initiatives%20breaking%20gl

ass%20ceiling%22

26 Durr, M., Harvey Wingfield, A.M. (2011). Keep Your ‘N’ in Check: African American

Women and the Interactive Effects of Etiquette and Emotional Labour. Critical

Sociology, 37(5), 557-571.

Eagly, A.H., Carli, L.L. (2007). Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership. Harvard

Business Review, 85(9), 62-71.

Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J. (2002). Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female

Leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.

Gilmore, T. N., (1988) Making a Leadership Change: How Organizations and Leaders

Can Handle Leadership Transitions Successfully. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Gonzalez, C., (2010). Leadership, Diversity and Succession Planning in Academia.

Centre for Studies in Higher Education. University of California, Berkeley.

Retrieved from

http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROPS.Gonzalez.SuccessionPlanning.5.

10.10.pdf

Guess, T.J. (2006). The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racism by

Consequence. Critical Sociology, 32(4), 649-673.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (2007). Looking Ahead: A 10-Year

Outlook for the Canadian Labour Market (2006 – 2-15) Retrieved from

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/publications_resources/research/categories/labour_ma

rket_e/sp_615_10_06/shortages.shtml

Kelan, E.K. (2008). The Discursive Construction of Gender in Contemporary

Management Literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 427-445.

27 Levine-Rasky, C. (2011). Intersectionality Theory Applied to Whiteness and Middle-

Classness, Social Identities, 17(2), 239-253.

Louge, J. (2015, December 8). Many student groups are changing their names to use

"Latinx" instead of "Latino" and "Latina." Retrieved January 31, 2016, from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/12/08/students-adopt-gender-

nonspecific-term-latinx-be-more-inclusive

McMullin, J.A., Cooke, M. (2004). Labour Force Ageing and Skill Shortages in Canada

and Ontario. Retrieved from: http://cprn.org/documents/31517_fr.pdf

Murrell, A,J., Blacke-Beard, S., Porter Jr., D.M., & Perkings-Williamson, A. (2008).

Interorganizational Formal Mentoring, Breaking the Concrete Ceiling Sometimes

Requires Support from the Outside, Human Resources Management, 47(2), 275-

294.

Nkomo, S.M,. Al Ariss, A. (2014). The Historical Origins of Ethnic (White) Privilege in

US Organizations, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(4), 389-404.

Phelan, J.E., Rudman, L.A. (2010). Prejudice Toward Female Leaders: Backlash Effects

and Women’s Impression Management Dilemma. Social and Personality

Psychology, 4(10), 807-820.

Price Waterhouse Coopers, (2008). The Leaking Pipeline: Where are our Female

Leaders? 79 Women Share their Stories. Retrieved from

http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/women-at-pwc/assets/leaking_pipeline.pdf

Rosenor, J.B. (1990). Ways Women Lead, Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 119-125.

Roy, R. Henson, H, and Lavoie, C. (1996) A Primer on Skill Shortages in Canada.

(Research Paper R-96-8E) Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada.

28 Retrieved Feb. 6, 2004 from http://www.hrdc.gc.ca/sp-ps/arb-

dgra/publications/research/abr-96-8e.shtml.

Sanchez-Hucles, J.V., Davis, D.D. (2010). Women and Women of Color in Leadership:

Complexity, Identity and Intersectionality. American Psychologist, 65(3), 171-181.

Showunmi, V., Atewologun, D., & Bebbington, D. (2015). Ethnic, Gender and Class

Intersections in British Women’s Leadership Experiences. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership, 1-19.

Shraya, S. (2013). Women of Colour and Succession Planning in the Public Sector:

Examining Perceptions at George Brown College to Inform Sector Improvements.

Submitted for MAIS602: Athabasca University

Statistics Canada, (2012). Definitions of Minority Status. Retrieved from:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/concepts/definitions/minority-minorite1-eng.htm

Tatla, S. (2010, 12, 01). Hitting a Concrete Ceiling. Financial Post. Retrieved from

http://www2.canada.com/passionate+about+inclusion/3908742/story.html?id=390

8744

University of Guelph and Equity Office, (2012). Understanding

Racialization: Creating a University Free From Racism and Racial

Discrimination. Retrieved from:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/hre/hr/docs/UnderstandingRacialization.pdf

Wyatt, M., Silvester, J. (2015). Reflections on the Labyrinth: Investigating Black and

Minority Ethnic Leaders’ Career Experiences. Human Relations, 68(8), 1243-

1269.

29

30