Abstract

This research aims to investigate the manifestation of gender inequality within the service industry and explore the underlying factors contributing to its persistence. I will analyze specific forms of gender inequality, such as wage disparities and occupational segregation, and identify the social, cultural, and organizational factors that perpetuate these inequities. The findings of this study will provide valuable insights for policymakers, employers, and organizations to develop targeted interventions and strategies to address gender inequality in the service industry, fostering a more inclusive and equitable work environment.

Introduction

It was a pivotal moment in my life when I stood up to my manager, demanding equal pay for equal work. I was working alongside a male colleague who, despite having less experience, was earning a higher salary than me. The blatant injustice of the situation fueled my determination to challenge the deeply rooted gender inequality in the service industry. My experience not only sheds light on a reality faced by countless women in the workplace but also emphasizes the pressing need to address this issue in the pursuit of broader gender equality. 

The service industry employs a large workforce in which women are often subjected to unequal treatment, limited opportunities for advancement, and persistent wage gaps (Brick, Schneider, Harknett 2023). Recognizing the existence of gender inequality in this context will allow us to understand the broader challenges women face in various sectors, and devise effective strategies for change.

This article aims to explore the different ways in which gender inequality manifests and persists within the service industry. By examining the various factors contributing to this issue (more specifically, workplace practices and societal expectations), I hope to provide a comprehensive analysis that will contribute to the development of more effective interventions and policies. The ultimate goal is to foster an industry that promotes gender equality, empowering individuals to thrive based on their merits rather than their gender.

Manifestation of Gender Inequality in the Service Industry 

1. Wage Disparities and Occupational Segregation

Brick, Schneider, and Harknett (2023) focus on the influence of firm-level segregation, or the concentration of men and women in different companies or organizations within the same industry or sector on the gender wage gap, highlighting its substantial effect. While acknowledging the role of occupational sorting in explaining wage disparities, the study emphasizes that wage and hour gaps do exist within the service sector itself, indicating that occupational variation alone cannot fully account for these gaps. The findings suggest that firm-level segregation may be a significant factor contributing to the gender wage gap across various sectors, including the service industry in the United States (Brick, Schneider, and Harknett 2023).

By examining the relationship between gender segregation and wages at the firm level, Brick, Schneider, and Harknett’s (2023) research provides valuable insights into workplace structures and processes; the authors show that within firms, labor is priced and allocated in ways that affect power dynamics and inequalities. Using data from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, several studies have explored the role of employer sorting on the gender wage gap. For example, Barth et al. (2021) investigated how career advances within establishments or moves between establishments contributed to the widening of the gender wage gap, finding that the sorting of men into higher-paying establishments was a key factor.

Similarly, Goldin et al. (2017) concluded that sorting into higher-paying establishments accounted for around 40% of the gender wage gap in early work life, while Sorkin (2017) also found that men are more likely than women to work in both high-wage firms and high-wage industries as a result of sorting.

Furthermore, the study contributes to the existing literature by highlighting the multiple forms of gender discrimination faced by women in the service sector, including sexual harassment (Frye, 2017), limited advancement opportunities, and challenges in achieving scheduling flexibility for parental duties. For example, the service sector has been identified as one of the lowest-paying sectors in the United States (Kalleberg, 2011). This sector disproportionately employs women with lower levels of education and often provides only part-time work with unpredictable schedules (Carré and Tilly, 2017; Lambert, 2008; Schneider and Harknett, 2019a). Workers in the service sector typically have shorter job tenures and face blocked opportunities for advancement, which further contributes to the gender wage gap in this area (Carre and Tilly, 2017). Overall, this research expands our understanding of the gender pay gap within the service industry and underscores the importance of examining firm-level factors and workplace dynamics to effectively address gender disparities.

In the labor market context, the harmful impacts of gender stereotypes and biased hiring practices are pronounced, significantly contributing to pervasive occupational segregation. Gender stereotypes, or, preconceived notions arbitrarily assigning roles and characteristics to males and females, often limit women to lower-paying occupations (Hesmondhalgh 2015). For example, women are stereotypically viewed as less competent in areas such as technology, science, and leadership, pushing them towards 'softer' or more stereotypical professions like nursing, teaching, or social work, which typically provide lower compensation and fewer benefits (Conway, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996; Wagner & Berger, 1997; Williams & Best, 1990). This aligns with the 'crowding hypothesis,’ which proposes that an excess of a specific demographic in certain occupations, such as women in care-related roles, leads to wage reduction within those fields (Zhavoronkova, Khattar, and Brady 2022).

Moreover, biased hiring practices contribute to this occupational segregation (Zhavoronkova, Khattar, and Brady 2022). These practices are fundamental discriminatory actions that occur during the hiring process and are typically based on personal biases or stereotypes. This often limit access for certain groups, such as women and people of color, to higher-paying jobs or sectors, effectively confining them to lower-wage roles (Cotter, Hermsen, Reeve, 2003). Biased hiring practices exemplify the 'devaluation theory,' which argues that work done by certain groups, like women, is undervalued due to the societal devaluation of these groups themselves (Levanon, England, Allison, 2009). This phenomenon continues to perpetuate occupational segregation and wage disparities, underlining the urgent need for a shift from 'equal pay for equal work' to 'equal pay for work of equal value,' a change strongly advocated for by global equal pay proponents (OECD, 2021). It is paramount to dismantle these stereotypes and biases to achieve genuine workplace equality and economic security for all demographics (Department of Labor, 2022).

2. Limited Career Advancement Opportunities

Stamarski and Son Hing (2015) provide insight into how workplace policies, structures, and practices can limit career advancement opportunities for women in the service industry. Organizations tend to attract, select, and retain a homogenous set of employees whose values align with those of the organization. Key to this discussion are two types of sexism: hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism entails overtly negative attitudes and stereotypes about women, often manifesting as discriminatory behavior, sexual harassment, or the belief that women are inferior to men. Benevolent sexism, although seemingly positive, is subtly harmful since it is based on the idea that women are weaker and need to be protected or cherished, thereby reinforcing traditional gender roles and limiting women's autonomy and potential for advancement (Glick and Fiske, 1996).

Through formal and informal socialization processes, members of an organization can adopt sexist attitudes (Ostroff and Rothausen, 1997). In a sexist work environment, individuals' normative beliefs may shift over time, consequently increasing the levels of sexism. Exposure to institutional discrimination, sexist attitudes, gender bias in culture, and climate can further fortify these changes (Schwartz and DeKeseredy, 2000; Ford et al., 2008; Banyard et al., 2009). This, coupled with observation of discriminatory behaviors being rewarded or egalitarian behaviors being penalized, may lead decision-makers to maintain or implement policies and practices that discriminate against women, thereby further limiting their career advancement opportunities (Biernat et al., 2012).

Cognitive dissonance can also cause organizational decision-makers to become more sexist over time if they repeatedly engage in discriminatory behavior (Festinger, 1962). Taken together, various forms of sexism, socialization processes, and cognitive dissonance create a cycle in which gender inequalities, sexist attitudes, and discriminatory practices reinforce each other, perpetuating barriers to women's career advancement that are applicable to the service industry (Perry et al., 1994). As such, it is essential for organizations to consciously work towards reducing these gender inequalities to ensure fair opportunities for all of their employees.

Factors Contributing to Persistence

1. Social and Cultural Factors

Ridgeway (2001) puts forth the “expectation states theory,” which suggests that when gender status beliefs are salient in a task-oriented context, they influence the implicit expectations individuals hold for their own and others' competence. These biased performance expectations, disproportionately favoring men, manifest as differences in task behaviors, performance evaluations, and acceptance of leadership (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rudman & Glick, 2001). Evidence suggests that men, irrespective of personal disposition, are more likely to emerge as leaders in mixed-sex settings, particularly when tasks are male-oriented. Men's leadership is often more positively evaluated than equivalent female leadership, especially in terms of directive behavior. While women may have a slight advantage in female-typed contexts, entrenched gender status beliefs inhibit their rise to authoritative roles even in such settings. Thus, even if women achieve leadership positions in female-dominated work contexts, their effectiveness is only modestly recognized (Conway, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996; Wagner & Berger, 1997; Williams & Best, 1990). This pattern of gender inequality is present within the service industry and may persist due to the strength of societal norms and expectations that uphold traditional gender roles.

Research on “social role theory” posits that cultural attitudes and stereotypes significantly influence the treatment of women in the service industry (Tabassum and Nayak 2021). Managers often hold gendered expectations about the behaviors and roles their employees should embody, leading to gender-segregated roles and perpetuating gender stereotypes (Koenig and Eagly, 2014). Because women are often more often engaged in caregiving roles, they are typically stereotyped as nurturing, caring, and relational, whereas men are seen to portray leadership, strength, and assertiveness, traits commonly preferred for managerial roles (Vogel et al., 2003; Skelly and Johnson, 2011). Consequently, women face career progression challenges due to these preconceived notions of gender-specific managerial capabilities (Akanbi and Salami, 2011). The research by Tabassum and Nayak (2021) also suggests that there is a societal preference for male managers, exacerbating the gender disparity in the service industry (Akanbi and Salami 2011). Moreover, women’s struggles to balance familial and professional responsibilities, coupled with societal norms favoring masculine managerial traits, highlights the cultural barriers to gender equality within the workplace (Bolotnyy and Emanuel 2023; Jain and Mukherji 2010; Bombuwela and Alwis 2013; Jamali et al. 2005; Pillai et al. 2011). Therefore, entrenched cultural attitudes and stereotypes remain a central force in perpetuating gender inequality in the service industry.

2. Organizational Factors

Workplace policies, practices, and organizational cultures play a critical role in perpetuating gender inequality within the service industry, often creating an invisible barrier known as the "glass ceiling." As Elacqua et al. note, cultures that encourage differential views and treatment of men and women can significantly contribute to these disparities (Elacqua et al., 2009, p. 293). Furthermore, a "male-oriented" organizational culture, often defined by senior managers who are overwhelmingly male, creates norms and practices that promote "masculine" values such as authority, independence, competitiveness, and aggressiveness (van Vianen and Fisher, 2002; Broadbridge and Hearn, 2008; Koenig et al., 2011). This not only marginalizes women but also fosters biased performance evaluations, causing a lack of support systems for women within the workplace (Weyer, 2007; Lyness and Thompson, 1997). Beliefs about women's incompatibility with certain roles, such as motherhood and management, further hinder their opportunities for advancement (Hoobler et al., 2008). These factors combined create a complex barrier to gender equality, maintaining a status quo that undervalues the contributions of women and limits their professional growth (Oakley, 2000; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Mavin, 2008; Kumra and Vinnicombe, 2010; Rudman and Phelan, 2008).

Potential Solutions

1. Policy Interventions

While policies to address gender inequality in the workforce exist, effectively implementing them in the service sector remains a struggle. With respect to pay transparency, the research shows that horizontal policies, which reveal pay gaps between co-workers of similar seniority, may inadvertently lower wages (Cullen 2023). In contrast, cross-firm and vertical pay transparency policies (pay gaps between co-workers of varying seniority) have proven more effective in raising wages and equity by informing workers and employers about market wages and opportunities. (Cullen 2023)

There is a need for substantial improvements to family-friendly policies (FFPs), particularly for low-income families and informal sector workers such as the service sector. Compelling research by UNICEF highlights significant variations in FFPs across the globe, with gaps in coverage and inconsistencies between legal provisions and their implementation (UNICEF, 2019). While some countries have made progress in time-related policies, there is a need for enhancement in service-related and finance-related policies. This includes offering maternity or parental leaves in conjunction with affordable childcare services (Hewitt, 2017). Legal provisions often overlook those in low-skill or informal sector jobs, and private childcare remains expensive, restricting women from engaging in the paid economy (Budig, 2012). The strain that is put on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) due to employer-led and employer-funded FFPs (especially in the Global South) emphasizes the necessity for governments to step in with quality services, financial support, and stronger regulation and monitoring (WPAC, 2018).

In the service industry, where diverse interactions and engagements are at the core of the business, ensuring an environment free from discrimination is important. Implementing an anti-discrimination policy, which encompasses protections against discrimination based on gender, race, color, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, marital status, or pregnancy, is not merely a legal requirement but a moral imperative (USAID 2022). Such policies should also be tailored to consider characteristics that are particularly relevant to the specific organizational or cultural context within the service industry. The adverse effects of discrimination are manifold: it fosters a hostile work environment, leads to increased staff turnover and absenteeism, and diminishes the diversity of talent, thereby stifling competition and innovation (USAID 2022). By taking decisive steps to enact and enforce anti-discrimination regulations in the service industry, employers can ensure that all employees are treated with dignity and respect, irrespective of their diverse identities. This, in turn, nurtures a more inclusive and productive workforce, reflecting positively on the company's reputation and bottom line (USAID 2022). It demonstrates a commitment to fairness and equality that goes beyond legal compliance, reinforcing the industry's role in fostering a more equitable society.

Conclusion

This paper analyzes the complex issue of gender inequality within the service industry. It sheds light on the realities of wage disparities and occupational segregation, both of which limit career advancement opportunities for women. The presence of these issues not only highlights the intrinsic biases in the industry but also signifies the challenges faced by women in their pursuit of equality. Understanding the underlying social and cultural factors, as well as organizational practices that contribute to the persistence of gender inequality, demonstrates that the problem is not merely symptomatic of individual prejudice, but it is rather systemic and deeply ingrained within our societal structures. Factors ranging from societal norms and stereotypes to workplace policies and male-dominated leadership perpetuate a cycle of inequality that requires comprehensive and strategic interventions.

There are several policies and employer strategies that may present potential solutions to this pervasive issue. From advocating for pay transparency and implementing family-friendly policies to fostering inclusive work environments and promoting gender-sensitive hiring practices, each measure offers a step towards a more equitable service industry. By integrating successful initiatives from other industries and focusing on targeted strategies, employers can make significant strides toward promoting diversity and reducing gender disparities.

Citations

Babic, Audrey, and Isabelle Hansez. 2021. "The Glass Ceiling for Women Managers: Antecedents and Consequences for Work-Family Interface and Well-Being at Work." Frontiers in Psychology 12 (618250): 1-17.

Brick, Carmen, Daniel Schneider, and Kristen Harknett. 2023. "The Gender Wage Gap, Between-Firm Inequality, and Devaluation: Testing a New Hypothesis in the Service Sector." Work and Occupations.

Correll, Shelley, and Cecilia Ridgeway. 2006. “Expectation States Theory” Handbook of Social Psychology. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research.

Cullen, Zoe. 2023. “Is Pay Transparency Good?” National Bureau of Economic Research, (31060), 1-34

“Empowering Women at Work: Company Policies and Practices for Gender Equality,” 2020. International Labour Organization. Retrieved from:weps.org/resource/empowering-women-work-company-policies-and-practices-gender-equality.

Hesmondhalgh, David, and Sarah Baker. 2015. "Sex, Gender and Work Segregation in the Cultural Industries." The Sociological Review, 63(1): 23-26

“Integrating Gender into Workplace Policies” 2022. USAID. Retrieved from: usaid.gov/engendering-industries/gender-equality-guides/policies

“Linking Family Friendly Policies to Women’s Economic Empowerment,” 2019. UNICEF. Retrieved from:unicef.org/documents/linking-family-friendly-policies-womens-economic-empowerment

Stamarski, Cailin, and Leanne Son Hing. 2015. “Gender Inequalities in the Workplace: The Effects of Organizational Structures, Processes, Practices, and Decision Makers’ Sexism” Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1400): 1-20.

Tabassum, Naznin, and Bhabani Nayak. 2021. "Gender Stereotypes and Their Impact on Women’s Career Progressions from a Managerial Perspective." IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 10(2): 192–208.

Zhavoronkova, Marina, Rose Khattar, and Matthew Brady. 2022. “Occupational Segregation in America.” The Center for American Progress. Retrieved from: https//www.americanprogress.org/article/occupational-segregation-in-america/.