Race, Gender, and Authority in the Workplace: Theory and Research
Author(s): Ryan A. Smith
Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 28 (2002), pp. 509-542
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069251
Accessed: 11/01/2009 18:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002. 28:509-42
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141048
Copyright ?) 2002 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved
RACE, GENDER, AND AUTHORITY IN THE
WORKPLACE:Theory and Research
RyanA. Smith*
RutgersUniversity,School of Managementand LaborRelations,50 Labor CenterWay,
New Brunswick,New Jersey 08901; e-mail: [email protected]
Key Words
job authority, authorityattainment,race inequality, gender inequality
U Abstract This chaptersurveys sociological approachesto the study of job authority, including theoretical foundations, measurement,and emergence as an importantdimension of social inequality. The focus here is mainly on studies of race and gender
differences in the determinants of authority and the consequences of race and gender
differences in authority for income. Despite significant advancements in the overall
socioeconomic status of minorities and working women, race and gender remain important impediments to their attainmentof authority.This pattern,which is consistent and
robust in state-level, national, cross-national, and cross-temporal studies, is sustained
net of an incumbent's human capital investments and structurallocation within and between several economic units. Following a review of the predominantexplanations for
gender and racial disparities in job authorityis the conclusion that the most promising
explanations for persistent racial and gender disparities in authorityconcern the racial
and gender demography of the workplace and the tendency on the part of authority
elites to reproduce themselves through both exclusionary and inclusionary processes.
Suggestions for future research include additional delineation of these processes based
on samples of multiple racial/ethnic groups of men and women and studies that synthesize quantitative and qualitative approaches to understanding the effects of employer
and employee attitudes/preferencesand practices on the authorityattainmentprocess.
INTRODUCTION
The conceptualizationof job authorityas animportantdimensionof social inequality may be tracedto the earlytheoreticaltreatisesof MaxWeberandKarlMarx.The
most directuse of authorityin quantitativeassessmentsof workinequalityis rooted
in Dahrendorf's (1959) critique and extension of Marx's theory of class relations
and class conflict. Three consecutive, and sometimes overlapping, developments in
the sociological study of job authority may be discerned. First, building on the work
of Karl Marx and Max Weber, researchers embarked upon theory development,
operationalization, and the measurement of job authority for use in quantitative
*Currentaddress:P.O. Box 357, Maplewood,NJ 07040.
0360-0572/02/0811-0509$14.00
509
510
SMITH
studiesof class analysisandstatusattainment.1Next, the MarxandWeberlineages
splinteredthe subsequentconceptualizationandmeasurementof authorityinto two
differentbutnot necessarilymutuallyexclusive arguments.One is the neo-Marxian
argumentthatjob authorityis a categoricaldiscretephenomenonthatlends itself
to the largerstudyof class analysis(Wright& Perrone1977, Lopreato1967, 1968,
Wright 1993). The other argumentinvolves the view thatjob authorityis gradational or scalar,lending itself to the analysis of statusgroups-which is more in
line with the Weberiantradition(Blau 1977, Halaby & Weakliem 1993, Halaby
1993). As a corollaryto this debate, some researcherschallenged Dahrendorf's
originaldichotomousformulationof authority,arguingthatjob authoritycan also
be conceptualizedas a polytomousvariable-that is, a variablewith threeor more
hierarchicallevels (Robinson 1979, Robinson & Kelley 1979).
Finally,embeddedin the debatesurroundingthe relativeinfluenceof demandside versus supply-side explanations of group inequality,the role of race and
genderversusachievement-orientedcriteriain explainingauthorityoutcomes,has
dominatedauthorityresearchin recentyears. Overall,this researchechoes earlier
claims that authorityis a unique and importantindicatorof workplacestratification comparableto, sometimesmore helpful than,or otherwisecomplementaryof
traditionalindicatorsof socioeconomic statusin explainingboth genderandracial
inequalityat work.
This chapterreviews the sociological literatureon race, gender,andjob authority. The theoreticalfoundationsof job authorityand its emergenceas an important
indicatorof socioeconomic statusare discussed. Next, this chapterexamineshow
job authorityhas been operationalizedandmeasuredfor use in quantitativeassessments of workplaceinequality.It then reviews severalprominentexplanationsfor
race and genderdifferencesin authority,followed by a summaryof the dominant
literaturethatdescribesthe causes and financialcosts of racial and genderexclusion fromjob authority.The most promisingexplanationsfor persistentracialand
genderdisparitiesin authorityoutcomes concernthe racial and genderdemography of the workplaceand the tendencyon the partof authorityelites to reproduce
themselvesthroughboth exclusionaryand inclusionaryprocesses. Thereis a definite need for more studiesto furtherexplorethese phenomenavia quantitativeand
qualitativestrategiesdesigned to yield detailedinformationon decisions made on
the supply-sideand demand-sideof the authorityrelationship.
JOB AUTHORITY AND ITS MULTIPLEDIMENSIONS
The Importance of Job Authority
Accordingto Max Weber,authoritymay be definedas the "probabilitythata commandwith a given specific contentwill be obeyed by a given groupof persons...
1A detailedreview of the class and statusattainmenttraditionsis beyond the scope of this
chapter.See Kurz & Muller (1987) for the formerand Matras(1980) and Brieger (1995)
for the latter.
AUTHORITY
RACE,GENDER,ANDWORKPLACE
511
The importantdifference between power and authorityconsists in the fact that
whereaspower is essentially tied to the personalityof individuals,authorityis always associatedwith social positions or roles... authorityis a legitimaterelation
of dominationand subjection.In this sense, authoritycan be describedas legitimatepower"(quotedin Dahrendorf1959, p. 166). In the last 20 years,the studyof
the relativedistributionof legitimatepower (job authority)within the context of
the workplacehas emergedas an importantareaof sociological investigation.Job
authorityis psychologicallyrewarding;it bringsstatusboth inside and outsidethe
workplace;it is related to job satisfaction,autonomy,class consciousness, class
position, voting behavior,partyidentification,and political views (Kluegel 1978,
Halaby 1979, Robinson & Kelley 1979, Wright 1979, Roos 1981, Spaeth 1985,
Mueller & Parcel 1986, Jaffee 1989, Reskin & Ross 1992, Adler 1993, Reskin &
Padavic 1994, Wilson 1997b, Smith 1999). In the sociological literature,however,
job authorityis perhapsmost associated with income. As noted by Wrightet al.
(1995, p. 407), "job authorityis one of the central ways in which the financial
rewardsof work are allocated."Elsewhere,Halaby& Weakliem(1993, p. 17) declaredthe studyof job authorityto be sociology's chief contributionto the studyof
earningsinequality.In short,job authorityis a highly coveted workplaceresource.
As such, it comes as no surpriseto learnthatit is unequallydistributedby race and
gender in Americansociety and cross-nationally.Explainingwhy this is the case
is one of the main objectivesof this chapter.
Select Typesand Dimensions of JobAuthority
Job authorityhas been conceptualizedand subsequentlymeasuredin a variety
of ways. Two majorclassificationsof authorityhave dominatedsociological literature:control over organizationalresourcesand control over humanresources.
Withinthese two possibilities, severaltypes of organizationalauthorityhave been
identified. Ownershipin the form of control over the means of production,also
known as control over the labor power of others (Wrightet al. 1982), is perhaps
the ultimate form of authority,but researchershave traditionallyconceptualized
ownership as something separate from authority---especiallyin postindustrial
societies (Dahrendorf1959). Sanctioning authority or span of responsibilityincludes the ability to influence the pay or promotionsof others (Mueller et al.
1989, Wrightet al. 1995). Span of control-denotes the numberof people under
directsupervision(Muelleret al. 1989). Decision-makingor managerialauthority
relatesto organizationalpolicy decisions, controlover products,services, budgets,
or purchases(Rosenfeld et al. 1998). Also, hierarchicalauthorityposition refers
to an individual'sformallocationwithinthe structureof organizationalhierarchies
(Kluegel 1978, Wrightet al. 1982, Speath 1985, Wrightet al. 1995). Finally,measuresof supervisoryauthorityestablishwhetheran individual"supervisesanyone
on the job," a query,however,thatfails to distinguishnominal supervisorystatus
(relaying informationfrom superiorsto subordinates)from the exercise of real
authority(Wrightet al. 1982, p. 714). Thus, there are multiple types and various
dimensions of authority.Because of this, researchershave approachedthe study
512
SMTH
of race andgenderdisparitiesin authorityfrommanydifferentangles-a fact that,
as discussedbelow, paintsa multidimensionaland often ambiguouspictureof the
extent of racial and gendergaps in authority.
THEORYAND MEASUREMENT
OF AUTHORITY
In his provocativebook, Class and Class Conflictin IndustrialSociety(1959), Ralf
Dahrendorfdeveloped a theorydetailingthe importanceof authority,specifically
job authority,in postindustrialorganizations.He arguedthat differentialsin job
authoritywere critical in understandingthe dynamicsof class relationsand class
conflict in modem society. Even though it is beyond the scope of this chapterto
discuss the debate surroundingthe source of class conflict, it is importantto pinpoint Dahrendorf'schief departurefrom Marx. For Dahrendorf,class formation
and class conflict ensue not from opposing intereststhatexist in the relationsbetween those who own the means andproductionversusthose who do not, as Marx
would contend. Instead, importantsocietal changes flowing from the onset and
developmentof industrializationhave led to the separationof those who own the
meansof productionfromthose who exercisecontroloverthe meansof production
in the form of legitimateauthorityover both organizationalresourcesand human
resources (Lopreato 1967, 1968, Hazelrigg 1972, Fox et al. 1977, Robinson &
Kelley 1979, Vanneman& Cannon1987). Dahrendorfposits authorityas the basic
determinantof class divisionin postindustrialsociety wherebyconflictensues over
the mannerin which authorityis unequallydistributedin society (Lopreato1967,
p. 281). Since conflict necessitates two opposing groups, Dahrendorfconceptualized authorityin strict dichotomous terms (i.e., those who exercise authority
versusthose who are subjectto it). Because this constructionhas importantimplications for the mannerin which authorityis measuredin quantitativeanalyses of
job inequality,it has met with widespreaddebate. Some have arguedthat a more
accuratedepictionof the postindustrialworkplacewould lead to an expandedconceptualizationof authoritybased on various hierarchicaland multidimensional
configurations(Lopreato1967, 1968, Robinson 1979, Robinson & Kelley 1979).
A brief review of this literaturefollows.
Dichotomous VersusPolytomous Authority
Presaging a later debate in authorityresearch on whether authorityshould be
conceptualized and measured as a class or status variable (Wright & Perrone
1977, Halaby & Weakliem 1993), Van den Berghe (1963) deridedDahrendorf's
tendency to view class conflict in solely dichotomous terms. According to Van
den Berghe, "Reducingevery conflict situationto a dualist opposition involves
strainingthe facts. Dahrendorfexperiencesthe same difficultyas Marxin handling
'intermediategroups"'(p. 701).
The debate over whetherjob authorityis better conceived as a dichotomous
variable (having authority or not) or polytomous variable (no, low, and high
AUTHORITY
RACE,GENDER,ANDWORKPLACE
513
authority,etc.) marks an importantchapterin the annals of authorityresearch.
While some evidence supportsDahrendorf'soriginal two-categoryconstruction
of authority(Jackman& Jackman1983, Vanneman& Cannon1987), strongempirical evidence points to importantdifferencesbetween incumbentsof low andhigh
positions of authoritynot only in income (Lopreato 1968, Kluegel 1978, Smith
1997), but in subjectiveclass identificationand sociopoliticalattitudes(Robinson
& Kelley 1979). Robinson & Kelley (1979), who conductedthe most extensive
examinationof this issue, remarked:"Theauthoritycomponentof the class system
is, we suggest,best viewed not as a simpledichotomy,as Dahrendorfwouldhaveit,
but as a continuum.... Ourcontinuousversion of authorityexplains significantly
more variancein income than Dahrendorf'sdichotomy,indicatingthat there are
importantincome differenceswithin the commandclass" (p. 54).
When removed from larger sociological concerns of how best to characterize the stratificationorder,the mode of operationalizingworkplaceauthorityhas
largely dependedon the kinds of researchquestions being asked. In cases where
researchersare simply interestedin the questionof who has authorityversus who
does not, a simple dichotomous measure of authorityhas sufficed (Bridges &
Miller 1979, p. 678, Hill & Morgan 1979, Wolf & Fligstein 1979a,b, Hill 1980,
Halaby 1986, Vanneman& Canon 1987). However,in othercases, the relativedistributionof authoritymay be measuredaccordingto the amountof authority(i.e.,
mean levels) thatan individualor grouphas, or perhapsone's location withinhierarchicalauthoritystructures.In eithercase, both scalarand polytomousmeasures
of authorityare appropriate(Kluegel 1978, Robinson & Kelley 1979, Kalleberg
& Griffin 1980, Wright et al. 1982, Spaeth 1985, Mueller et al. 1989). As discussed below, group differencesin both access to job authorityand its effects on
workplaceoutcomes significantlyvary dependingon how authorityis measured.
The debateover whetherto operationalizeauthorityas a dichotomousor polytomous variableis very much linked to theoreticaland empiricaldebatesover the
quantitativeuse of class typologies versus statusscales in social stratificationstudies. A surveyof this literaturerevealsthreeimportantfoci linkedto the development
of authorityresearch:the synthesisof opposingtheoriesof social stratification,the
operationalizationand measurementof job authorityfor predictionsof earnings
inequality,and the assessmentof race and sex differencesin access to and income
returnsfor authority.These threeareasof study are addressedin sequence below.
Authority as Class Typologies or Status Scales
The origins of the class versus statusdebate in authorityresearchmay be traced
to Wright & Perrone's (1977) attemptto link Marxist theory with quantitative
assessmentsof social inequality.Two sourcesof class differentiationcharacterized
theirmodel: ownershipof the means of productionand the availabilityof control
by respondentsover the labor power of others. Here the focus is on the latter.
Respondentsfrom ISR's Surveyof WorkingConditions (1969) were asked, "Do
you superviseanyoneas partof yourjob?"(p. 36). Individualsansweringyes to this
514
SMITH
questionwere placed in the managercategory,which aptlydescribesan individual
who has authorityover subordinatesin the workplacebut is also dominatedby the
ownersof the means of production-the "intermediate"or "ambiguous"category
describedby Vanden Berghe.While this is a difficultcategoryto classify withina
traditionalMarxianframework(Parcel& Mueller1983), it representsan important
extension of Marx'straditionalclass model for use in quantitativeresearch.
As with Wrightandhis colleagues, Robinson& Kelley (1979) andKalleberg&
Griffin(1980) viewed social stratificationresearchas one dominatedby the status
attainmenttradition,which proponentsof the conflict approachsaw as obscuring
an analysis of the inequalityflowing from contradictoryclasses within hierarchical work structures.Robinson & Kelley took themselves to be bridgingthe gap
between the Blau & Duncan (1967) paradigm(e.g., status attainment/American
tradition)and the class conflict/Europeantheoriesofferedby KarlMarx and Ralf
Dahrendorf.The former,which grewout of a Weberiantraditionof class inequality
(Blau 1977), stressed the importanceof individuallife chances as a function of
marketrelations.Key indicatorslike education,training,and work experiencenot
only dominatedthis perspective,but such measureswere particularlyamenableto
operationalizationalong a continuousscale.
The conflictapproach,in contrast,emphasizeddiscreteclassificationsinvolving
individuals or groups located within the relational structureof ownership and
controlof productionand was far less the subjectof quantitativeresearchpriorto
Wright'sconstruction.In fact, Dahrendorf's(1959, p. 171) argumentthatauthority
does not permitthe constructionof a scale denotes the reluctanceon the part of
Europeanconflicttheoriststo see beyonddiscreteclass categories-a myopia that
was as severe as American sociologists' inability to see beyond status scales.
While there were deeper theoreticaland empirical rifts between American and
Europeansociologists (e.g., differentways of conceptualizingandverifying social
inequality),Wright'scontribution,andmoreexplicitly,Robinson& Kelley's work,
served a deliberateunifying purpose.Before such efforts, it would be difficultto
argue with Robinson & Kelley's assertion that "the Blau-Duncan and conflict
traditionstend to deal only with theirschool's model of stratificationandto ignore
othermodels"(p. 42).
Drawing on the strengths of the status attainmentand conflict traditions,
Robinson & Kelley showed that a synthesis of Marx and Dahrendorfvariables
producedstatisticallysignificanteffects on income in the United States and Great
Britain.Specifically,once the synthesizedvariables(i.e., controlover the meansof
productionand the exerciseof authority)areincludedin modelspredictingincome,
the amountof varianceexplainedincreasesby nearly50%over andabovethe Blau
& Duncanstatusmodel for men butnot women.Robinson& Kelley concludedthat
two stratificationsystems existed-one based on Marx'smeans of productionand
Dahrendorf'sjob authorityandtheotherbasedon statusas indicatedby educational
andoccupationalposition (p. 54). Interestinglyenough,the two systems aresaidto
be theoreticallydistinctand withoutoverlapin regardto the differentmechanisms
by which class and statusare passed down from one generationto another.
RACE, GENDER,AND WORKPLACEAUTHORITY
515
Going a step furtherin theirevaluation,Kalleberg& Griffin(1980) arguedthat
conflict models actuallyperformbetterthanDuncan'ssocioeconomic index (SEI)
in predictingincome. Like Robinson& Kelley, Kalleberg& Griffincapitalizedon
Wright'stypology.Theirstudyunderscoredthreeemergingideas:Class as defined
by ownershipand supervisorycontrol is an importantsource of income inequality; class and occupationalstatusare distinctentities thatmust be conceptualized
and empiricallyexaminedindependently,and Duncan's SEI does not adequately
explain inequalityin job rewards.
While the class typology versus statusscales debatewould continuefor another
decade, some researchersfound the need to unify ratherthanchoose between the
dominantstrainsof stratificationresearch(Spaeth1985). Althoughothereffortsto
synthesizesome aspectsof this literaturewere alreadyunderway, Spaeth'sunique
approach,based on a "resourcecontrolperspective"-the idea thatorganizational
powerin controlovermonetaryresourcesandcontroloverpersonnelhadimportant
implications for earnings disparities-represented an importantadvancementin
authorityresearch.
It is importantto note the key distinctionbetween Spaeth'scontributionto the
authorityliteraturerelativeto thatof Robinson& Kelley's (1979). Both attempted
to unify importantaspects of the stratificationliterature,yet Speath's analysis is
arguablymore extensive in that he assesses the effects of four types of stratification variableson income: Wright'sclass categories, Duncan's Socioeconomic
Index,Robinson& Kelley's measuresof organizationallevel, andKluegel's scalar
measureof supervisoryauthority.Robinson & Kelley, on the other hand, assess
the effects of only two types of stratificationvariableson income: class variables
drawnfromconcepts developedby Marx,Dahrendorf,andWright,andtraditional
statusattainmentvariables(father'sandrespondent'seducationandoccupation)as
offeredby Blau & Duncan.The empiricalquestionaddressedby Spaeth,Robinson
& Kelley, Kalleberg& Griffin,and laterHalaby& Weakliemis whethercontinuous/statusvariablesarebetterat predictingincome/earningsthanarediscrete/class
variables.
In determiningwhich set of stratificationvariablesarebetterpredictorsof earnings, Spaethshows thatmeasuresof controloverpersonnelandmonetaryresources
arenot only strongdeterminantsof earnings,butthey reduceto nonsignificancethe
effects of both statusattainmentvariablesand generalmeasuresof authority(i.e.,
whetheror not a respondenthas supervisorystatus).Halaby & Weakliem(1993)
arguedthat,when it came to predictingearningsinequality,Wright'sdiscreteclass
categorieswere not as elegant and parsimoniousas continuous(scalar)measures
of social status such as those offered by Robinson & Kelley (1979) and Spaeth
(1985). At this juncture,authorityresearchunderwentan importantshift from an
emphasis on whetherclass or status models were better at predictingincome to
the practicalperils of linking general theory to the narrowerquestion of variable
measurement.
In offeringa moresimplifiedconceptualizationandsubsequentmeasurementof
the controlsourcesof earningsinequality,Halaby& WeakliemchallengedWright's
516
SMITH
class model on the groundsthat it lacked conceptualand operationalcoherence
and because it was not as parsimoniousas models offeredby others.They argued
that "Wrightintroducedtwo different,even competing, class typologies, but no
empiricalgroundsto choose between them"(p. 17).
In response, Wright (1993) argued that, at best, the question of whether to
use scales or typologies to predict earningsdependedon the researchquestions
and the theoreticalparadigmon which they are based. Wright contended that
the kinds of questions he was asking, rooted as they were in the theoretical
bases of contradictoryclass locations,were particularlysuitablefor hypothesizing
aboutthe causal mechanismthatled to earningsinequalitybased on discreteclass
categories.2Constructedon an eight-pointcontinuousscale, Halaby& Weakliem's
authoritymeasure-Wright would contend-fundamentally obscuredthe underlying logic of contradictoryclass analysis, which, in Wright'stypology, included
the nominalcategoriesof capitalist,workers,andthe difficultto classify categories
of managersand supervisors(p. 34).
The Wright/Halabyexchangeis importantbeyond what it reveals aboutthe dialecticalmannerin which authorityresearchhas developedin the last two decades.
On a deeper level, the debate highlights the chasm between theory development
and theory testing. The gap between the two is often wide and only infrequently
and ratherimperfectlybridged.While theories may be well developed, ways of
accuratelytesting them may be less so. By the same token, variablesthat are indicatorsof some social phenomenamay be appropriatelymeasured,but theirlink
to well-developedtheoriesmay be tenuousat best.
Nearly a decade afterthe Wright/Halabyexchange, the questionof whetherto
use continuousscales versuscategoricaltypologies to trackthe processesthatlead
to earningsinequalityin returnsto authoritymay very well remaina moot issue.
Studentsof stratificationhave benefitedfrom this debate.Wright'srefrainthat"it
all depends on the researchquestion"cannot be disputed,and Halaby's call for
more parsimoniousand coherentoperationalizationsof key explanatoryvariables
across studiesis as poignanttoday as it was nearlya decade ago. Perhapswhatwe
learnedmost fromthe aforementioneddebatesis thatany attemptto conceptualize
hiscritics,non-Marxian
andMarxian
tonotethatWrightanticipated
2Itis interesting
alike,at
a worthyendeavor
theveryinceptionof hiscomparative
projectbutthoughtit,nonetheless,
Marxism'runsa numberof significantrisks.By
to pursue.As he noted:"'Multivariate
andmeasurea rangeof centralconceptswithinthe Marxian
proposingto operationalize
tradition,it risksreducingthe complexityof thoseconceptsto a few simpleempirical
categories.By deployingtheseempiricalmeasuresin statisticalmodels,it riskslosingthe
Marxistsgenerallyadvocate.And
of theexplanations
'dialectical'anddynamiccharacter
as 'testablehypotheses'within
canbe formulated
by suggestingthatMarxianarguments
multivariate
equations,it encouragesempiricistattackswhichmayfrequentlydo moreto
of theComparative
confusethanclarifyissues.Theunderlying
ProjectonClass
assumption
hasbeenthattheserisksareworthtaking"(Wright1989,
andClassConsciousness
Structure
p. 16).
RACE, GENDER,AND WORKPLACEAUTHORITY
517
or operationalizethe stratificationorderbasedon a single variableis boundto offer
a mere partialglimpse of society at any given point in time. Otis Dudley Duncan
made the point this way:
Thereis no suchthingas a single index of socioeconomic statussuitablefor all
purposesof social researchin a modem, complex society. Even in small and
staticcommunitiesof the United States, it is a patentoversimplificationof the
facts to suppose that the whole populationmay be placed unambiguouslyin
intervalsof a single scale of "class"or "status."Given the actualcomplexity
and multidimensionalityof the stratificationstructure,any particularvariable
or index can at best reflecta selected aspectof a structurethatmay be strategic
froma certainpointof view. (Duncan1961, p. 139;quotedin Wolf & Fligstein
1979a, p. 104.)
This suggests that prior syntheses of multiple conceptualizationsof society
(class and status viewpoints), and multiple operationalizationsof stratification
measures and indices (dichotomous,polytomous, and scalar approaches),represent the firstbest steps to approximatinga more complete pictureof the stratification order(Robinson& Kelley 1979, Spaeth 1985).
In a roundaboutway, it would be the lack of such a synthetic approachthat
would give rise to studies of race and gender differences in authorityat work.
Importantresearchfrom the status attainmenttraditionwould produce findings
that appearedincongruentwith what was known at the time about the distribution of minorities (mainly blacks) and women in the stratificationorder.When
comparedto earlier time periods, key indicatorsof stratification(education,occupational status, and income) showed significant improvementsfor blacks in
absolute terms and relative to whites during the 1970s (Featherman& Hauser
1978, Hout 1984). Similarly, gender studies of status attainmentreportedthat
men and women had similar levels of occupationalstatus and very few differences in the processes that led to occupationalattainment(Featherman& Hauser
1976, Treiman& Terrell1975). Both sets of findingsseemed counterintuitiveand
raised questions about whetherstatus attainmentindicatorswere indeed capable
of fully capturingthe contours of race and gender inequality.Such suspicions
gave rise to empirical assessments of different (i.e., smaller) units of analyses
such as the characteristicsof the types of jobs that blacks and whites and men
and women occupy. With this backdrop,the study of the "job"and specifically
"job power" in the form of legitimate authorityemerged as an importantfocus
in studies of race and gender stratification.Two broadresearchquestions would
come to framethe literatureon race, gender,and authorityat work. Are therenet
racial and gender differences in authorityattainment?Are there race and gender
differences in the amountof income received for occupying similarpositions of
authorityat work? When consideringthe sheer numberof studies attemptingto
answer these two questions, it is clear that the study of ascriptivedifferences is
the single most importantresearchfocus among authorityresearchersin the last
two decades. Before summarizingthe main findings from this literature,a brief
518
SMITH
discussionof selective theoriesof race andgenderdifferencesin authorityis worth
reviewing.
EXPLANATIONS FOR RACE AND GENDER
DIFFERENCES IN JOB AUTHORITY
Explanationsfor theprocessesthatproduceandsustainraceandgenderdifferences
in the determinantsand consequencesof job authoritymay be loosely categorized
as eithersupply-sideor demand-sideexplanationsaimedat the level of individuals
(micro-level theories), society at large (macro-structurallevel theories), or jobs,
organizations,occupations,and industries(meso-level theories).
Micro Theories (Individual Level)
Early attemptsto explain race and gender differences in job authorityrelied on
theories popularin occupationalsegregationand wage discriminationliterature
(Hill 1980). Humancapital and status attainmentexplanations,drawnfrom neoclassical economics (Becker 1964, Thurow1969) and sociology (Blau & Duncan
1967, Sewell & Hauser1972, Featherman& Hauser1978), respectively,provided
a set of assumptionsthatpointedto the behaviorsandcharacteristicsof individuals
in the form of investmentsin the attributesthat were thoughtto lead to authority.
Accordingto this view, women and minoritiesmay have less authoritythanwhite
men because they have lower investmentsin factors such as training,education,
and experience,or because they have less seniorityor intermittentlaborforce attachment.Such factors may increase the likelihood of attainingauthoritywhile
simultaneouslyserving as forces thatlegitimize the authoritystructure(Wright&
Perrone1977).
Moreover,both human capital and status attainmentapproachesassume that
strategic decisions or aspirationsmay drive the career choices of individuals.
Within the context of authorityresearch,these approachessuggest that women
more so than men may opt out of contentionfor positions of authoritybecause
they place less value on workplaceauthority(see England1992, p. 19 and Reskin
& Padavic 1994, pp. 77-78 for a discussion), or because women are more likely
then men to assumefamily responsibilities(Wolf & Fligstein's 1979a, D'Amico's
1986, Jaffee 1989, Wrightet al. 1995, Hopcraft1996, Baxter 1997). Phrasessuch
as compensatingdifferentials(Filer 1985, Jacobs & Steinberg1990) and mommy
track(Ehrlich 1989) denote the idea that women'spreferences,either because of
gender-rolesocialization(Reskin & Padavic 1994, p. 41) or rationalchoices, may
promptthem to self-select themselves out of contentionfor positions of authority
due to family responsibilities(Baron 1987, Wadman1992). However,despite its
potentialimportance,the associationbetween family statusandjob authorityhas
not been fully explored.
Even though race and gender differences in human capital attributesdo not
fully explain race and gender gaps in authority,studies show that investments
in human capital significantly increase the odds of gaining access to authority
AUTHORITY
RACE,GENDER,ANDWORKPLACE
519
(Kluegel 1978, Halaby 1979, Hill 1980, Jacobs 1992, Smith 1997, Wilson 1997b,
Ross & Reskin 1992). However,the presence and magnitudeof such effects may
depend on how authorityis measured.Some researchshows that when authority
is measuredaccordingto the numberof subordinatessupervised(spanof control),
there is no effect of education on the authorityattainmentof blacks and whites
(Muelleret al. 1989), but hierarchicalauthoritymeasuresshow thatunit increases
in educationfacilitatethe movementof both black and white employees into both
lower and higherlevels of authority(Smith 1997, Wilson 1997b).
In race and gender studies, most attentiongiven to the hypothesized effects
of human capital variables on authorityassesses whether or not minorities and
women are requiredto have higher levels of humancapitalinvestmentsthantheir
white male counterpartsto reach similarlevels of authority.Clear evidence supportsthis contention.The effects of humancapitalvariableson authorityare more
pronouncedamongblacks thanwhites (Kluegel 1978, Muelleret al. 1989, Wilson
1997b, Smith 2001). Womenin Sweden have to have more work experiencethan
men to receive similarauthorityrewards(Hutlin 1996, 1998, p. 107), and women
in the United Statesachievedmuchless authoritythanmen with similarschooling
andexperience(Wolf & Fligstein 1979a,b,Halaby 1979, McGuire& Reskin 1993,
p. 494).
In summary,humancapitalinvestmentsarevitally importantfor usheringworkers into positions of authority,regardlessof race or gender.The relativeeffects of
such variableson authority,while generallypositive, appearto vary dependingon
the mannerin which authorityis measured.Moreover,the ratesof returnin authority to humancapitalinvestmentsvarysignificantlyby race andgender,with blacks
and women receiving less authoritythanwhites and men, respectively,for similar
levels of humancapitalinvestments.But as importantas humancapitalvariables
are (especially at the entry ports of the authoritydistribution),their effects often
variablesaretaken
disappearor aresignificantlydiminishedonce structural-related
into account(Kluegel 1978, Smith 1997).
MacroStructuralTheories (SocietalLevel)
Structuralexplanationsfor ascriptiveinequalityin the distributionof authorityand
in earningsreturnsto authorityrepresentan importantcounterweightto individuallevel attainmentmodels. Fromthe very beginning,authorityresearcherssurmised
that apartfrom the unequaldistributionof humancapitalendowments,minorities
and women had differentialaccess to positions of authorityin the workplacebecause they were disproportionatelylocated in the most marginalizedstructuresof
the economy.3The macrostructuralindicatorstypically used to explain ascriptive
differences in authorityare region (Mueller et al. 1989, Smith 1997, 1999), city
3It is importantto note that both race and sex may be viewed as a dimension of social
structure(Blau 1977). At the same time, positions within and between authorityhierarchies constitute the structuralentities within which race and sex groups are unequally
distributed-ostensibly, as discussed below, because of the statusassociatedwith minority
and female identity.
520
SMITH
size (Smith 1999), industrialsector (Mueller et al. 1989), and employment sector (Wilson 1997b). Other structuralpredictorsof authorityhave been classified
accordingto union versus non-union status (Kluegel 1978, Mueller et al. 1989,
Smith2001), andmorerecently,race/ethnicconcentrationof workersoperationalized at the level of the workplace,local industrialsectors, and local occupational
groupings(Elliott& Smith2001, Smith& Elliott,forthcoming).Along these lines,
minorities and women are more likely to have authorityin economic structures
where they exist in large concentrationslike the South, the public sector, within
coethnicenclaves, andin industriesor locales moresusceptibleto economic downturns(Muelleret al. 1989, McGuire& Reskin 1993, Wilson 1997b, Smith 1999,
Smith & Elliott forthcoming).
Additionally,it standsto reason that neo-institutionaldynamics influence the
authorityattainmentof womenandminorities.Factorssuchas the outsideinfluence
of periodicorganizationalreview,governmentpolicy, and both the size and age of
an organizationmay make it more or less amenableto the inclusionof women and
minoritiesin its managerialand authorityranks(Baronet al. 1991, Marsdenet al.
1996, Huffman1995, 1999, Tomaskovic-Devey& Skaggs 1999). Both genderand
racial equality at work appearto be more pronouncedin large organizations,in
the public sector, in newer ratherthan older organi7ations,in organizationssubject to periodicreview, duringperiods of EEO enforcement,and in organizations
thathave formalizedpersonnelpolicy (Baronet al. 1991, Wilson 1997b, Huffman
1999, 1995). However, save for a few studies that control for public sector employmentandestablishmentsize, authorityresearchhas not specificallytakeninto
accountthe directeffects of governmentalpolicies on authorityoutcomes.Instead,
public sectoremploymentandlargeestablishmentsareoften treatedas proxies for
antidiscrimination
policies becausepublicsectoremployersandemployersof large
organizationsare more susceptiblethanprivatesector and small organizationsto
governmentinfluence.
By and large, neither the separatenor the additive effects of structuraland
human capital factors explain race and gender differences in authorityor ascriptive disparities in the economic rewardsthat flow from authority.For this
reason, researchershave considered the role of employer discriminationin the
authorityattainmentprocess. Two employer-sideexplanationsof race and gender discriminationin authorityhave dominatedthe literaturein recent years, including social closure/segregationand homosocial reproduction.These factors
are loosely described below as meso-level theories of discriminationbecause
majority-groupgatekeeperspositionedattheentryportsandpromotionalladdersof
jobs/organizationsor establishmentsare typically chargedwith the responsibility
of makingthe kindsof decisions thatoften lead to the exclusion of some minorities
and women.
Meso-Level Theories of Discrimination
Meso-level theoriesof discriminationarerootedin the idea that
who occupy positions of authorityat work have a vested
members
majoritygroup
SOCIAL CLOSURE
RACE, GENDER,AND WORKPLACEAUTHORITY
521
interestin maintainingtheirhegemonyover such positions anddo so by excluding
candidateswho differ from them in racial and gender identity.Exclusionarytheories allow for both conscious and not-so-conscious acts of discrimination.Max
Weber's(1968) idea of "social closure,"its recent applicationto analyses of race
and sex job/occupationalsegregation(Tomaskovic-Devey1993a,b,Reskin 1993),
the concept of "statisticaldiscrimination,"and class conflict (Dahrendorf1959,
Wright & Perrone 1977) approaches,may each be classified as a conscious act
of exclusion on the part of authorityelites. On the societal level, social closure
underscoresthe idea thatpolitical and social elites preservepower and privileges
by limiting opportunitiesfor mobility to themselves or similarothers. Social closure may assume two additionalprocesses of exclusion: Minorities and women
are likely to be segregatedinto the kinds of jobs, work settings, and industries
that do not confer authority,but even when such factors are taken into account,
they are still less likely than their white male counterpartsto exercise authority
(Tomaskovic-Devey1991, 1993, Reskin & Padavic 1994, p. 96, Elliott & Smith
2001). In a similarvein, statisticaldiscriminationdenotes the idea that gatekeepers use race and gender as a proxy for likely productivitywhen they make hiring
and promotiondecisions-especially when otherpersonalinformationabout the
candidateis lacking.
HOMOSOCIAL
REPRODUCTIONThe generallack of personalinformationand the
infrequentopportunitiesto build trust and mentorshiprelationshipsbetween authorityelites and female and minoritysubordinatesis also the basis of Rosabeth
Moss Kanter'sidea of "homosocialreproduction"(see Reskin et al. 1999 for a
summary).Except, unlike social closure, the motivationsbehind homosocial reproductionmay be a bit less conscious and overt. Although primarilyaimed at
explaining gender differences in managerialattainment,Kanter's(1977) idea of
homosocialreproductionhas garnereda significantamountof attentionamongresearchersstudyingraceandgenderdifferencesin job authority,promotionalstatus,
andpromotionalaspirations(Kluegel 1978, Muelleret al. 1989, Baldi & McBrier
1997, Pfeffer & Davis-Blake 1987, Wilson 1997b, Smith 1999, Cassirer& Reskin
2000). Kanterpointedto the inherentuncertaintyinvolvedin makingdecisions to
promotesubordinatesinto higher managerialranks.Such uncertaintyencourages
authorityelites to develop managementenclaves composed of individualswho
share a common set of social and demographiccharacteristics.Importantly,the
higher up the organizationalchain of command,the more unstructured,nonroutine, and subjectiveare the criteriafor authorityattainment.In this context, shared
understanding,solidarity,commitment,and trustare betterfacilitatedin settings
where gender homogeneity exists (Elliott & Smith 2001, p. 260). Beyond the
implicationthatmen in positions of authorityhave a tendencyto promotesubordinatemen, researchershavearguedthatthis idea partiallyexplainsracialdifferences
in promotionrates(Baldi & McBrier1997) andauthorityattainment(Muelleret al.
1989, Reskin et al. 1999, Smith & Elliott forthcoming,Elliott & Smith 2001).
The effects of homosocialreproductioncan apparentlybe mitigatedas the proportionof womenandminoritiesin an organizationincreases.Accordingto Kanter,
522
SMITH
as the proportionincreasesso does the likelihoodof availablementors,political allies, androle models-factors thatincreasethe likelihoodof managerialattainment
andcommensuratefinancialrewards.Dubbedthe strength-in-numbers
hypothesis
(Jacobs 1992), this idea runs counterto predictionsdrawnfrom Blalock's (1967)
analysisof racialsegregation.Accordingto Blalock, increasingnumbersof blacks
moving into white neighborhoodsheightenwhite resistance.Thus, withinthe context of organizationaltheory,the so-calledresistance-to-threat
hypothesissuggests
that as the proportionof women and minoritiesincreases in an organization,so
does white, male resistance(Pfeffer & Davis-Blake 1987, Jacobs 1992). Adjudicating between the two hypotheseshas been difficultdue to the lack of firm-level
analyses.
Bottom-Up Ascription
Recent research on race- and sex-based descriptionin the authorityattainment
process stresses the tendencyon the partof authorityelites to match subordinates
andsupervisorson the basis of raceandsex (Tsui & O'Reilly 1989, Elliott& Smith
2001). Whereashomosocial reproductionand social closure denote top-downexclusionaryprocesses on the partof authorityelites, bottom-upascriptionhas been
describedas an attenuatingstrategywhereby,at the bottomof organizationalhiergroupson the
archies,employersactively seek to matchsubordinate/superordinate
basis of race andethnicityas a meansof reducingperceptionsof discriminationon
the partof subordinateracial/ethnicminorities(Elliott & Smith 2001). According
to Elliott& Smith(2001, p. 261), "bottom-uppressuresfor ethnicmatching,regardless of the source,push againsttop-downpressuresof homosocialreproductionto
influencewhen andwheremembersof particularminoritygroupsarelikely to gain
To the extentthatminoritieshave authorityat all,
access to positionsof authority."4
at least one of threepatternsis nearly always present:Racial minoritiesare more
likely to have authorityover otherracial minorities;subordinateracial minorities
are more likely thanmajoritygroupmembersto have minoritysuperiors;and minorities are more likely thanmajoritygroupmembersto exercise authorityat the
bottom of organizationalhierarchies-where, not surprisingly,racial minorities
tend to be disproportionatelyrepresented.Not only is more researchneeded in
this areato more precisely delineatethe mechanismsthatpropel these processes,
but we also need a deeperunderstandingof the consequencesof such patternsfor
minorityperceptionsof workplacediscrimination.
groupsandtheirchampipartiallydenotestheideathatsubordinate
4Bottom-up
ascription
ons arenot completelypowerlessandpassiveagentsin the authorityattainment
process.
influenceonthepartof subordinate
groups(ortheiragents)pressingforchange
Endogenous
at
andexogenousforcesoperating
fromwithinorganizations
(i.e.,diversitycouncils/teams)
actionandEEOlaws)mayserveto mitigate
local,state,andfederallevels(i.e.,affirmative
elites.
on thepartof authority
whatwouldotherwisebe completeascriptivereproduction
Moretargetedresearchin thisareais needed.
AUTHORITY
RACE,GENDER,ANDWORKPLACE
523
Relational/Organi-ationalDemography
The racial and gender composition of organizationsand the impact that such
composition has on organizationaloutcomes is an importantarea of investigation among sociologists (Baron & Bielby 1980, Pfeffer 1983).5 This approach
arguesthatone's demographiccharacteristicsin relationto othersinfluenceinteraction between co-workersand supervisorsin a mannerthat mediates a variety
of individual-leveland organizational-leveloutcomes at work (Tsui & O'Reilly
1989, Tsui et al. 1992, Tsui & Gutek 1999)-including job authority.Similarities
or differences in the race/ethnicand gender characteristicsof one's co-workers
and superiorsmay either enhance or decrease one's workplace experiences. A
findingin the organizationaldemographyliteratureprovidessome justificationfor
why white men might want to exclude minorities and women from positions of
authority.Studies show that heterogeneousgroup interactionincreases negative
workplace experiences and decreased mobility chances for white men (Tsui &
O'Reilly 1989, Tsui et al. 1992, Smith 2001), but white men benefit most from
working in coethnic occupationalstructures(Smith & Elliott, forthcoming).In
this context, the inclusionary/exclusionarypropertiesof homosocial reproduction
may be seen as more a matterof self-preservationand less a matterof benign or
proximatediscrimination.
The next section presents a review of the causes and economic consequences
of race andgenderdifferencesin job authority.Majorfindingsarepresentedseparatelyfor race andgendergroupsfor two non-ideologicalreasons.First,save for a
few exceptions,race andgenderstudiesof authorityhavedevelopedindependently
of each other.Second, while there is some overlap,the factors that facilitate and
constrainthe authorityexperiences of women relative to men are largely different from those that structurethe authorityoutcomes of racial minoritiesrelative
to whites (Paracel& Mueller 1983, p. 158). I begin with a review of the major
findingsfromthe race andauthorityliteraturefollowed by a review of the research
on gender and authority.
THE CAUSESAND CONSEQUENCESOF
RACEDIFFERENCESIN AUTHORITY
Amid the backdropof the civil rightsmovement,studies documentingthe causes
and economic consequences of racial differences in socioeconomic status became popular among status attainmentand social class researchers(Wright &
Perrone 1977, Featherman& Hauser 1978, Kluegel 1978, Wright 1979, Hout
1984). Status attainmentand human capital approachesto understandingpatterns of socioeconomic progress noted that the early to mid-1970s ushered in a
5See Reskin et al. (1999) for a recentreview of this literature.Here the theoryis presented
as a precursorto a discussion of relevantfindingsin the authorityliterature.
524
SMITH
periodof unprecedentedblackmobility.The racialgap betweenblacks and whites
alongkey individual-levelindicatorsof attainment(education,occupationalstatus,
and income) significantlynarrowedthroughoutthe 1970s (Farley& Allen 1987).
Despite this progress,significantracialdifferencesin socioeconomic achievement
remainedfirmlyintact,and researcherswere interestedin findingout why. In this
context,the studyof race differencesin the determinantsand consequencesof job
authorityfor income emerged as an importantarea of sociological investigation.
Severalimportantresearchquestionsframethe literatureon race andjob authority:
(a) Whatis the extentof bothracial(Kluegel 1978, Parcel& Mueller1983, Mueller
et al. 1989, G. Wilson 1997a, Smith 2001) and ethnic differences in authority
(Englandet al. 1999, Smith2001, Elliott & Smith2001, Smith& Elliottforthcoming); (b) do theprocessesthatleadto authoritydifferfor blacksandwhites (Kluegel
1978, Parcel& Mueller 1983, Muelleret al. 1989, G. Wilson 1997a, Smith2001);
(c) what is the financial cost of racial exclusion from authority(Kluegel 1978,
Parcel & Mueller 1983, Smith 1997, Wilson 1997b); and (d) to what extent does
the racialdemographyof the workplaceinfluencethe authorityattainmentprocess
of black, white, Asian, and Latino men and women (Smith 2001, Elliott & Smith
2001, Smith & Elliott, forthcoming)?
The Extentof Racial/EthnicDifferencesin JobAuthority
The raceandauthorityliteraturehas largelybeen restrictedto studiesof blacks and
whites, perhapsbecause these groups were at the center of civil rights struggles
duringthe 1960s and 1970s. The majorfindingsfrom this literatureextendedwhat
was knownaboutconsistentpatternsof racialdisparitiesalong key socioeconomic
indicators.Regardlessof the data source or the measureof authorityunderconsideration,a clear and consistent finding may be gleaned from the literatureon
race/ethnicityand authority.Namely,blacks areless likely thanwhites to exercise
authorityin the workplace,and the authoritygap is not fully explained by race
differencesin human capital investments,parentalbackground,or where blacks
are located in the labor market(Kluegel 1978, Wright 1979, Parcel & Mueller
1983, Mueller et al. 1989, McGuire & Reskin 1993, Smith 1997, Smith 1999,
Wilson 1997b). Moreover,the largestracialdisparityoccursat higherlevels of occupationalstatuswherethe criteriafor promotionareoften vague relativeto lower
occupationallevels (Kanter1977, Kluegel 1978, Smith 1999, Wilson 1997a).
Because authoritymeasures vary from one study to another,a clear understanding of the overarchingmagnitudeof the racial/ethnicgap in job authority
is difficult to ascertain.Studies based on continuousmeasuresof authoritymay
providean averageracialdifferencein the distributionof authority(Kluegel 1978),
the mean numberof subordinatesan individualsupervises (Muelleret al. 1989),
or the proportionof individualswho have say over the pay, promotion,hiring,and
firing,or broadsupervisoryor managerialcontrol over others (Parcel& Mueller
1983, Muelleret al. 1989, Englandet al. 1999, Smith 2001). Still othermeasures,
whethercontinuousor categorical,combine multipletypes of authorityindicators
AUTHORITY
RACE,GENDER,ANDWORKPLACE
525
to form hierarchicaltrichotomies(high, low, no authority)(Wilson 1997a, Smith
1997, 1999, Smith & Elliott), or composite lineardichotomies(Parcel& Mueller
1983, McGuire& Reskin 1993). Regardlessof the way authorityis measured,one
consistent finding seems clear: Minoritiesare less likely than whites to exercise
authorityat work even when all known determinantsof authorityare taken into
account.
Findings based on a Wisconsin sample show that the authorityrank of black
men is abouthalf thatof white men (Kluegel 1978, p. 290), while nationalstudies
report that white men's authorityscores range from 10% to 30% higher than
those of blacks dependingon the authoritymeasureunderconsideration(Parcel
& Mueller 1983, Mueller et al. 1989). Concerningthe more coveted positions
of authority,such as the exercise of high authority(having say over the pay and
promotionsof othersand say overhiringandfiring),white men arenearlytwice as
likely as blacks and Hispanicsto hold such positions (Smith2001, Smith& Elliott
forthcoming),while Asian men appearto be as likely as white men to have such
authority(Smith & Elliott forthcoming).Data from the 1993 wave of the National
LongitudinalSurveyof Youthshow greaterparitybetween white men andLatino
men when authorityis measuredas a dichotomousvariablebased on a whether
a respondent'scensus occupation included the title "manager"or "supervisor"
(Englandet al. 1999). Using this procedure,Englandand associates (1999) also
showed thatboth white women andLatinawomen have more authoritythenblack
men, andthe gendergap in authorityamongblacks was virtuallynon-existent(see
Englandet al. 1999, Table4.1).
Race differencesin authorityattainmentalso vary by time period.Analyses of
repeatedcross sections of GeneralSocial Surveydata(1972-1994) and datafrom
two waves of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (1976 and 1985) show thatthe
racial gap among men in accessing positions of high authority(Smith 1999) and
authorityto hire/fireandinfluencethe pay andpromotionsof subordinates(Wilson
1997b) has actuallyincreasedfrom the 1970s to mid-1990s-with the 1980s constitutingthe greatestera of inequalityamong the three decades in question. This
patternis noteworthyin its own right, but it is particularlysignificantwhen one
considersthe relativedeteriorationof black gains duringthe 1980s along otherkey
indicatorsof socioeconomic status including employment,earnings,managerial
attainment,and broadoccupationalmobility (Jaynes & Williams 1989, Leonard
1990, Nkomo & Cox 1990, Burstein& Edwards1994, Bell & Nkomo 1994, Cancio
et al. 1996, Bound & Freeman1992, Bound & Dresser 1999).6
No shortageof explanationsexists for the wideningracialgap in authority(and
othersocioeconomicindicators)duringthe 1980s. In additionto majorshifts in the
structureof the economy from a goods-producingto a service-orientedeconomy,
a patternthatled to increasedblack unemployment,the 1980s usheredin a period
of intensewhite oppositionto affirmativeaction(Bobo & Smith 1994), a reduction
sex integration
alsoslowedduringthe 1980swhencompared
to
6Thepaceof occupational
previousdecades(Reskin1993;Adler1993).
526
SMTH
or complete eliminationof affirmativeaction practiceson the partof many firms
(Kelly & Dobbin 1998), andnoticeablyweakerenforcementof equalemployment
opportunitylaws (Leonard1990, pp. 58-59). While the associationbetweenthese
factors and declines in black authorityattainmentis more than plausible, more
research,in line with neo-institutionalapproaches(Tomaskovic-Devey& Skaggs
1999), is needed to drawa tighterlink between externalenvironmentalinfluences
and ascriptivedifferencesin authorityoutcomes.
RaceDifferencesin the Processesthat Leadto Authority
Manyof the importantdeterminantsof authoritydifferfor blacksandwhites either
becauseemployersrewardthe credentialsof one groupmore thanthe other,or because the variablesthatimproveor detractfromthe authoritychancesof one group
have no observableimpacton the othergroup.In eithercase, when this occursin a
quantitativeframework,it providesstrongevidence thatthe races reach authority
throughdemonstrablydifferentmeans.The findingthatthereareimportantdifferences betweenblacks andwhites in the processesthatusherworkersinto authority
has not been contradictedsince it was firstobservedby Kluegel (1978).
Race differencesin educationalattainment(Kluegel 1978) and in the amount
of authorityreturnsto some humancapitalfactorsare importantbut not dominant
sourcesof racialdisparitiesin authority.Black women receive a lower returnthan
white women for similar investmentsin firm tenure (McGuire & Reskin 1993,
p. 495-96). Structuralfactorsplay a moreimportantrole thanhumancapitalfactors
in differentiallydistributingthe races, but the combined effects of both human
capital and structuraldeterminantsstill leave much of the racial gap in authority
unexplained(Smith 1999). Race differencesin the additiveeffects of humancapital
credentialsand a varietyof structuralindicatorshelp to explainrace differencesin
thedistributionof authority.Regardlessof themannerin whicheconomic structures
areoperationalized,blacks andLatinostendto be at the bottomof such structures,
which tends to decreasetheirchances of gaining authorityrelativeto whites.
Assessments of whetherthe processes that lead to authoritydiffer for minorities and whites are often based on observationsof race/ethnicspecific regression
results for minorities and whites. After establishing a basis for comparingcoefficients across race-specificmodels, differences and similaritiesin the number
of statistically significant determinantsof authorityare observed. Since human
capital and structuralindicatorssignificantlyimpact the authorityattainmentof
minoritiesmore thanwhites, researchershave concludedthatthe authorityattainment process of minoritiesis more circumscribedand governedby a tighter set
of rules than that of their white counterparts(Muelleret al. 1989, Wilson 1997a,
Smith 2001).
The Consequencesof RaceDifferences
in AuthorityAttainmentfor Income
The first studies to link job authorityto race and income sought to shed further
light on the sources of black-white differences in socioeconomic status using
RACE, GENDER,AND WORKPLACEAUTHORITY
527
positions within authoritystructuresas an indicatorof earningsinequality(Wright
& Perrone 1977, Kluegel 1978). Wright'swork in this arearepresentsone of the
firstexaminationsof race differencesregardingthe consequencesof authority(as
class position) for group disparitiesin income (Wright& Perrone 1977; Wright
1978, 1979). An importantfinding in this researchrevealed no discernablerace
differences in income returnsto education within class/authoritycategories-a
findingthatsuggestedclass was moreimportantthanraceas a factorthatdetermines
the life chances of blacks relativeto whites.7
Wright'sresearchaddedan importantwrinkleabsentin statusattainmentstudies of race differencesin educationalreturnsto income. Accordingto Wright,the
effects of race on income, while importantin their own right, operatethroughthe
positionsthatracialgroupsoccupy withinandbetweenworkplacestructures(what
Wrightrefersto as the "socialrelationsof production").Because black men occupied the lowest positions in the managerialhierarchy,they receivedcomparatively
less economic payoff thantheirwhite male counterpartsfor becoming a manager
(Wright& Perrone1977, p. 52). The dominanceof class effects over racialeffects
on income in Wright'sresearchdid not mean thatrace was not an importantfactor
that determinedthe life chance of blacks. Wrightcautionedagainstthis interpretationnoting thatit would be erroneousto assumethat"allracialdiscriminationis
reallydisguisedclass oppression"(1979, p. 197).8Instead,he speculatedthatracial
discriminationmay in fact take place duringthe prelabormarketand promotional
stages of the employmentprocess. In fact, we now know that race differencesin
prelabormarketfactorsdo not accountfor much of the net disparitiesin authority
or income. Instead,as much as we can discern,racialdisparitiesin income accrue
because blacks receive comparativelylower returnsthan whites to their human
capital investments,even when they occupy similar levels of authorityand are
located in the same industries(Kluegel 1978, McGuire& Reskin 1993). McGuire
& Reskin found thata full 55% of the earningsgap between white men and black
men, and 62% of the earningsgap between black women and white men was accounted for by the comparativelylower returnsthat blacks receive for occupying
similarauthoritylevels andindustriallocationsas whites andhaving similarlevels
of humancapital(p. 499). However,databased on young cohortsof black, white,
and Latino men and women suggest that authorityonly explains about2% of the
pay differencesbetween ethnic and gendergroups,but the authorsspeculatethat
this findingmay be attributedto the way they measuredauthority(Englandet al.
1999, p. 166, fn 16).
In addition,evidence suggests thatracial discriminationis more likely to take
place at higher levels of the authoritystructure(Kluegel 1978). Kluegel's work
showedthatblackmen receive a lower income returnto authoritythando whiteswith the income disparitymore pronouncedat higher authoritylevels. Kluegel
7Asdiscussedbelow,Wrightalsoexaminedwhethertherewereinteractions
betweenclass
andsex.Explicittestingof thesignificance
of raceandsexwouldlateremergeasa centralfocusof severalauthority
studies(Reskin& Ross 1992;Wilson1997a,b;Smith1997,1999).
8SeeWright(1979,pp. 197-207)fora detaileddiscussionof racismandclassdomination.
528
SMITH
calculated the cost of black men's exclusion from positions of authorityto be
aboutone thirdof the total black/whiteincome gap.
Longitudinaldata from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (1975, 1976)
furtherunderscoretwo previousfindingsbased on cross-sectionaldata:Race (and
sex) differencesin earningsare partlydue to differentialaccess to span of control
and spanof responsibility;andclass and/orauthoritywill have a substantialeffect
on earningsnet of humancapitalandlabormarketcharacteristics(Parcel& Mueller
1983). Accordingto Parcel& Mueller,racialdisparitiesin earningsare a function
of the differentlabormarketpositions blacks and whites occupy in additionto the
fact thatblacks receive unequalrates of returnfor occupying similarpositions of
authority.
Studies of change over time in the authorityattainmentprocess and income
returnsto authorityreveal that the racial gap in authorityand in the amount of
income returnsto authorityor managerialpositions has either increased(Wilson
1997a,b)or remainedconstantover time (Jacobs 1992, p. 293; Smith 1997, 1999).
As noted earlier, these patternsare associated with changes in the structureof
the economy, increases in black unemployment,and growing opposition toward
antidiscriminationlegislation and social policies designed to improveeconomic
life chances.
RacialDemographyand the AuthorityAttainmentProcess
Although researchershave long held that the racial and gender composition of
organizationsaffectsorganizationaloutcomes(Baron& Bielby 1980, Pfeffer 1983,
Pfeffer & Davis-Blake 1987), authorityanalystshave only recentlybegun to deal
with this issue acrossrace, ethnic, andgendercategories.One studyhas examined
whetherthe ethnic concentrationsof establishments,occupations,and industries
influence the authorityattainmentof white, black, Hispanic, and Asian men and
women (Elliott & Smith 2001). Using data from the Multi City Survey of Urban
Inequalityand 1990 decennial census occupationalcodes, Elliott & Smith 2001
find that racial/ethnicconcentrationamong roughly equivalentcoworkersat the
level of work groups, industries,and occupationalsectors has little effect on the
chances of minorities accessing positions of authority.However, concentration
in the form of racial/ethnicmatchingof supervisorsto subordinatework groups
exerted a strong and consistenteffect among all groups, implying that, for some
groups,authorityattainmentdependsa greatdeal on the opportunityto supervise
largely coethnic work groups (cf. Mueller et al. 1989). Elsewhere, an extended
analysis suggested that only white men benefit from homogenous occupational
niche employment(Smith & Elliott forthcoming),but unlike other groups,white
men's authorityattainmentis decreasedif they have a female supervisor(Smith
2001).
To sum, the raceandauthorityliteraturedocumentsimportantracialdifferences
in the authorityattainmentof the two groups most studied-blacks and whites.
Majorconclusions point to systematic discriminatorypractices in the processes
AUTHORITY
RACE,GENDER,ANDWORKPLACE
529
that lead to authorityand in the amount of financialreturnsthat blacks receive
for occupyingpositions of authoritysimilarto those of whites. Indeed,large-scale
quantitativeassessments based on secondary survey data provide only a partial
glimpse of the mechanismsthatgenerateand sustainracialinequalityin authority
outcomes. We know very little aboutthe authorityof racialand ethnic groupsbeyond blacks and whites. The few investigationsthatoffer analysesthatinclude the
authorityexperiencesof LatinoandLatinaAmericans(Englandet al. 1999, Smith
2001) and of Latino and Asian Americans(Smith & Elliott forthcoming)reveal a
racial/ethnicauthorityhierarchywith white andAsians on top andwith blacks and
Latinoson the bottom.Furtherclarificationof this hierarchyis needed along with
extensive delineationof the economic consequences that it produces.Moreover,
very little is known about trendsin the absolute and relative authorityoutcomes
of racial/ethnicgroups.What little we do know is cause for some alarmbecause,
despite political pressureand the implementationof importantantidiscrimination
legislation over the last 20 years, the racial gap in authorityand in the amount
of income returnsto authorityhas either increased (Wilson 1997b) or remained
constantover time (Smith 1997, 1999). Indirecttests of discriminationfindconsistent supportfor the theory thatracial/ethnicdifferencesin the processes that lead
to authorityare characterizedby closer scrutinyof the formal labor marketcredentialsof black men (Muelleret al. 1989, Wilson 1997, Smith 2001) and Latino
men (Smith2001) comparedwith the scrutinyof theirwhite counterparts.Finally,
a new line of authorityresearchthat emphasizes the impact of workplacediversity on authorityoutcomes shows thatonly white men benefitfrom homogeneous
occupationalniche employment(Smith & Elliott forthcoming),but unlike other
groups,-whitemen's authorityattainmentis lessened if they have a female supervisor (Smith2001). Finally,employersappearto matchsupervisorsandsubordinates
by race and ethnicity,which leads to lower perceptionsof discrimination(Elliott
& Smith 2001). While an importantadvance,additionalquantitativedatacoupled
with qualitativeapproachesare needed to tap into the direct actions, sentiments,
and motives of employersand workers.
THE CAUSESAND CONSEQUENCESOF
GENDERDIFFERENCES
AUTHORITY
The fact of importantgenderdifferencesin the processes thatlead to job authority
and in the proportionsof men and women who occupy positions of authorityhave
been well documented(Wolf & Fligstein 1979a,b, Hill & Morgan 1979, Halaby
1979, Spaeth 1985, Jacobs 1992, McGuire & Reskin 1993). As with studies of
race andauthority,genderandauthoritystudiesoffereda new way of assessing the
role of ascriptionin determiningthe life chances of individualsand groups. The
findingthatmen andwomenhadsimilarmeanlevels of occupationalattainmentand
ascendedthe occupationalhierarchythroughsimilarprocesses (Treiman& Terrell
1975, Featherman& Hauser1976) causedmanyto questionwhetheroccupational
530
SMITH
status measures of attainmentwere precise enough to capturethe full extent of
gender inequality(Wolf & Fligstein 1979a,b, Hill 1980, D'Amico 1986). In this
context, the characteristicsof jobs, and in particularthe authorityassociatedwith
jobs, became an importantunit of analysis in studies of gender stratification.A
summaryof findingsfromthe genderandauthorityliteraturerevealsthatthe study
of social stratificationhas been advancedby authoritystudies in two important
ways. First,genderdifferencesin workplaceauthority,andin theprocessesthatlead
to authority,constitutean importantsource of gender inequalitythat is obscured
when traditionalindicatorsof occupationalstatusare used to measureinequality.
Second, earningsmodels that do not include measuresof job authorityare apt to
significantlyunderestimatethe gendergap in earnings.
GenderDifferencesin Authorityand Its Causes
Heraldedas a path-breakingcontributionto the study of social stratification(Hill
1980, p. 110), Wolf & Fligstein (1979b) were among the first to examine the
mechanismsthatgenerategenderdifferencesin authority.Theirstudy,based on a
sampleof men andwomenfromWisconsin,showedthatwomenhaveless authority
then men (even net of human capital, occupationalstatus, and self-employment
status),and the processes thatlead to authoritydiffer for men and women in two
respects:(a) Womenreceive lower authorityreturnsthan men for similarhuman
capitalandoccupationalinvestments,and(b) theprocessesthatlead to supervisory
authorityare more egalitarianthanthe processes that usher men and women into
positionsthatgrantthemthe abilityto hire andfireandinfluencethe pay of others.
The latterfindingconfirmedexpectationsthatemployerdiscriminationwas more
pronouncedat higherthanat lower levels of the authorityhierarchy.While Wolf &
Fligstein's findings offered a new way of conceptualizinggender inequality,the
conclusion thatthe behaviorsand policies of employers are most responsiblefor
restrictingthe authoritychances of women was met with criticism (Bridges &
Miller 1979). The chief critics, Bridges & Miller, agreed with the basic finding
that women have less authoritythan men, but questioned the mannerin which
Wolf & Fligstein arrivedat that result because their data were restrictedto high
school graduates,age 35 (mid-life), who resided in Wisconsin.9
In a replicationusing nationaldata from the 1976 Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Bridges & Miller avoided those restrictionsand, in contrastto Wolf &
Fligstein, found, among otherthings, thathaving childrenbelow age sixteen significantlylimitedthe authoritychancesof women.This resultpromptedBridges&
Miller to offer a different(albeit untested)interpretationof the authorityexperiences of women whereby the behaviorof women themselves, the desires of coworkers,and even prelabormarketforms of discriminationareplaced on parwith
the actions of employers as plausible explanationsfor women's lower authority
attainment.Even though authorityresearchershave embraced one explanation
9SeeFligsteinet al.'s(1981)responseto Bridges& Miller.
AUTHORITY
RACE,GENDER,ANDWORKPLACE
531
or another,empiricallychoosing between these alternativeexplanationshas been
more art than science. As noted earlier,absent direct informationfrom workers
about their motivationsand direct informationabout what drives employer decisions, authorityresearchershave complied with what has become fashionablein
all inferentialstatistics-that is, they have assumed facts that, while extremely
plausible,provideincompleteevidence of discrimination.
GenderDifferencesin the Effectsof Human
CapitalInvestmentson Authority
The humancapitalpredictionthatgenderdifferencesin authorityare a functionof
differentialinvestmentsin education,workexperience,training,andhoursworked
per week is generallynot supportedin authorityresearch.By andlarge,individual
investmentsin humancapitalattributesappearto enhancethe authoritychances of
bothmen andwomen, butmen receive a muchhigherauthorityreturnthanwomen
for possessing similarlevels of humancapital.Forexample,educationhas a much
strongereffect on the authoritychances of men than women (Wolf & Fligstein
1979a, Halaby 1979a, Hill 1980); each additionalyear of educationhas upwards
of two to threetimes the effect for men as for women on authorityoutcomes (Hill
& Morgan1979, p. 14, McGuire& Reskin 1993, p. 494). Importantly,the effects
of human capital variableson the authoritychances of women and men depend
on whether observations are made at the lower or upper end of the authority
hierarchy.At the low end, where an individualmay have the title of supervisorbut
lack the ability to make decisions, educationand continuouswork experienceare
more importantfor the authorityattainmentof women thanmen (Jaffee 1989). At
the high end, where supervisorshave decision-makingauthorityover the pay or
promotionof workers,the effect of educationis strongerfor men (Hill & Morgan
1979). But accordingto Reskin & Ross's (1992, p. 356) studyof Illinois managers,
there are no significantgender differences in humancapital returnsto decisionmakingauthority.
Bridges & Miller'sfindingregardingthe role of family statusin structuringdifferentialauthorityoutcomesbetweenmen andwomen markedan importantprecedent in authorityresearch.It stands to reason that the unequal division of labor
within the householdmay preventwomen from seeking positions of authority.Indeed,theneoclassicalarguments,now popularizedin phrasessuchas compensating
differentials10(Filer 1985, Jacobs & Steinberg1990) and mommytrack(Ehrlich
1989), denotesthe idea thatwomen'spreferences,becauseof eithersocializationor
lOInits mostpopularformulation,
the ideaof "compensating
differentials"
waspromoted
Filerarguedthatthe sex
by Filer(1985:427)to explainthe sex gapin wages.Essentially,
gapin wageswasa functionof thedifferential
job choiceswomenmaderelativeto menwithwomenoptingformorepleasantandflexiblejobs,whichsupposedly
payless thanthe
kindsof jobsvaluedby men,which,ceterisparibus,areless pleasantthenthejobsvalued
by womenbutbringwiththemhigherwagesandbetterbenefits.Sufficeit to say,thereis
littleevidenceto supportthiscontention.
532
SMITH
rationalchoices, may promptthem to self-select themselves out of contentionfor
positions of authoritydue to family responsibilities(Baron 1987, Wadman1992).
While there is some supportfor this proposition,the vast majorityof evidence
arguesagainstit. On the one hand,researchbased on nationaland cross-national
dataprovideslittle or no evidence thatwomen (relativeto men) chose not to seek
authoritybecause of houseworkand/orfamily responsibilities(Wolf & Fligstein
1979a, D'Amico 1986, Jaffee 1989, Wright et al. 1995, Hopcraft 1996, Baxter
1997). On the otherhand,Wrightet al.'s (1995) comparativestudyof seven countries found some supportfor the self-selection hypothesisamong women living in
Canada-but the other six countries(United States, United Kingdom, Australia,
Sweden, Norway,Japan)showedno evidence of self-selection. D'Amico's (1986,
p. 46) analysis of NationalLongitudinalData revealedthat women who received
assistance at home with household chores were more likely to have say over the
pay and promotionof others relative to women who did not, while other studies found that having childrenunderthe age of six has a negative impact on the
earningsof female managersbut has no effect on male managers(Jacobs 1992,
p. 296). Additionalresearchin this areais sorely neededin orderto reconcilethese
opposing findings and to sort out the causal orderingof the associationbetween
family statusandjob authority.In the meantime,it's worthemphasizingthatthere
is very little evidence thatwomen opt out of contentionfor authoritypositions due
to family responsibilities-a findingconsistentwith genderstudiesof job segregation (Glass 1990) and wage differentials(Englandet al. 1988, Jacobs& Steinberg
1990). Moreover,becausegenderdifferencesin such outcomesdependon whether
observationsare made at the lower or upperend of the authorityhierarchy,future
assessments at various levels of authorityare required.In addition,family status
measuresthatpoint to the merepresenceof childrenin the householdor the use of
dichotomousmeasuresof maritalstatus (marriedor not) may obscure important
genderdifferencesin the effects thatflow from the interactionof child andmarital
status.
Gender Differences in the Effects of Structural
and Compositional Factors on Authority
The relativelocation of men and women within the structureof the economy, and
their proportionalrepresentationwithin such structures,account for more of the
gendergap in authoritythanthe humancapitalattributesof workers.With regard
to structuraleffects, findings show that women are less likely than men to have
authoritybecause they are disproportionatelylocatedin the kinds of jobs (Halaby
1979a, Hill & Morgan 1979, Roos 1981, Tomaskovic-Devey1993), occupations
(Robinson& Kelley 1979, Jaffee 1989,Reskin& Ross 1992), andeconomic sectors
(Hill & Morgan1979) thatarecomparativelyless likely thanthose of men to offer
authority.
Supportfor varioustheories concerningthe effects of the gender composition
of economic units on men's and women's authorityoutcomes depends on two
RACE, GENDER,AND WORKPLACEAUTHORITY
533
factors,the level of authorityunderconsiderationandwhetherdataaredrawnfrom
nationalsamplesor samplesbasedon state-leveldata.Forexample,findingsbased
on analyses of national samples are more supportiveof Blalock's resistance-tothreathypothesis.A significantportionof the gendergap in authorityis explained
by the presence of women in female-dominatedoccupations (Jaffee 1989)-an
outcome thatvaries dependingon the level of authorityunderconsideration.That
is, men in female-dominatedoccupationsappearto do betterthan women in the
same occupationswhen it comes to attainingdecision-makingauthority.However,
in the case of supervisoryauthority,bothmen andwomen areless likely to possess
authorityas the female compositionof the occupationincreases.This means that
at lower levels of authority,the femaleness of the occupationworks against the
authorityattainmentof both men and women (Jaffee 1989, p. 387).
In contrast, there is sufficient evidence in support of Kanter's strength-innumbershypothesis. According to Reskin & Ross (1992), while men were far
more likely than women to have final decision-makingauthorityat work, "the
more female the census occupationin which managersworked,the more extensive their authority,"(pp. 354-55). Furthersupportfor the strength-in-numbers
hypothesiscomes fromin-depthstudiesof specializedjobs such as college administrators(Konrad& Pfeffer 1991, Kulis 1997), managerialand professionaljobs
(Jolly et al. 1990), banktellers (Strober& Arnold 1987), andCaliforniastate-level
establishments(Baronet al. 1991). In each case, the increasingpresenceof women
led to increasesin the proportionsof women in the organization.However,the relationshipdescribedhere is not necessarily a linear one throughoutall levels of
economic units. Mountingevidence suggests thresholdeffects wherebythe presence of manywomen only enhancesthe inclusionof otherwomen at certainlevels
of the organizationalhierarchy(Cohen et al. 1998, Reskin & McBrier2000).
Trendstudiesdocumentingchangeovertime in thenet gendergapin managerial
status are opposite from what has been learnedabouttrendsin the gender gap in
supervisorypositions(D'Amico 1986, Jacobs 1992, Reskin& Padavic1994). With
regardto managerialstatus, some studies show a clear narrowingof the gender
gap, while the gendergap in supervisoryauthorityhas remainedconstantfor much
of the 1970s and 1980s (Jacobs 1992, p. 295).
The Consequencesof GenderDifferences
in Authorityfor Income
The exclusion of women from job authority,their restrictionto entry-level authority positions, and the comparativelylower income returnsthey receive for
occupying levels of authoritysimilar to those of men contributeto their overall
lower earnings.Assessing the role that authorityplays in explaining the gender
gap in income is a trickypropositionbecause the magnitudeof genderdisparities
is a function of whetherobservationsare made at the lower or higher end of the
authoritydistribution.More generic measures of authority,such as supervisory
status, only exhibit modest effects on the gender gap in income. In contrast,the
534
SMITH
unequal distributionof men and women in authoritypositions that grant them
control over monetaryresourcesand control over personneldoes producelarger
income differencesbetween men and women (Spaeth 1979, Halaby 1979). Both
Spaeth (1985) and McGuire & Reskin (1983) found that men receive twice the
economic payoff thatwomen receive for possessing authoritythat allows them to
controlmonetaryresourceseven when genderdifferencesin educationand experience are considered.In Spaeth's study, a one-unit increase along an authority
scale representingcontrol over monetaryresourcesincreasedmen's net earnings
by $383 (in 1981 dollars)comparedto $192 for women (p. 612). Notwithstanding
the complexities, gender differencesin job authorityaccountfor a large fraction
of the pay gap among men and women with similaroccupations(Hill & Morgan
1979), jobs (Halaby 1979a), and equivalenthumancapitalinvestments(Parcel&
Mueller 1983). Men and women who work in the same occupationsfor the same
employerreceive differentsalaries-with hierarchicaldifferencesaccountingfor
65% of the gap (Halaby 1979). Direct gender wage discriminationin returnsto
human capital and hierarchicalrank ("unequalpay for equal work") and "rank
segregation"in the form of restrictingwomen to low-paying jobs accounts for
much of the gender gap in salaries, but the latter appearsto be more important
(Halaby 1979a, Roos 1980). While the exercise of authorityat work enhances
the earningsof most workers,one study shows that the earningsof white female
heads of householdsare not increasedif they exercise authorityat work (Parcel&
Mueller 1983, p. 195).
To sum, men are more likely than women to have authority,and employer
behaviorsand organizationalpolicies are more importantthan women's attitudes
andbehaviorsin explainingthe gendergap in authority.Educationandjob tenure
exerta strongereffect on the authorityattainmentof men thanwomen-especially
at high levels of authority.Family ties improvemen's, but not women's, chances
to gain authority,and to the extent thatwomen occupy managerialpositions, they
tend to be located at the bottomof the commandchain-largely supervisingother
women and receiving lower earnings than men who occupy similar positions.
In fact, gender differences in authorityattainmentaccount for much of the pay
differences between men and women at high levels of authority(Halaby 1979,
Hill 1980, McGuire& Reskin 1993) but have a modest effect at lower levels (i.e.,
supervisoryauthority)(Jacobs 1992, p. 296).
CONCLUSION
Job authorityis an importantdimension of socioeconomic status that remains a
coveted workplaceresource.Its emergencemay be tracedto the foundingfathers
of modem sociology-with its operationalizationas class categoriesor scalargradationsdemarcatingthe theoreticallineages of MarxandWeber,respectively.The
patternof authority'semergenceas an importantindicatorof socioeconomic status marks a social scientific sequence of developmentfrom theory building to
RACE, GENDER,AND WORKPLACEAUTHORITY
535
measurementto hypothesistesting. At least threeoverlappinggenerationscan be
discerned:first generation-theory builders;second generation-operationalization and measurementissues; and thirdgeneration-hypothesis testing, including
assessments of the relative effects of ascriptionversus achievementand human
capitalversus the structuraldeterminantsof authoritybased on samples stratified
by class, gender,andrace.Jobauthorityis one of the few stratificationvariablesthe
theoreticaland empiricallinkages of which remain strongregardlessof whether
it is conceived as an indicatorof class or status,whetherit is operationalizedas a
discreteor gradationalmeasure,or whetherit takes the form of a dependentor an
independentvariable.Farfrom being the alphadimensionof social stratification,
as a measureof legitimatepower,job authorityin all its manifestationshas proven
to be quite a useful lens by which to observethe contoursof ascription-basedwork
inequality.Throughsuch observations,the last 25 years of authorityresearchhas
producedtwo overarchingconclusions.First,raceandgenderdifferencesin authority constituteone of the chief sources of race and genderinequalityin workplace
outcomes. To paraphraseWrightet al. (1995, p. 407), the under-representation
of
women, andI would add,racialminorities,in positionsof authority,especiallyhigh
levels of management,is not simplyan instanceof gender(andracial)inequality;it
is probablya significantcause of inequality.Second, as arguablysociology's principal contributionto the study of earningsinequality(Halaby 1979), job authority
is one of the primaryways in which the financialrewardsof work are distributed.
Minorities and women receive a lower income returnthan do whites and men
for occupying similarpositions of authority,and such disparitiesare more acute
at high levels of authorityand among those who exercise control over monetary
resourcesand controlover personnel.
The debateover authorityas class or statusshapedthe subsequentoperationalizationandmeasurementof authorityfor analysesof racialandgenderstratification
at work.The sheerquantityof researchon genderand authorityfarexceeds the researchon race and authority,andtherehave been preciousfew attemptsto unravel
the dual effects of race and gender on the authoritychances of minoritywomen
(see McGuire& Reskin 1993, Englandet al. 1999).
The study of ascriptivedifferencesin authority,along with the processes that
generatesuch differences,has been the primaryconcern of authorityresearchers
over the last 20 years. In this line of research,two consistent findings transcend
authoritymeasures,data,and researchfoci: Womenhave less authoritythanmen,
and minorities have less authoritythan whites. Moreover,when minorities and
women do have authority,it is largelyat lower levels of authorityandmainlywhen
they supervisethe work of otherminoritiesand women. Despite importantsocial,
economic, political, andlegislative achievementsin the last 20 years, these results
remain robust and consistent in regional, national, and cross-nationalstudies at
single pointsin time andcross-temporally.Infact,whatlittle we knowaboutchange
overtime in authorityoutcomesrevealsthatthe decadeof the 1980s representedan
era of stagnationfor blacks and women-a patternthatis also evident along other
statusindicators.
536
SMITH
Finally, theories aimed at the micro, meso, and macro levels of analyses do
not fully account for race and gender differencesin authority.This is partiallya
reflectionof workplacediscriminationand the inherentlimitationsof measuring
discriminationwithin a quantitativeframework.
FUTURERESEARCH
The collective limitationsof authorityresearchportendnew and exciting areasof
futureresearch.One promisingarea concernsthe mannerin which the organizational demographyof the workplaceimpacts the authorityattainmentof groups.
Not only does this researchrequirethe use of data based on samples of multiple racial/ethnicgroups of men and women, researcherswill also have to focus
on approachesthat seek to deepen our understandingof the effects of employer
and employee attitudes/preferenceson the authorityattainmentprocess. In this
vein, Reskin (2000, p. 707-8) has called for in-depthorganizationalcase studies
designed in a mannerthat will allow comparativeanalyses across studies. Recent case studies by Bell & Nkomo (2001) and Thomas & Gabarro(1999) are
particularlyilluminating,but they are limited to the work experiences of blacks
and whites only. When consideringthe fact that the numberof Latinos will soon
equal or eclipse thatof blacks, and firm-levelanalyses of Asian Americansare at
a premium,broaderqualitativeanalyses are needed.
The challenges posed by case studies analyses are often difficultto overcome.
Despite promises of anonymity,employers remain very reluctantto release informationto researchersabout the racial or gender make-up of their authority
structure-especially if suchinformationcan be used againstthemin a discrimination lawsuit.For the same reasons,organizationalleadersarereluctantto measure
the effectivenessof theirdiversityprograms(Comer& Soliman 1996, p. 478-79).
Additionalfutureresearchwould benefitfrom a longitudinallydesigned study.
Very little is known about the mannerin which racial/ethnicand gender cohorts
traversethe authorityattainmentprocess over the course of theirwork lives. Most
of what we know about change over time in authorityattainmentinvolves data
from annual repeatedcross-sections, which are importantbut not ideal for the
study of change over time. It standsto reason that there are significantvariations
in the authorityexperiences of differentracial, ethnic, and gender groups-and
these patternsare likely to fluctuate over time. Within this context, the likely
association between job authorityand change in the relative adherentsto neoinstitutionalfactors (i.e., state policies, organizationalage, the relative size of
internalinterestgroups, and EEO enforcement)requiresmore detailed examinations (DiPrete & Grusky 1990, Baron et al. 1991, Tomaskovic-Devey& Skaggs
1999).
Research on the dual impact of race and gender on the authoritychances of
minority women is sorely needed, as is a clearer specificationof the impact of
family structureand the householddivision of laborin explainingthe gendergap
in authority.More sophisticatedapproachesmay considerquantitative,multilevel
AUTHORITY
RACE,GENDER,ANDWORKPLACE
537
analysesat the individual,group,firm,andsocietal levels, coupledwith qualitative
approachesthat utilize in-depthinterviewstappingemployer/employeeattitudes,
preferences,expectations,and workplaceexperiences.
In addition,authorityresearchcan benefitfromadditionalcross-nationalstudies
(Kalleberg1988, Wrightet al. 1995, Baxter& Wright 1999) includinga comparison of Europeanand non-Europeancountries (Robinson 1984, Rosenfeld et al.
1998, Tannenbaum& Rozgonyi 1986)-a precedentbegun nearly 20 years ago
but rarelyextended.
Finally,thereare a varietyof paradigmsassociatedwith authorityresearchthat
share common theoreticaland empirical insights. Extrapolatingfrom Haveman
(2000), authoritystudies could be significantlyimprovedif researchersconsidered what has been learned from different paradigmsincluding: studies of organizationalecology, neo-institutionalresearch,resourcedependenceand social
network research,human capital and social capital research, organizationaldemography,and studies of social mobility and statusattainmentaimed at the level
of organizations.Each of these lines of researchis importantin its own right, but
all could be substantiallyimprovedthroughliberalcross-pollination.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am gratefulto LawrenceBobo, BarbaraReskin, andDorthySue Cobble for their
insightfulcommentson earlierversions of this manuscript.
The Annual Reviewof Sociologyis online at http://soc.annualreviews.org
CIT'ED
LITERATURE
Adler M. 1993. Genderdifferencesin job autonomy: the consequencesof occupationalsex
segregationandauthorityposition.Sociol. Q.
34:3:449-65
Baldi S, McBrier DB. 1997. Do the determinants of promotion differ for blacks and
whites? Work.Occup. 24:478-97
Baron JN. 1987. Working partners: careercommittedmothersandtheirhusbands.Bus.
Horiz. Sept/Oct.,pp. 45-50
Baron JN, Bielby WT. 1980. Bringing the
firms back in: stratification,segmentation,
and the organizationof work. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 45:737-65
Baron JN, Mittman BS, Newman AE. 1991.
Targets of opportunity:organizationaland
environmentdeterminantsof genderintegration withinthe Californiacivil service, 19791985. Am.J. Sociol. 96:1362-401
Baxter J. 1997. Genderequality and participation in housework:a cross-nationalperspective. J. Compar.Fam. Stud.28:220-47
Baxter J, Wright EO. 1999. The glass ceiling hypothesis: a comparative study of
the United States, Sweden and Australia.
Unpubl.manuscr.
Becker G. 1964. Human Capital. New York:
ColumbiaUniv. Press
Bell EL, Nkomo SM. 1994. Barriers to Work
Place AdvancementExperiencedbyAfricanAmericans.Glass Ceiling Comm.Washington, DC: US Dep. Labor
Bell ELJ, Nkomo SM. 2001. Our Separate
Ways: Black and White Women and the
Struggle for Professional Identity. Boston,
MA: Harv.Bus. Sch. Press
Blalock HM. 1967. Towarda Theoryof Minority GroupRelations. New York:Wiley
538
SMITH
Blau PM. 1968. The hierarchyof authorityin
organizations.Am.J. Sociol. 73:453-76
Blau PM. 1977. Inequalityand Heterogeneity:
A PrimitiveTheoryof Social Structure.New
York:Free Press
Blau PM, DuncanOD. 1967. TheAmericanOccupationalStructure.New York:Wiley
Bobo L, Smith RA. 1994. Anti-poverty,affirmative action, and racial attitudes.In Confronting Poverty:Prescriptionsfor Change,
ed. S Danziger, G Sandefur, D Weinberg,
pp. 365-95. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv.
Press/ Russell Sage Found.
Bound J, Dresser L. 1999. Losing ground:the
erosionof relativeearningsof AfricanAmerican women during the 1980s. In Latinas
andAfricanAmericanWomenat Work:Race,
Gender, and Economic Inequality, ed. I.
Browne, pp. 61-104. New York: Russell
Sage Found.
Bound J, Freeman RB. 1992. What went
wrong?The erosion of relativeearningsand
employmentamong young black men in the
1980s. Q. J. Econ. 107:201-32
Bridges WP,Miller B. 1979. Sex and authority
in the workplace:a replicationand critique.
Am. Sociol. Rev.46:677-83
BriegerRL. 1995. Social structureandthe phenomenology of attainment.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 21:115-36
Burstein P, Edwards ME. 1994. The impact
of employment discriminationlitigation on
racialdisparityin earnings:evidence andunresolved issues. Law Soc. Rev. 28:79-111
Cancio S, Evans D, Maume D. 1996. Reconsidering the declining significance of race:
racial differencesin early careerwages. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 61:541-56
CassirerN,ReskinB.2000. Highhopes:organizational position, employmentexperiences,
and women's and men's promotion aspirations. WorkOccup. 27:438-63
Cohen LE, BroschakJP, HavemanHA. 1998.
And then there were more: the effect of organizational sex composition on the hiring
andpromotionof managers.Am.Sociol. Rev.
63:711-27
Comer DR, Soliman CE. 1996. Organizational
efforts to manage diversity:Do they really
work?J. Manage.Issues 8:470-83
D'Amico R. 1986. Authorityin the workplace:
differencesamongmaturewomen.In Midlife
Womenat Work:a Fifteen YearPerspective,
ed. LB Shaw,pp. 37-49. Lexington,MA: DC
Heath
DahrendorfR. 1959. Class and Class Conflict
in IndustrialSociety.PaloAlto, CA: Stanford
Univ. Press
DipreteT, GruskyD. 1990. Structureand trend
in the process of stratificationfor American
men and women.Am.J. Sociol. 96:107-43
DuncanOD. 1961. A socioeconomic index for
all occupations.In Occupationsand Social
Status,ed. A. Reiss, OD Duncan,CC North,
p. 139. Glencoe, NY: Free Press
Ehrlich E. 1989. The mommy track:juggling
kids andcareersin corporateAmericatakesa
controversialturn.Bus. Week(Mar)20:12634
Elliott JR, Smith RA. 2001. Ethnic matching
of supervisorsto subordinatework groups:
findings on bottom-upascriptionand social
closure. Soc. Prob. 48:258-76
EnglandP. 1992. ComparableWorth:Theories
and Evidence.New York:Aldine de Gruyter
England P, ChristopherK, Reid LL. 1999.
Gender,race, ethnicity,and wages. In Latinas and AfricanAmericanWomenat Work:
Race, Gender,and EconomicInequality,ed.
I. Browne, pp. 139-182. New York:Russell
Sage Found.
FarleyR, Allen WR. 1987. TheColor Line and
the Quality of Life in America. New York:
Russell Sage Found.
FeathermanDF, Hauser H. 1976. Sexual inequalities and socioeconomic achievement
in the U.S. 1962-1973. Am. Sociol. Rev.
41:462-83
FeathermanDF, HauserH. 1978. Opportunity
and Change.New York:Academic Press
FilerR. 1985. Male-femalewage differencesin
determiningoccupational structure.Indust.
Lab.Relat. Rev. 38:426-37
Fligstein N, Sobel M, Wolf W. 1981. Response to Bridges and Miller. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 46:685-88
RACE, GENDER,AND WORKPLACEAUTHORITY
Fox W, Payne D, Priest T, Philliber W. 1977.
Authority position, legitimacy of authority
structure,andacquiescenceto authority.Soc.
Forces 55:966-73
Glass J. 1990. The impactof occupationalsegregationon working conditions.Soc. Forces
68(Mar):779-96
Halaby C. 1979. Job-specific sex differences
in organizationalreward attainment:wage
discriminationvs. rank discrimination.Soc.
Forces 58:108-27
HalabyC. 1986. Workerattachmentand workplace authority.Am. Sociol. Rev. 51:63449
Halaby C. 1993. Reply to Wright.Am. Sociol.
Rev. 58:35-36
Halaby C, Weakliem D. 1993. Ownership
and authorityin the earningsfunction:nonnested tests of alternativespecifications.Am.
Sociol. Rev. 59:5-21
Haveman HA. 2000. The future of organizational sociology: forging ties among paradigms. Con. Soc. 29:476-86
Hazelrigg L. 1972. Class, property, and authority:Dahrendorf'scritiqueof Marx. Soc.
Forces 50:473-87
Hill M. 1980. Authorityat work:How men and
women differ.In TenYearsof thePSID, ed. G
Duncan,J Cocoran.Ann Arbor:Univ. Mich.
Press
Hill M, MorganJ. 1979. Dimensions of occupation.In Five ThousandAmericanFamilies,
Vol. 7, ed. G Duncan,J Morgan.Ann Arbor,
MI: Inst. Soc. Res., Univ. Mich.
Hopcraft RL. 1996. The authorityattainment
of women: competitivesector effects. Am.J.
Econ. Sociol. 55:163-84
Hout M. 1984. Occupationalmobility of black
men, 1962-1973. Am. Sociol. Rev. 49:30822
HuffmanML. 1995. Organizations,internallabor market policies, and gender inequality
in workplacesupervisoryauthority.Soc. Perspect. 38:381-97
Huffman ML. 1999. Who's in charge? Organizational influences on women's representation in managerialpositions. Soc. Sci. Q.
80:738-56
539
HutlinM. 1996. Genderdifferencesin authority
attainment:the Swedish case. Unpubl.paper
Hutlin M. 1998. Discriminationand the role
of organizationalleaders.Acta Sociol. 4:99113
Institutefor Social Research. 1969. Survey of
workingconditions.Inst. Soc. Res., MI
JackmanM, JackmanR.1983. ClassAwareness
in the United States. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Jacobs J. 1992. Women's entry into management: trendsin earnings,authority,and values amongsalariedmanagers.Admin.Sci. Q.
37:282-301
JacobsJ, SteinbergR. 1990. Compensatingdifferentials and the male-female wage gap.
Soc. Forces 69:439-68
Jaffee D. 1989. Genderinequalityin the workplace autonomy and authority.Soc. Sci. Q.
70:375-90
Jaynes GD, Williams RM Jr. 1989. A Common Destiny: Blacks and AmericanSociety.
Washington,DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Jolly DL, GrimmJW,WozniakPR. 1990. Patterns of sex desegregation in managerial
andprofessionalspecialtyfields, 1950-1980.
WorkOccup. 17:30-54
Kalleberg A. 1988. Comparativeperspectives
on workstructuresandinequality.Annu.Rev.
Sociol. 14:203-25
KallebergA, GriffinL. 1980. Class, occupation
and inequalityin job rewards.Am. J. Sociol.
85:731-68
KanterRM. 1977. Men and Womenof the Corporation. New York:Basic Books
Kelley E, Dobbin F. 1998. How affirmativebecame diversity management:employer response to anti-discriminationlaw, 1961 to
1996. Am.Behav. Sci. 41(7):960-84
Kluegel J. 1978. The causes and cost of racial
exclusionfromjob authority.Am.Sociol. Rev.
43:285-301
KonradA, Pfeffer J. 1991. Understandingthe
hiring of women and minorities.Soc. Educ.
64:141-57
Kulis S. 1997. Gendersegregationamong college and university employees. Soc. Educ.
70:151-73
540
SMITH
KurzKW,MullerW.1987. Classmobilityin the
inequalityin work organizations.Annu.Rev.
industrialworld.Annu.Rev.Sociol. 13:417Sociol. 26:707-9
42
Reskin B, McBrierDB, Kmec JA. 1999. The
Leonard JS. 1990. The impact of affirmnnative determinantsandconsequencesof workplace
sex andrace composition.Annu.Rev.Sociol.
actionregulationand equal employmentlaw
on black employment. J. Econ. Perspect.
25:335-61
Reskin B, McBrierDB. 2000. Why not ascrip4(4):47-63
tion? Organizations' employment of male
LopreatoJ. 1967. Authorityrelationsand class
and female managers.Am. Sociol. Rev. 65:
conflict. Soc. Forces 47:70-79
210-33
LopreatoJ. 1968. Class conflict and images of
ReskinB, Ross C. 1992. Authorityandearnings
society.J. ConflictResol. 11:281-93
MarsdenPV, Cook CR, KnokeD. 1996. Ameramongmanagers:thecontinuingsignificance
ican organizationsand their environments:
of sex. WorkOccup. 19:342-65
a descriptive review. In Organizations in Reskin B, PadavicI. 1994. Womenand Men at
America: Analyzing Their Structures and
Work.ThousandOaks, CA: Pine Forge
Human Resource Practices, ed. AL Kalle- RobinsonRV. 1979. Ownership,authority,and
occupationalprestige: a synthesisand crossberg, D. Knoke, PV Marsden, JL Spaeth,
national study.PhD thesis. Yale Univ.
pp. 45-66. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage
Matras J. 1980. Comparativesocial mobility. Robinson RV. 1984. Reproducing class relations in industrial capitalism. Am. Sociol.
Annu.Rev. Sociol. 6:401-31
Rev.49:182-96
McGuireG, Reskin B. 1993. Authorityhierarchies at work: the impact of race and sex. Robinson RV, Kelley J. 1979. Class as conceived by Marx and Dahrendorf:effects on
Gen. Soc. 7:487-506
income inequality,class consciousness, and
MuellerCW,ParcelT. 1986. Ascription,dimenclass conflict in the U.S. and GreatBritain.
sions of authorityand earnings:the case of
Am. Sociol. Rev.44:38-58
supervisors.In Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, ed. RV. Robinson, pp. Roos P. 1981. Sex stratificationin the work199-22. Greenwich,CT:JAI
place: male-female differencesin economic
returnsto occupation.Soc. Sci. Res. 10:195Mueller CW, Parcel T, TanakaK. 1989. Par24
ticularismin authorityoutcomes:the case of
Rosenfeld RA, Van Buren ME, KallebergAL.
supervisors.Soc. Sci. Res. 32:21-33
1998. Genderdifferencesin supervisoryauNkomo SM, Cox T Jr. 1990. Factorsaffecting
the upwardmobility of black managers in
thority:variationamong advancedindustrialized democracies.Soc. Sci. Res. 27:23-49
privatesectororganizations.Rev.BlackPolit.
Ross CE, Reskin BF. 1992. Education,control
Econ. 18(3)39-57
at work, and job satisfaction.Soc. Sci. Res.
Parcel T, Mueller C. 1983. Ascriptionand La21:134-48
bor Markets.New York:Academic Press
PfefferJ. 1983. Organizationaldemography.In Sewell WH, HauserRM. 1972. CausesandconResearchin OrganizationalBehavior,ed. LL
sequencesof highereducation:models of the
statusattainmentprocess.Am.J. Agric.Econ.
Cummings,BM Staw, pp. 299-359. Green54:851-61
wich, CT:JAI
Pfeffer J, Davis-Blake A. 1987. The effect of SmithRA. 1997. Race, income, andauthorityat
work:a cross-temporalanalysisof black and
proportionof women on salaries:the case of
white men, 1972-1994. Soc. Prob. 44:19college administrators.Admin.Sci. Q. 32:137
24
Reskin B. 1993. Sex segregationin the work- SmithRA. 1999. Racialdifferencesin access to
hierarchicalauthority:an analysis of change
place. Annu.Rev.Sociol. 19:241-70
over time, 1972-1994. Sociol. Q. 40:367-96
Reskin B. 2000. Getting it right: sex and race
RACE, GENDER,AND WORKPLACEAUTHORITY
Smith RA. 2001. Particularismin control over
monetaryresources at work: an analysis of
racioethnicdifferencesin authorityoutcomes
of black, white, and Latino men. Workand
Occup. 28:447-68
SmithRA, ElliottJR.Forthcoming.Does ethnic
concentrationinfluenceemployees' access to
authority?An examinationof race and genderin threemetroareas.Soc. Forces.In press
Spaeth J. 1985. Job power and earnings.Am.
Sociol. Rev. 50:603-17
StroberMH,ArnoldCL. 1987. The dynamicsof
occupationalsegregationamongbanktellers.
In Gender in the Workplace,ed. C. Brown,
JA Pechman,pp. 107-48. Washington,DC:
BrookingsInst.
TannenbaumAS, Rozgonyi T. 1986. Authority and reward in organizations: an international research.Surv.Res. Cent., Inst. for
Soc. Res., Univ. Mich.
Thomas DA, Gabarro JJ. 1999. Breaking
Through:the Makingof MinorityExecutives
in CorporateAmerica.Boston, MA. Harvard
Bus. Press
ThurowL. 1970. Investmentin HumanCapital.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Tomaskovic-Devey D. 1991. Labor process
and the genderand race compositionofjobs.
Presented to Res. Comm. 28th Int. Sociol.
Ass., Columbus,OH
Tomaskovic-DeveyD. 1993. Laborprocess inequalityandthe genderandracecomposition
of jobs. Res. Soc. Strat.Mob. 12:215-47
Tomaskovic-DeveyD. 1993. Genderand Race
Inequalityat Work:the Sources and Consequences of Job Segregation.ILR Press
Tomaskovic-Devey D, Skaggs S. 1999. Degenderedjobs, organizationalprocesses, and
gender segregated employment. Res. Soc.
Strat.Mob. 17:139-72
TreimanD, TerrellK. 1975. Sex and the process of status attainment:a comparison of
working women and men. Am. Sociol. Rev.
40:174-200
Tsui AS, Egan TD, O'Reilly CA. 1992. Being
different:relationaldemographyand organizationalattachment.Admin.Sci. Q. 37:54979
541
Tsui AS, Gutek BA. 1999. DemographicDifferences in Organizations:CurrentResearch
andFutureDirections.New York:Lexington
Tsui AS, O'Reilly CA. mI. 1989. Beyond
simple demographiceffects: the importance
of relational demography in supervisorsubordinate dyads. Acad. Manage. J. 32:
402-23
VanDen Berghe PL. 1963. Dialectic and functionalism:towarda theoreticalsynthesis.Am.
Sociol. Rev.28:5:695-705
VannemanR, Cannon LW. 1987. The American Perceptionof Class. Philadelphia:Temple Univ. Press
Wadman MK. 1992. Mothers who take extendedtime off findtheircareerspay a heavy
price. WallStreetJ. July 16:B1, B5
WardKB, Mueller,CW. 1985. Sex differences
in earnings:the effects of industrialsector,
authorityhierarchy,and humancapitalvariables. WorkOccup. 12:437-63
Weber M. 1968. Economy and Society, ed.
GuentherRoth. New York:Bedminster
Wilson G. 1997a. Payoffs to power among
males in the middle class: Has race declined
in its significance? Sociol. Q. 38:4:60722
WilsonG. 1997b.Pathwaysto power:racialdifferencesin the determinantsof job authority.
Soc. Prob. 44(1):38-54
Wolf W, Fligstein N. 1979a. Sexual stratification:differencesin powerin the worksetting.
Soc. Forces 58:94-107
Wolf W, Fligstein N. 1979b. Sex and authority in the workplace:the causes of sexual inequality.Am. Sociol. Rev.44:235-52
WrightEO. 1978. Race, class, and income inequality.Am. J. Sociol. 83:6:1368-97
WrightEO. 1979. Class Structureand Income
Determination.New York.Academic Press
WrightEO. 1989. The comparativeprojecton
class structureand class consciousness: an
overview.Acta Sociol. 32:3-22
WrightEO. 1993. Typologies, scales, andclass
analysis: a comment on Halaby and Weakliem's "Ownershipand authorityin the earnings function." Am. Sociol. Rev. 58:3134
542
SMITH
WrightEO, BaxterJ, BirkelundGE. 1995. The
gender gap in workplaceauthority:a crossnational study. Am. Sociol. Rev. 60:40735
WrightEO, Costello C, Hachen D, SpragueJ.
1982. The Americanclass structure.Am. Sociol. Rev.47:709-26
WrightEO, PerroneL. 1977. Marxistclass categories and income inequality.Am. Sociol.
Rev.42:32-55