Is HR really a pink-collared ghetto? This question is posed by US HR blogger Naomi Bloom in a recent post on her In Full Bloom blog. In this post, Bloom provides an overview of her experience of the US HR profession, from 1967 through to the present day.Defining the 'pink-collar ghetto'
Before we look at what Bloom has to say, it's important to define the term "pink-collar ghetto."
Feminist.com offers the following definition:
[T]he fact that women repeatedly and historically have been concentrated into low wage, underpaid jobs.And this is what Wikipedia has to say:
Pink Ghetto used in the USA to refer to work in the job industry that is dominated by women. [...] The term was coined in 1983 to describe the limits women have in furthering their careers, since the jobs are often dead-end, stressful and underpaid. Pink Ghetto is now used to describe the placement of female managers into positions that will not lead them to the board room, thus perpetuating the "glass ceiling". This includes managing areas such as human resources [emphasis mine], customer service, and other areas that do not contribute to the corporate "bottom line". While this allows women to rise in ranks as a manager, their career eventually stalls out and they're excluded from the upper echelons.
Is business acumen HR's route out of the 'pink-collar ghetto?'
Bloom argues that while women have made significant progress in US HR over this period, there remain reasons why it might still be considered a "pink-collared ghetto."
This is Bloom's recollection of US HR, 1967:
Bloom argues that outsourcing and the evolution of HR technology could redress the gender imbalance in the HR profession.
In Bloom's view, much of the administrative work currently undertaken by HR departments can now be outsourced or automated. And as HR software evolves, it will be increasingly possible for managers to take over strategic HRM responsibilities (e.g. talent management) from HR.
Bloom speculates that it might be a lack of business acumen that currently holds HR back from board positions. Success in HR careers in the future would then require a mix of business acumen, aptitude for strategic HRM and technological understanding: a mix which Bloom argues is more likely to be found in men than women. Bloom writes:
In a post entitled The feminisation of HR (Part 2), UK HR blogger Rick's post presents his own analysis of the findings of XpertHR Salary Surveys data which suggest that the 'feminisation of HR' might have peaked in 2007, and could now be in gradual decline. He coins the phrase "the Ulrichisation of HR" to describe some of the factors which might have contributed to this decline. Rick posits the following theory as to why the representation of women in HR might now be in decline (which has interesting parallels with some of Bloom's ideas):
What are your views?
I would like to find out XpertHR readers' views on the above theories regarding the current gender imbalance within HR, and how it might change in the future. Do you agree with the perspectives set out in Bloom's post? How do you think that the situation described by Bloom is applicable to the UK HR profession? Or do you subscribe to Rick's theory regarding the 'Ulrichisation of HR?'
Please have your say, by leaving a comment on Naomi Bloom's original post, or here, via the comments box below. Or get in touch with me via Twitter or LinkedIn.
Update (Thursday 26 May 2011): Consultant Tim Douglas posted the following response to this post, via Twitter: "HR often isn't taken seriously enough, and neither are women. Feminisation of HR is a potential double whammy for women and HR."
See also:
Bloom argues that while women have made significant progress in US HR over this period, there remain reasons why it might still be considered a "pink-collared ghetto."
This is Bloom's recollection of US HR, 1967:
[A]ll HR executives were male, predominantly labor lawyers by training with a smattering of failed line executives. All the personnel ladies were just that, ladies, most of whom had no college degree but had risen through the ranks from secretarial and administrative positions into increasing positions of responsibility for the various personnel functions.Cut to today. Bloom finds that the US HR profession remains female-dominated, with significant progress having been achieved toward fairer pay and greater representation of women at HR executive levels. But while women remain dominant in terms of numbers, this dominance is not necessarily reflected in the power structures controlling the profession. Bloom says:
Attend a local or regional SHRM meeting, and that domination in numbers [by women] is absolutely clear. It's even obvious at the annual HR Technology Conference. But review the annual list of the top HR executives from HRE, and it's equally clear that males dominate the top positions."Will outsourcing and HR technology redress HR's gender imbalance?
Bloom argues that outsourcing and the evolution of HR technology could redress the gender imbalance in the HR profession.
In Bloom's view, much of the administrative work currently undertaken by HR departments can now be outsourced or automated. And as HR software evolves, it will be increasingly possible for managers to take over strategic HRM responsibilities (e.g. talent management) from HR.
Bloom speculates that it might be a lack of business acumen that currently holds HR back from board positions. Success in HR careers in the future would then require a mix of business acumen, aptitude for strategic HRM and technological understanding: a mix which Bloom argues is more likely to be found in men than women. Bloom writes:
I doubt very much that today's average HR professional will have the future they want and deserve unless they become business people who lead and practice HRM. Maybe then the profession, although likely to be much smaller in numbers, will attract more men and become more gender-balanced in term of its leadership roles."Is the 'Ulrichisation of HR' countering the 'feminisation of HR'?
In a post entitled The feminisation of HR (Part 2), UK HR blogger Rick's post presents his own analysis of the findings of XpertHR Salary Surveys data which suggest that the 'feminisation of HR' might have peaked in 2007, and could now be in gradual decline. He coins the phrase "the Ulrichisation of HR" to describe some of the factors which might have contributed to this decline. Rick posits the following theory as to why the representation of women in HR might now be in decline (which has interesting parallels with some of Bloom's ideas):
[T]he proportion of women in HR peaked in 2007 and [...] has decreased slightly since. This is probably due, in part, to the Ulrichisation of many HR functions. Women are disproportionately concentrated in the more junior and administrative HR roles. It is these jobs which have been taken over by shared service centres, which employ fewer people. Another factor could be the downsizing of HR in the public sector, which started under the last government. Again, public sector HR is disproportionately female, so most of the jobs being shed were held by women. Which means that the trend is likely to continue, at least in the short-term, as public sector and administrative roles will take most of the HR downsizing hit over the next four years.evertheless, the gender balance in HR is unlikely to go back to its 1980s level. As more professions open up to women, things might even out but, for the forseeable future, HR is likely to be more female than male.
What are your views?
I would like to find out XpertHR readers' views on the above theories regarding the current gender imbalance within HR, and how it might change in the future. Do you agree with the perspectives set out in Bloom's post? How do you think that the situation described by Bloom is applicable to the UK HR profession? Or do you subscribe to Rick's theory regarding the 'Ulrichisation of HR?'
Please have your say, by leaving a comment on Naomi Bloom's original post, or here, via the comments box below. Or get in touch with me via Twitter or LinkedIn.
Update (Thursday 26 May 2011): Consultant Tim Douglas posted the following response to this post, via Twitter: "HR often isn't taken seriously enough, and neither are women. Feminisation of HR is a potential double whammy for women and HR."
See also:
- Is 'pink-collar ghetto' an apt definition for the HR profession? We look at the issues raised by a thought-provoking post from US HR blogger Naomi Bloom.
- Is HR Really A Pink-Collared Ghetto? Read Naomi Bloom's full post, on her In Full Bloom blog.
- Do we need to redress the gender imbalance in HR? Does the gender imbalance in HR need to be redressed? If so, how? And if not, why not?
- Is the proportion of women in HR in decline? The UK HR profession in 2011 continues to be dominated by women - at least in numerical terms. But an analysis of changes in the gender profile of the UK HR profession from 1997 to the present day suggests that the representation of women in HR might have peaked in 2007, and could now be in gradual decline.
- The UK HR profession is 75.8% female Analysis of data on the gender profile of the UK HR profession from XpertHR Salary Surveys.
- A question for our male readers: Why did you choose HR? and A question for our female readers: Why did you choose HR?
I am interested in finding out why male HR professionals chose to
enter the profession, and whether their experience in the profession has
lived up to expectations.
- Is HR really a woman's world? Personnel Today investigates.
- The feminisation of HR and The feminisation of HR (Part 2) From the Flip Chart Fairy Tales blog.
- The Feminisation of HR Dorothy Dalton has published her own analysis of and investigation into the issues discussed here, in a new blog post. Dalton writes: "It seems that tough decisions or actions performed by an HR woman, will not be perceived as tough and decisive as if they were performed by a man. Culturally women are expected to exhibit softer skills, while men are expected to be more decisive. The criteria for evaluation is such that even when women are decisive they are not taken seriously, or get caught up in that old double bind as being too " aggressive". So until HR qualifications include, and mandate, a solid business base, rather than simply focusing on functional expertise and qualifications, then this situation is likely to be perpetuated. What other solutions could there be? What do you think?"
| Tweet |
|
| Permalink | Email this |
Comments (7)
Michael, there were still echos of Naomi Bloom's 1967 HR department when I started working in HR two decades ago. I think I just caught the tail end of it.
I don't recognise the labour lawyers and failed line executives bit but the gender split rings true. Where I worked, the HR men were usually IR types, some of whom had come through line management and others through the unions. But it was the IR chaps and the Personnel ladies. The blokes did all the union negotiations and sorted out all the aggro like disciplinaries. The ladies did the admin, the maternity pay calculations, and the tea and sympathy. L&D was mostly technical training and, therefore, mostly men too.
This all changed when the nature of HR work changed. OK, we have a higher proportion of women in the workforce generally now but the proportion of women in HR seems to have increased at a much faster rate. It seemed to me that assessment, development and talent management appealed more to women and when that stuff became more important, the number of women in professional and senior HR roles began to rise. At the same time, IR became less important, causing a fall in male HR employment. I've no data for this btw; it's just a gut feeling.
I'd be interested to know if the related fields like occupational psychology have seen the proportion of women increase at a similar rate. My guess is that they probably have.
Posted by Rick | May 25, 2011 7:31 PM
Posted on May 25, 2011 19:31
Thanks for the comment, Rick, and for sharing your insights into how the gender profile of the HR profession has changed over the course of your career.
I'm particularly intrigued by "the fall in male HR employment" that you mention. As you describe it, this seems to have coincided with the transformation of the predominant focus of the profession away from areas such as industrial relations (IR) and towards what some might describe as "softer" areas, such as "assessment, development and talent management."
Anecdotally, were you aware at the time of any kind of trend or of any discussions among male HR professionals about exiting the profession, perhaps as a result of some level of disillusionment with the way things were going? Or could it have been closer to a sort of "natural wastage" of male HR professionals? I'm also very interested to hear if you have any feeling as to the types of role that these male HR professionals subsequently took up once they exited the HR profession.
Thank you for posting such a thought-provoking comment, and also for suggesting a consideration of how the changing gender profile of the HR profession might compare with that "related fields like occupational psychology." I will see if I can find any relevant data to enable such a comparison - suggestions from XpertHR readers as to the best sources for such data would be greatly appreciated.
Michael
Posted by Michael Carty
|
May 26, 2011 6:13 AM
Posted on May 26, 2011 06:13
Michael, I don't remember people discussing it specifically at the time, although I did notice that my CIPD course at the turn of the decade was about two thirds female, which was an indicator of the way things were going. Most of the chaps on the course were training managers which, then, was still dominated by people who had come up through technical training.
I don't think men consciously left the profession, they just retired and were replaced by women or, in the case of IR, they weren't replaced at all. Again, this is anecdotal, but we now seem to have a shortage of people with good IR skills. Where unions are starting to make noises again, many HR functions seem to lack the skills to deal with it.
As for me, I went towards L&D, doing a bit of outdoor development, then into HR systems, so I became an HR/IT hybrid. That got me into HR metrics, reorganisations, cost reduction and programme management. That's all very blokish but that wasn't why I did it - at least, not consciously. I didn't think 'HR is becoming very female I must do something more manly' - but I did end up in the parts of the profession that were still predominantly male. Make of that what you will.
Posted by Rick | May 26, 2011 9:40 AM
Posted on May 26, 2011 09:40
Thanks for taking the time to post another thorough and insightful comment, Rick. Your contributions to this debate so far (and especially your two blog posts on the 'feminisation of HR': The feminisation of HR and The feminisation of HR: Part 2) been outstanding.
You make a particularly interesting point as regards the sharp decline in the numbers of posts for IR specialists (a traditionally more 'male' specialism within HR) over the past 20 years or so. As you point out, it is the case that many of these posts "weren't replace at all." The following anecdotal point is therefore particularly thought-provoking: "[W]e now seem to have a shortage of people with good IR skills. Where unions are starting to make noises again, many HR functions seem to lack the skills to deal with it."
This raises an interesting question: If we do see a resurgence in union militancy as the full impact of economic austerity measures kick in, will we see HR departments scramble to restore long-dormant IR posts? And should this happen, could it result in an increase in the proportion of men entering the HR profession?
You might also be interested in a new comment from Grumpy Lecturer (which has just been added to another post in this series), in which he examines in some detail the changing status of UK trade unions over the past 30 years, and the changing nature of HR's interactions with them.
Michael
Posted by Michael Carty
|
May 26, 2011 1:38 PM
Posted on May 26, 2011 13:38
Michael
Anecdotal comment from me on this (with far less structure than Rick). I have worked in 2 "proper" HR departments and in both instances have been either 1 of 2 males or as is the case now a lone Y choromosome.
What's interesting is the tone of the office is very driven by the feminisation and the conversation, banter and subject matter is markedly different from either more balanced offices or those that are male dominated.
The other thought is that on numerous occasions in social situations I have been teased about being in HR ("oh he does the holiday forms", "do you wear a nice cardi?") as people have the tea & sympathy view of HR.
The one thing that makes me chuckle is the number of people who walk into your office (including members of the Exec) exclaim "Hello Ladies" then look slightly paniced when they notice me at my desk and add "And Rob, of course"
Rob
Posted by Rob Jones | May 26, 2011 1:47 PM
Posted on May 26, 2011 13:47
Thanks for the anecdotal input, Rob. Very interesting to get the perspective of the "lone Y chromosome!"
I'm interested to hear what other readers make of Rob's view that the 'feminisation of HR' as a profession tends to be reflected in "the tone of the office" in which HR sits. Please feel free to have your say here!
Michael
Posted by Michael Carty
|
May 27, 2011 9:19 AM
Posted on May 27, 2011 09:19
I have yet to hear or meet a male HR profssional in the US or UK...got to be the rarest of creatures like a Siberian tiger...
Here you have a profession in charge of equal ops programs and it is mainly female.
Posted by dan ehrlich | July 22, 2011 7:42 PM
Posted on July 22, 2011 19:42