Originally published here.
Contemporary workplaces are continually subjected to enormous challengesat operational and financial levels. Essentially, modern workplaces are char-acterized by constant change, predominantly as a result of globalization,technology, and the commercial drive for capital growth (Livingstone 2001;Wood 2004). In these times increasing numbers of women are entering theworkplace, often in contingent roles. According to Billett (2006a), contingentworkers are those who are either in part-time, contractual, or subordinate roles. Women from diverse educational and employment backgrounds enterthe workforce in increasing numbers each year. In Australia there has beenan 8.23% increase in women’s full-time participation, with the number ofwomen workers escalating from 2,075,300 in July 1996 to 2,518,800 inJuly 2006 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006).
The number of femalesin part-time employment increased to 2,111,400 in May 2006, highlightingthe growth of women’s participation in work. Contingent workers are oftenemployed in administrative and service-related roles (Billett 2006b) and haveto learn through their work. Clerical workers such as legal auxiliary staff areoften contingent because they are in subordinate roles and are granted lowstatus despite analyses of their work that suggest they perform highly com-plex tasks (Kalleberg 2009).
Frequently, clerical and auxiliary staff are offeredlittle in the way of career paths or support for ongoing learning and careerdevelopment. One of the rising concerns for workplace managers, humanresources (HR) practitioners, researchers, and educators is epistemologicalunderstandings of work and workplace learning. Broadly, the ways adults,such as legal auxiliary workers, learn are grounded in the interconnecteddisciplines of learning how to learn and continuous learning (Argyris andSchon 1978).
Therefore, the focus of this study is on female auxiliary legal workers and how they go about learning at work when they have to faceworkplace challenges and limited employer support.The purpose of this study is to determine whether female auxiliaryworkers are subject to any form of discrimination based on workplace poli-cies. Ronalds (2008) defines discrimination as occurring when an individual’scharacteristics result in that person being treated differently than other indi-viduals who do not have the same characteristics.
Liberal feminism providesthe framework to consider issues of social equality and equal opportu-nity (Jagger 1983). In Australia, workplace legislation is meant to ensureequity and protect all workers (women and men) from discrimination. At thefederal level, the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) of 1984 was legislated to pro-tect Australian women against discrimination. Then, in 1986 the AffirmativeAction Act (AAA) was first legislated to provide women with equality inemployment opportunity (Campbell 1996); this legislation evolved into whatis now known as the Equal Opportunity for Women in the WorkplaceAct of 1999.
Legislation may not always produce preeminent results, butit does raise awareness among women and men (Gelb 2000). Therefore, itis argued that although espoused affirmative action prohibits discriminationagainst women, learning policies in action do not always provide educationalopportunities for auxiliary employees.
This article calls for documented barriers to be removed from workplacepolicy documents and practice. As a foundation for understanding whatwas really going on, this study examined policies in three legal practicesas one way of considering the broader social phenomena of women in theworkforce and their workplace experiences. Even though this article is lim-ited to three workplaces, an earlier focus group indicates such issues existacross many more legal practices. Consequently, this article is representativeof a wider issue. This article has illuminated the differences between policyand practice by means of ethnographic accounts with female auxiliary work-ers. How female auxiliary employees perceive office policies and how theyare assisted or impeded by policies and accepted practice is important to their work and learning experiences.
An affirmative action policy documentand a further education/training policy document were analyzed. The doc-uments were sourced from a focus group of legal representatives and heldto be representative of many legal practices. These policies should underpinpractice and provide direction for all workers regardless of status. It was evi-dent that both the AAP and FETP documents are HR management policiesthat provide guidelines for the protection and education of employees withinthe legal environment.
The AAP offers women protection against all levels ofdiscrimination. The FETP offers all professional staff opportunities for furthereducation/training. However, the FETP fails to make provisions for femaleor male auxiliary-level employees of the same legal practice. To highlightissues for consideration toward all-inclusive (male and female at all levels)and improved policies and practices within the legal industry, more needs tobe done. The managerial implications of not providing auxiliary staff with oppor-tunities for education and training are twofold.
At the individual level, thedenial of opportunities for education and training may lead to dysfunctionalemployee attitudes and behaviors, such as low commitment and reduced jobsatisfaction. At the organizational level, denial may result in lower levels ofcompetence and reduced competitive advantage in key areas of the businessoccupied mostly by women auxiliary workers.
The liberal feminist perspective highlights the complexity of gender inthe workplace and how opportunities for women and learning are oftenlimited. How female employees within legal practices (and the broaderworkforce) progress in their work and learning will be determined bythe opportunities provided to them through policy aligned with practice.Therefore, it is critical that legal practice managers recognize it is no longeracceptable for policies to exclude any level of employee.
Organizational policy needs to reflect the positions of auxiliary women in employment,and activate enhanced levels of decision making and participation in workand workplace learning. Employees (both men and women) at all levelsshould be involved in generating ideas and offering opinions on the officepolicies that safeguard their workplace experiences. Specific work and learn-ing policies would then be congruous with auxiliary women’s presence inthe workplace and support their continued involvement in the workplace.
This would require more analyses of the legal office policies that impacton women who work at the auxiliary level within these kinds of work-places. Organizations that embrace these understandings will be better ableto engage in innovative practice to provide auxiliary women with improvedlearning opportunities at work. This study also calls for more research onauxiliary women workers to gain their perceptions of how to move forward.An analysis of training needs might be appropriate. Practice managers shouldensure that policies are inclusive and provide education/training oppor-tunities for all employees (regardless of status). Overall, through a liberal lens, it will only be through effective cooperation among all staffmembers (professional and auxiliary) and organizational managers that areassessment of existing policies can take place. The policies that under-pin practice may then be amended to improve the experiences of all withinthe workplace and at the same time enhance individual performance andoutcomes for an entire practice.
As the research is a qualitative study, conducted in a particular jurisdic-tion in Australia, the findings may not be generalizable to other workplaces.However, as the policies examined are typical of those found in many legalpractices in Australia, they are likely to be representative of the situation inother legal jurisdictions. Opportunities for further research exist by replicat-ing the study within legal practice in other jurisdictions in Australia. Furtherresearch should also be conducted in other work domains to ascertainwhether conflicting policies exist, the gendered and discriminatory natureof such policies, and the impact these may have at the individual andorganizational levels.
You can read the complete article here.