Organizations, Occupations, and Inequality

Abstract

This thesis examines the organizational and occupational dynamics of social inequality. It explores how organizations and occupations contribute to and can help address patterns of social inequality. Each paper investigates a different aspect of social inequality within the workplace – from the micro-dynamics of social inequality in daily interaction (Paper 1) to how occupational ‘archetypes’ – i.e., mental schemata about occupations – serve to recreate patterns of social inequality (Paper 2) as well as how organizational practices both contribute to and can help address patterns of social inequality (Paper 3). Jointly, these papers suggest that an occupational lens on social inequality can help us to further advance our understanding of patterns of social inequality, thereby opening up important opportunities for future research. My thesis encompasses three papers: Paper 1 examines how managers and experts negotiate control in bureaucratic organizations. Drawing on a qualitative case study of a major UK hospital’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, we find that experts in their field struggled to influence managerial decision-making. Over time, a process emerged that allowed subordinate experts to gain influence on managerial decision-making. However, influence could only be sustained in the presence of well-established relationships with individuals in positions of authority. Importantly, these relationships were distributed unevenly across the organization, with individuals in lower-status occupations and sub-specialties having the least social capital to draw on. This project highlights the importance of considering occupational dynamics as important sources of social inequality because occupations distribute resources, thereby enabling or constraining agency, which serves to recreate patterns of inequality. Occupational dynamics can therefore be particularly revealing in better understanding the micro- foundations of how social inequality is instantiated in daily interaction. Paper 2 theorizes the concept of ‘occupational archetypes’ – mental schemata about occupations that influence job allocation decisions within organizations. Specifically, I argue that the archetyping of jobs and stereotyping of individuals jointly privilege some and marginalize others in the attainment of certain jobs by inducing a positive or negative bias in the evaluation of the ‘fit’, based on the extent to which an individual’s stereotype and an occupation’s archetype converge or diverge. This paper highlights the need to consider the role of occupational archetypes in influencing patterns of horizontal and vertical segregation that contribute to social inequality within and beyond organizational boundaries. Paper 3 examines the relationship between organizational employment and diversity practices, and patterns of racial inequality in selection decisions. We hypothesize that minorities are more likely to be selected through internal promotion than external hiring decisions and in organizations that foster inter-group interaction through mentoring. Moreover, we hypothesize that diversity managers moderate the relationship between employment practice and selection decisions. Drawing on a data set of more than 41,000 partner selection decisions in US law firms between 2007 and 2017, we find support for our hypotheses. In doing so, we contribute to the literature by showing how different organizational employment practices affect access to elite positions and by better explaining which practices can effectively help mitigate the negative consequences of stereotyping on access to elite positions for minorities.