Women in management in Australia: An historical analysis from affirmative action and equal employment opportunity legislation to managing diversity

Abstract

Women in Australia are under-represented in the higher levels of organisational hierarchies, and also as Board Directors. Women are under-represented in managerial positions in the Australian workforce generally. Management is still a largely male domain. In an attempt to address gendered disparities within private sector organisational hierarchies, the Australian Federal Government originally introduced the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 to cover all private sector organisations with over 100 employees. The Affirmative Action Agency (AAA) was formed to administer the legislation. After a review of this legislation in 1998, it was replaced by the Equal Employment Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 and the AAA was renamed the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA). This 1999 legislation has recently been replaced with the Workplace Gender Equality Act, 2012. This thesis is an historical examination of ‘women in management’ during the first decade of the original legislation’s annual reporting requirements in Australia (1990 to 1999). This thesis attempts to diagnose the current situation of women in management and leadership in Australia today by looking to the past. Previous studies of the annual AAA reports, while important, have tended to be ‘one-dimensional’ in their approach. This thesis builds on and moves beyond these previous studies. Three Studies are used in this thesis to present a multi-dimensional approach to women’s managerial representation during the period 1990 to 1999. Study One of this thesis, explored the early perceptions of female managers after the introduction of the AA/EEO Legislation and provided insights into the cultures of private sector organisations covered by this legislation. Using focus groups and personal interviews, this Study showed there were discrepancies between the intent of the legislation and the reality of the human resource management (HRM) policies and practices in some companies with regard to their AA/EEO programs. Study Two examined employment statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) which covered workforce participation; segregation by industry and occupation; and managerial representation. Study Two showed there was a marginal increase in women’s managerial representation in the total Australian workforce during the ten year period. Study Two provided a contextual background for Study Three. Study Three focused on the ‘employment profiles’ (Step 5) of the AAA annual reports across the first decade after the implementation of the AA/EEO Legislation. It examined a large original dataset of over 1228 private companies (matched across at least six years). Study Three showed that women’s managerial representation had increased slightly more in the private sector than in the total Australian workforce. The Study also identified the industry sector and ‘size category’ of companies that had increased or retained their representation of women in management during a period of downsizing. Lastly, this research concluded that organisations need to re-examine their commitment to the spirit and intent of the original AA/EEO Legislation. Recommendations are made for such revised commitment to be coupled with a stricter approach though the new legislation. This dual approach would enhance organisational programs which currently claim to increase women’s representation at higher organisational levels. It is also concluded that action is now needed to re-prioritise the focus toward ‘women in management’ rather than ‘managing diversity’. Managing diversity is seen as a problematic process of segmentalisation of HRM policies and practices. A more proactive, integrated approach (from organisations and Government) is suggested which will have flow-on benefits for other minority groups within organisations. The focus must return to ‘diversity in management’ rather than ‘managing diversity’.