Becky Blab

The IT sector may lead the way in creating gender sensitive workplaces. It is well known that many women fill the ranks of call centres, but very few at the top ranks. Thanks to a study commissioned by Nasscom and being carried out by IIM Ahmedabad, this is set to change, as announced at the Nasscom-IT Women Leadership Summit 2007.

The study, expected to be completed in the next five-six weeks, will focus on additional measures to be taken by the industry to empower women employees and create opportunities to absorb more of them increasingly.

“It is a survey of what the IT industry does and can do more in terms of attitudes, perception and best practices for an inclusive growth. Women are a key and vital part of a progressive industry, which promotes gender diversity and empowerment,” Karnik pointed out.

The study will also quiz women employees across the industry to ascertain their assessment of the existing HR policies, work conditions and workload, how sensitive their male counterparts were towards them, and scope for professional advancement in their respective organisations.

I will try to get a hold of the study. The IT sector has really been the leader of progressive workplace policies (like flexitime). It’s understandable why this is the case though–multinational countries not originating in India have more experience with such initiatives.

However, the mentality in workplaces in the rest of India seems largely that of ignorance of the necessary steps to be taken in order to encourage women’s participation and managerial leadership. Even as women enter the formal workforce in more numbers, the notion that domestic duties fall within women’s domain remains largely unquestioned. Notice the problematic language of this article:

“Even as the industry braces up to achieve this healthy gender ratio, the job trend indicates more and more educated young women, including housewives, are joining the industry due to its progressive and flexible HR policies,” he added.

Couldn’t he have just said “married women” instead of housewives? Because obviously if they are working, they are no longer “just” housewives—or does this title stick no matter what those women do?

As the nature of their occupation, which includes looking after domestic chores, is different and burdensome, the study will explore prospects of employing women with flexi-timing so that they could divide their work between office and home.

Exactly what is “the nature of their occupation?” Is being a woman an occupation?! At least the journalist recognises that women’s tasks are not just “different” but in fact “burdensome”.

Also, as the recent TOI article on flexi-timing indicated, men are opting for flexi-timing too because of its advantages–that they can spend more time with their families and do ’small errands’. So while of course I support the initiative to help women move up the ranks into managerial posts, it is important that any attempts to change gender roles (i.e. promote women’s leadership) are holistic and do not inadvertantly reinforce the very problems that they are trying to remedy. This would include intensive gender sensitisation to try and reverse the rigid division of labour in homes and to help men become more willing to help with tasks.

A related study has been done on women’s perceptions of discrimination in the workplace which limits their abilities to move up the career ladder.

IIM-A’s Associate professor (Communication), Asha Kaul, said, “All the women stated the inhibitions were personal. Either them not having the competence or problems at the personal front or not managing the work-life balance”.

What is interesting is that the women themselves see the issue as personal, whereas really it is systemic. It is unfortunate that they remain so unaware, and seemingly blame themselves for their own ’shortcomings’ and inability to advance in a milieu which is, unbeknownst to them, severely biased against them.