e-101

DAPHNE SPAIN

Spatial Segregation and Gender Stratification in the Workplace

In the spatial hierarchy of the American workplace, having a private office all to yourself is one of the most visible signifiers of status within the organization. But as Daphne Spain reveals, the spatial arrangement of the ordinary workplace is often a marker of gender relations as well. With most women working in "open-floor" (such as secretarial) occupations, and most men frequently enjoying "closed- door" (or managerial) positions, a certain level of gender segregation is to be found in the typical American workplace. Analyzing the social implications of this stratification of working space, Spain shows how the architecture of the workplace not only reflects but reinforces exist- ing gender hierarchies. Spain teaches in the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia and is the author of Gendered Spaces (1992), from which this selection is taken, and How Women Saved the City (2001). She is also coauthor, with Suzanne M. Bianchi, of Balanc- ing Act: Motherhood, Marriage, and Employment among American Women (1996).

To what extent do women and men who work in different occupations also work in different spaces? Baran and Teegarden (1987, 206) propose that occupational segregation in the insurance industry is "tantamount to spatial segregation by gender" since managers are overwhelmingly male and clerical staff are predominantly female. This essay examines the spatial conditions of women's work and men's work and proposes that working women and men come into daily contact with one another very infrequently. Further, women's jobs can be classified as "open floor," but men's jobs are more likely to be "closed door." That is, women work in a more public environment with less control of their space than men. This lack of spatial control both reflects and contributes to women's lower occupational status by limiting opportunities for the transfer of knowledge from men to women.

It bears repeating that my argument concerning space and status deals with structural workplace arrangements of women as a group and men as a group, not with occupational mobility for individual men and women. Extraordinary people always escape the statistical norm and experience up- ward mobility under a variety of circumstances. The emphasis here is on the ways in which workplaces are structured to provide different spatial arrange- ments for the typical working woman and the typical working man and how those arrangements contribute to gender stratification. . . .

707

708 POPULAR SPACES

Typical Women's Work: "Open-Floor Jobs"

A significant proportion of women are employed in just three occupations: teaching, nursing, and secretarial work. In 1990 these three categories alone accounted for 16.5 million women, or 31 percent of all women in the labor force (U.S. Department of Labor 1991, 163, 183). Aside from being concen- trated in occupations that bring them primarily into contact with other women, women are also concentrated spatially in jobs that limit their access to knowl- edge. The work of elementary schoolteachers, for example, brings them into daily contact with children, but with few other adults. When not dealing with patients, nurses spend their time in a lounge separate from the doctors' lounge. Nursing and teaching share common spatial characteristics with the third major "women's job" — that of secretary.

Secretarial/clerical work is the single largest job category for American women. In 1990, 14.9 million women, or more than one of every four employed women, were classified as "administrative support, including clerical"; 98 per- cent of all secretaries are female (U.S. Department of Labor 1991, 163, 183). Secretarial and clerical occupations account for over three-quarters of this cate- gory and epitomize the typical "woman's job." It is similar to teaching and nursing in terms of the spatial context in which it occurs.

Two spatial aspects of secretarial work operate to reduce women's status. One is the concentration of many women together in one place (the secretar- ial "pool") that removes them from observation of and/or input into the decision-making processes of the organization. Those decisions occur behind the "closed doors" of the managers' offices. Second, paradoxically, is the very public nature of the space in which secretaries work. The lack of privacy, repeated interruptions, and potential for surveillance contribute to an inability to turn valuable knowledge into human capital that might advance careers or improve women's salaries relative to men's.

Like teachers and nurses, secretaries process knowledge, but seldom in a way beneficial to their own status. In fact, secretaries may wield consider- able informal power in an organization, because they control the information flow. Management, however, has very clear expectations about how secre- taries are to handle office information. Drawing from their successful experi- ence with grid theory, business consultants Robert Blake, Jane Mouton, and Artie Stockton have outlined the ideal boss-secretary relationship for effec-

, tive office teamwork. In the first chapter of The Secretary Grid, an American Management Association publication, the following advice is offered:

The secretary's position at the center of the information network raises the issue of privileged communications and how best to handle it. Privi- leged communication is information the secretary is not free to divulge, no matter how helpful it might be to others. And the key to handling it is the answer to the question "Who owns the information?" The answer is, "The boss does." . . . The secretary's position with regard to this informa- tion is that of the hotel desk clerk to the contents of the safety deposit

Daphne Spain / Spatial Segregation and Gender Stratification in the Workplace 709

box that stores the guest's valuables. She doesn't own it, but she knows what it is and what is in it. The root of the word secretary is, after all, se- cret: something kept from the knowledge of others. (Blake, Mouton, and Stockton 1983, 4-5; emphasis in original)

In other words, secretaries are paid not to use their knowledge for personal gain, but only for their employers' gain. The workplace arrangements that sep- arate secretaries from managers within the same office reinforce status differ- ences by exposing the secretary mainly to other secretaries bound by the same rules of confidentiality. Lack of access to and interaction with managers inher- ently limits the status women can achieve within the organization.

The executive secretary is an exception to the rule of gendered spatial segre- gation in the workplace. The executive secretary may have her own office, and she has access to more aspects of the managerial process than other secretaries. According to another American Management Association publication titled The Successful Secretary: "Probably no person gets to observe and see management principles in operation on a more practical basis than an executive secretary. She is privy to nearly every decision the executive makes. She has the opportu- nity to witness the gathering of information and the elements that are consid- ered before major decisions are made and implemented" (Belker 1981, 191).

Yet instructions to the successful executive secretary suggest that those with the closest access to power are subject to the strictest guidelines regarding confidentiality. When physical barriers are breached and secretaries spend a great deal of time with the managers, rules governing the secretary's use of information become more important. The executive secretary is cautioned to hide shorthand notes, remove partially typed letters from the typewriter, lock files, and personally deliver interoffice memos to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining confidential information from the boss's office (Belker 1981, 66).

The executive secretary has access to substantial information about the 10 company, but the highest compliment that can be paid her is that she does not divulge it to anyone or use it for personal gain. Comparing the importance of confidentiality to the seal of the confessional, Belker counsels secretaries that "the importance of confidentiality can't be over-emphasized. Your com- pany can be involved in some delicate business matters or negotiations, and the wrong thing leaked to the wrong person could have an adverse effect on the result. . . . Years ago, executive secretaries were sometimes referred to as confidential secretaries. It's a shame that title fell out of popular usage, because it's an accurate description of the job" (Belker 1981, 73-74).

Typical Men's Work: "Closed-Door Jobs"

The largest occupational category for men is that of manager. In 1990, 8.9 million men were classified as "executive, administrative, and managerial." This group constituted 14 percent of all employed men (U.S. Department of

710 POPULAR SPACES

Labor 1991, 163, 183). Thus, more than one in ten men works in a supervisory position.

Spatial arrangements in the workplace reinforce these status distinctions, partially by providing more "closed door" potential to managers than to those they supervise. Although sales and production supervisors may circulate among their employees, their higher status within the organization is reflected by the private offices to which they can withdraw. The expectation is that privacy is required for making decisions that affect the organization. Rather than sharing this privacy, the secretary is often in charge of "gate-keeping" — protecting the boss from interruptions.

Just as there are professional manuals for the successful secretary, there are also numerous guidelines for the aspiring manager. Harry Levinson's widely read Executive (1981) (a revision of his 1968 The Exceptional Executive) stresses the importance of managerial knowledge of the entire organization. A survey of large American companies asking presidents about suitable qualities in their successors revealed the following profile: "A desirable successor is a person with a general knowledge and an understanding of the whole organization, capable of fitting specialized contributions into profitable patterns. . . . The person needs a wide range of liberal arts knowledge together with a funda- mental knowledge of business. . . . A leader will be able to view the business in global historical and technical perspective. Such a perspective is itself the basis for the most important requisite, what one might call 'feel' — a certain intuitive sensitivity for the right action and for handling relationships with people" (Levinson 1981, 136).

The importance of knowledge is stressed repeatedly in this description. The successful manager needs knowledge of the organization, of liberal arts, and of business in general. But equally important is the intuitive ability to carry out actions. This "feel" is not truly intuitive, of course, but is developed through observation and emulation of successful executives. Levinson identi- fies managerial leadership as "an art to be cultivated and developed," which is why it cannot be learned by the book; rather, "it must be learned in a rela- tionship, through identification with a teacher" (Levinson 1981, 145).

Because the transfer of knowledge and the ability to use it are so crucial 15 to leadership, Levinson devotes a chapter to "The Executive as Teacher." He advises that there is no prescription an executive can follow in acting as a teacher. The best strategy is the "shine and show them" approach —the man- ager carries out the duties of office as effectively as possible and thereby demonstrates to subordinates how decisions are made. There are no formal conditions under which teaching takes place; it is incorporated as part of the routine of the business day. In Levinson's words, "The process of example- setting goes on all the time. Executives behave in certain ways, sizing up problems, considering the resources . . . that can be utilized to meet them, and making decisions about procedure. Subordinates, likewise, watch what they are doing and how they do it" (Levinson 1981, 154).

Daphne Spain / Spatial Segregation and Gender Stratification in f/ie Workplace 711

Just as in the ceremonial men's huts of nonindustrial societies, constant contact between elders and initiates is necessary for the transmission of knowl- edge. Levinson implies that it should be frequent contact to transfer most effec- tively formal and informal knowledge. Such frequent and significant contact is missing from the interaction between managers and secretaries. Given the spa- tial distance between the closed doors of managers and the open floors of sec- retaries, it is highly unlikely that sufficient contact between the two groups could occur for secretaries to alter their positions within the organization.

In addition to giving subordinates an opportunity to learn from the boss, spatial proximity provides opportunities for subordinates to be seen by the boss. This opportunity has been labeled "visiposure" by the author of Routes to the Executive Suite (Jennings 1971, 113). A combination of "visibility" and "exposure," visiposure refers to the opportunity to "see and be seen by the right people" (Jennings 1971, 113). Jennings counsels the rising executive that "the abilities to see and copy those who can influence his career and to keep himself in view of those who might promote him are all-important to suc- cess." The ultimate form of visiposure is for the subordinate's manager to be seen by the right managers as well. Such "serial visiposure" is the "sine qua non of fast upward mobility" and is facilitated by face-to-face interaction among several levels of managers and subordinates (Jennings 1971, 113-14).

Both Levinson and Jennings acknowledge the importance of physical proximity to achieving power within an organization, yet neither pursues the assumptions underlying the transactions they discuss — that is, the spatial context within which such interactions occur. To the extent women are segre- gated from men, the transfer of knowledge — with the potential for improving women's status — is limited.

Office Design and Gender Stratification

Contemporary office design clearly reflects the spatial segregation separating women and men. Secretaries (almost all of whom are women) and managers (nearly two-thirds of whom are men) have designated areas assigned within the organization. . . .

Privacy can be a scarce resource in the modern office. Empirical studies have shown that privacy in the office involves "the ability to control access to one's self or group, particularly the ability to limit others' access to one's workspace" (Sundstrom 1986, 178; emphasis added). Business executives commonly define privacy as the ability to control information and space. In other words, privacy is connected in people's minds with the spatial rein- forcement of secrecy. Studies of executives, managers, technicians, and cleri- cal employees have found a high correlation between enclosure of the work space (walls and doors) and perceptions of privacy; the greater the privacy, the greater the satisfaction with work. Employees perceive spatial control as

712 POPULAR SPACES

a resource in the workplace that affects their job satisfaction and perfor- mance (Sundstrom, Burt, and Kemp 1980; Sundstrom 1986).

Not surprisingly, higher status within an organization is accompanied by greater control of space. In the Sundstrom study, most secretaries (75 per- cent) reported sharing an office; about one-half (55 percent) of bookkeepers and accountants shared an office; and only 18 percent of managers and administrators shared space. Secretaries had the least physical separation from other workers, while executives had the most (Sundstrom 1986, 184).

Two aspects of the work environment are striking when the spatial features of the workplaces for secretaries and executives are compared: the low number of walls or partitions surrounding secretaries (an average of 2.1), compared with executives (an average of 3.5), and the greater surveillance that accompanies the public space of secretaries. Three-quarters of all secretaries were visible to their supervisors, compared with only one-tenth of executives. As one would expect given the physical description of their respective offices, executives report the greatest sense of privacy and secretaries the least (Sundstrom 1986, 185). Doors do not necessarily have to be closed or locked in order to convey the message of differential power; they merely have to be available for closing and be seen as controlled at the executive's discretion (Steele 1986, 46).

The spatial distribution of employees in an office highlights the complex ways in which spatial segregation contributes to gender stratification. Workers obviously are not assigned space on the basis of sex, but on the basis of their positions within the organization. Theoretically, managers have the most complex jobs and secretaries have the least complex, yet research on secre- taries and managers with equal degrees of office enclosure suggests that women's space is still considered more public than men's space. Sundstrom found that "in the workspaces with equivalent enclosure — private offices — [respondents] showed differential ratings of privacy, with lowest ratings by secretaries. This could reflect social norms. Secretaries have low ranks, and co-workers or visitors may feel free to walk unannounced into their workspaces. However, they may knock respectfully at the entrance of the workspaces of managers. . . . Perhaps a private office is more private when occupied by a man- ager than when occupied by a secretary" (Sundstrom 1986, 191; emphasis added). This passage suggests that even walls and a door do not insure pri- vacy for the typical working woman in the same way they do for the typical working man. Features that should allow control of workspace do not operate for secretaries as they do for managers.

WORKS CITED

Baran, Barbara, and Suzanne Teegarden. 1987. "Women's Labor in the Office of the Future: A Case Study of the Insurance Industry." In Women, Households, and the Economy, edited by Lourdes Beneria and Catharine R. Stimpson, pp. 201-24. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Belker, Loren. 1981. The Successful Secretary. New York: American Management Asso- ciation.

Daphne Spain / Spatial Segregation and Gender Stratification in the Workplace 713

Blake, Robert, Jane S. Mouton, and Artie Stockton. 1983. The Secretary Grid. New York: American Management Association.

Jennings, Eugene Emerson. 1971. Routes to the Executive Suite. New York. McGraw- Hill.

Levinson, Harry. 1981. Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Steele, Fritz. 1986. "The Dynamics of Power and Influence in Workplace Design and

Management." In Behavioral Issues in Office Design, edited by Jean D. Wineman, pp. 43-64. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Sundstrom, Eric. 1986. "Privacy in the Office." In Behavioral Issues in Office Design, edited by Jean Wineman, pp. 177-202. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Sundstrom, Eric, Robert Burt, and Douglas Kemp. 1980. "Privacy at Work: Architec- tural Correlates of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance." Academy of Management Journal 23 (March): 101-17.

U.S. Department of Labor. 1991. Employment and Earnings 38 (January). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

READING THE TEXT

1. Summarize in your own words how traditional office design can be consid- ered " 'tantamount to spatial segregation by gender'" (para. 1).

2. Define the differences between "open-floor" and "closed-door" (para. 1) jobs. What are the spatial arrangements that signal those differences?

3. According to Spain, how is the executive secretary "an exception to the rule of gendered spatial segregation in the workplace" (para. 8)?

4. In Spain's view, how does office design restrict or enhance the privacy of employees?

READING THE SIGNS

1. In class, form small groups and design an office space that is not hierarchi- cally organized. Have the groups present the design to the class, explaining the reasoning behind their design choices.

2. If you work in an office environment, write an analysis of the spatial design of your workplace. To what extent does it follow the gendered patterns that Spain describes? Alternatively, survey the faculty or staff offices at your col- lege or university. Do they reflect Spain's analysis?

3. Interview at least five women about their jobs and work environments. To what extent do their experiences support Spain's claim that "women are . . . concentrated spatially in jobs that limit their access to knowledge" (para. 3)?

4. Write a letter to business consultants Robert Blake, Jane Mouton, and Artie Stockton in which you respond to their description of the ideal boss-secretary relationship, published in the American Management Association's The Secre- tary Grid (para. 6).