The reproduction and perpetuation of workplace gender inequality in male-dominated industries through biased executive ideologies: a study of the Australian transport and logistics industry

ABSTRACT

Workplace gender inequality remains a major cause of workplace and employment disadvantage for women, particularly in traditionally male-dominated industries. We draw on a study of the Australian transport and logistics industry to examine the conundrum that despite growing awareness of, pressure against, and supposedly increasing policy action against workplace gender inequality, little progress has been made over many decades. This study is premised on the view that understanding, and addressing, the root cause is the key to effective solutions. We applied Wynn’s executive ideology on gender inequality theoretical framework to investigate the core factors sustaining workplace gender inequalities in the industry. We find that particular unconscious biased executive conceptualisations of workplace gender inequalities shape organisational gender policies. Consequently, instead of eradicating, they reinforce and reproduce embedded attitudes and processes through the policies they adopt. We argue that to effectively address workplace gender inequality, it is the organisation and the industry, rather than the individual and society that must be the primary focus of executive strategy and action.

KEYWORDS:

• Workplace gender inequality
• transport and logistics industry
• executive ideologies
• gendered organisations

Introduction

This study examines the persistence of workplace gender inequality in traditionally male-dominated industries. Specifically, it investigates how executive management understands and frames workplace gender inequality, and how this might undermine progress and perhaps perpetuate the problem. This approach is conceived on the premise that organisational change is often shaped by how decision-makers construct the need for change. Many organisational path-dependency scholars argue that, because of the embeddedness of organisational cultures, landmark shifts are often difficult as progressive responses tend to fall into established patterns. Lakomski (2001) argues the key to successful change is the leadership’s willingness to challenge existing systems, cultures, and practices. de Vries (2015, 33) argues that for effective change, “gender equity [must be] part of [the CEO]’s executive leadership roles” as change champions. Colley et al. (2021) suggest change is unlikely without internal executive ownership of the problem, while Wynn (2020) proposes considering executive ideology as the key, yet also a possible impediment, to the organisation achieving gender equality. Wynn argues there is often potential for misconstruction, intentional or not, of core factors that shape and sustain gender inequality, leading to ineffective change policies.

There are many studies that have examined workplace gender inequality. The focus, often, has been to theorise cause and effect, analysing implications for workers, and examining the impact of response measures (Dalingwater 2018; Dashper 2019; Kalev and Deutch 2018). The recurring observation is how little fundamental change has occurred, especially in traditionally male-dominated industries like construction (Navarro-Astor et al. 2017), transport and logistics (Okon and Richard 2017), forestry and mining (Baker et al. 2019) and IT (Kenny and Donnelly 2020). Women continue to be under-represented in the workforce and senior leadership positions, and under-paid compared to men. A separate but related body of literature has documented increasing feminisation of certain industries (Charlesworth and Smith 2018). These studies observe that while feminised industries like hospitality, services, and healthcare account for most of the growth in female labour market participation, they have also helped reproduce gendered disadvantage, as most are associated with casualised, under-paid and largely precarious work (Pennington and Wenlock 2021; Pocock and Alexander 1999).

This study considers Australia’s transport and logistics (T&L) industry, which exemplifies French and Strachan’s (2015) characterisation as extremely gender segregated. It rates poorly on all key gender equality indicators, including pay gaps, labour market participation, and representation in senior management. In 2018, it was ranked 17 out of 19 industries on gender equality, only slightly better than construction and mining (WGEA 2019). It was chosen as the study context for various reasons, alongside gender equality performance. First, like similarly male-dominated industries, it faces perennial labour shortages (Gekara et al. 2019); second, there is wide recognition that women represent a significant, hitherto, untapped labour resource that could alleviate such shortages; third, it often features as progressive in technology uptake and workplace transformation (Speranza 2018). Presumably this should overcome some cultural and structural barriers to equal gender participation since technologies are expected to mitigate the physical intensity of work, often presented as the greatest physical obstacle for women (ITF 2021); fourth, there is wide recognition of the gender inequality problem and evidence of increasing industry policy action. Yet, little seems to change. Despite such continued gender inequality, few recent Australian studies specifically question the lack of progress. Most of the extant literature is pre-2010 and tends to highlight gender domination and implications from a general perspective (e.g. Baker et al. 2019). There is, therefore, a need to reignite academic and policy debates in this significant socio-economic issue and seemingly wicked problem.

For industries like T&L gender inequality is a multi-dimensional, complex problem. Generating consistent theoretical understandings of cause, effect and perpetuity is often complicated by its deep and intricate embeddedness in the histories of particular industries, organisations, occupations and associated socio-cultural contexts. We draw on Wynn’s executive ideology on gender inequality (Wynn 2020) theoretical framework to investigate the core factors sustaining workplace gender inequalities in the industry. We examine, through qualitative key management interviews, executive management ideologies, presumptions, and attitudes and their role in sustaining, and perhaps reproducing, gender inequality.

The paper is organised into seven sections. Section two briefly reviews major debates on workplace gender inequality. Section three describes the study background and methods. Sections four and five present an analytical examination of executive views on sources of gender inequality and possible responses. Section six presents a critical assessment of findings and conclusions, and section seven provides directions for future research.

Labour market and workplace gender inequality debates

Concerns about gender inequality have resurged in recent decades as organisations seek reputational capital and competitive advantage, in the context of rising global social consciousness. Growing calls from all corners of society ask businesses to demonstrate commitment to socially sustainable behaviour, including workplace gender equality (Blake‐Beard et al. 2010). For example, growing civil society agitation, like the global #MeToo movement, seeks greater recognition of, and respect for, women’s rights at work and society. Legislative pressure is mounting prompted by, for example, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals in which Gender Equality (Goal 5) animates sustainable global prosperity. The Corporate Social Responsibility view has also become important for gender equality objectives as businesses emphasise social image and reputation (Grosser et al. 2016).

Herein lies our concern that despite growing global awareness, rising pressure for change, and legislation, there is, as the International Labour Organisation (ILO 2020, 12) reports,

… only limited progress […] in terms of women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership positions in the world of work.

Furthermore, most of this ‘limited progress’ is attributable to so-labelled feminised industries, as opposed to positive change in traditional ‘male’ industries (Charlesworth and Smith 2018).

In workplace gender debates, historically, gender inequality has been theorised as resulting from (1) failure of the individual woman to better their capacities and opportunities, (2) biologically determined physical limitations, (3) society’s embedded gender biases regarding what jobs women can and cannot do, and (4) the embedded gendered biases in organisational structures. To better understand this, it is important to revisit the common theoretical framing of the causes of gender inequality. The literature captures several perspectives. The dominant one tends to align with human capital (HCT) thinking (Becker 1993); that workplace under-representation of women results from lack of necessary qualifications, skills, and competencies. According to HCT, individual investment in skills and qualifications determines one’s entry, performance, and progression into the labour market (Singh et al. 2008). However, this argument is questioned in research showing higher educational attainment for women in many advanced economies (Bloodhart et al. 2020). Yet, as Preston and Burgess (2003) observe, educational achievement of women have had limited impact on gender segregation in the Australian labour market. Furthermore, there is general evidence that enhanced human capital does not necessarily translate into equal gender employment outcomes for women. Grybaite (2006) and Williams (2014) observes that women continue to encounter obstacles often beyond individual control. Similarly, women tend to earn much less than their similarly qualified male colleagues (Evers and Sieverding 2014). Consequently, Tomlinson et al. (2018) conclude that one’s career is influenced by organisational and institutional factors beyond individual control.

The biogrammar school of thought proposes that gender inequalities are informed at infancy and childhood by biological construction and social orientation (Tiger and Shepher 1975), which are apparently inevitable and irreversible. It proceeds that individuals’ natural and physical attributes and characteristics are key influences for one’s social and economic outcomes. This supports common arguments that women are not built, physically, emotionally, and even intellectually, for certain job roles and work environments. Classical Marxist thought, on the other hand, suggests society conditions boys and girls differently in preparation for different socio-economic roles and maintains a gendered division of labour with expectations that women take charge of ‘soft’ domestic duties, while men do the ‘hard’ work of earning a living (Engels and Untermann 2021; Sanday 1973). It argues that boys and girls are socialised in ways that condition them towards certain occupational preferences and suitability.

Contradictory as they may appear, these thoughts have permeated modern workplaces and sustained gendered divisions of labour and the observed inequalities. While classical Marxists present society as the primary influence on gendered social and economic outcomes in what might be described as social shaping of gendered opportunities and experiences, human capital and biogrammar theorists tend to orchestrate a separation between the female body, viewed by Marxists as central to the labour process, from the world of work. In this way, the woman is distinct from the female worker (Lee 2018); the former being seen as problematic in deviating from the ‘ideal worker’ narrative. Watts (2009, 54), for example, observes how women seeking, through work–life balance strategies, to integrate family and work lives in male-dominated industries ‘are stigmatised for transgressing the profession’s’ ideal worker norms (Bryson et al. 2014).

In relation to traditionally male-dominated industries and considering the enduring nature of the gender inequality problem, we see most of the existing theorisation as bearing little critical scrutiny of how masculinised structures and cultures in traditionally male industries self-reproduce by key executive management. We argue that unless the real forces sustaining workplace gender inequalities are accurately identified and specifically targeted by policy, these industries, and the workplaces, while cosmetically changing, will remain gendered and unequal.

Our analysis draws on Wynn’s executive ideologies of gender inequality framework (Wynn 2020). Wynn’s framework is based on a study of an IT company in Silicon Valley at which she analysed executive views on sources of workplace gender inequality against the corresponding change programs adopted. She identifies three ideology pathways that executives are inclined to rely on in developing gender policies, being Individualistic, Societal and Organisational. She concludes that company executives often pay greater attention to individualistic and societal sources, more than organisational, and fail to acknowledge the significant role of gendered organisational structures and cultures, despite being consistently highlighted in gendered organisations and inequality regime debates (see Acker 1990, 2006). She argues that this disjuncture between executive understanding of the sources of inequalities and the design of organisational responses create a significant barrier in achieving workplace gender equality. She notes a common tendency to construct workplace inequality as the individual’s and/or society’s problem while conveniently exempting the organisation and interpreting it as evidence of the unconscious organisational gender biases which sustain gender inequalities. Similarly, Colley et al. (2021) argue there is a common reluctance by organisations to take internal ownership of the problem, which poses significant impediment to organisational change. In conclusion, Wynn suggests that addressing gender inequality within organisations requires accurate identification of the sources and appropriate focus on policy action.

We develop the discussion against the backdrop of the important works of others who theorised gendered organisations – most prominently Joan Acker in her seminal (Acker 1990) work. Acker’s theory of gendered organisations posits that organisations are not gender-neutral and all aspects of the workplace, including processes of hire, promotion and pay, are often pervaded by embedded masculinity, invariably contributing to sustaining gender segregation (Acker 1990). Relatedly, we draw inspiration from the important work of Sylvia Walby who has dedicated a lot of effort in theorising varieties of gender regimes with the consistent conclusion that understanding the nature, evolution, and full extent of varieties of gender regimes is pertinent to understanding the nature and sources of gender inequalities in society and the workplace (Shire and Walby 2020, 2020). Theorists in this space recognise the role of historical trajectories, embedded organisational cultures, structures, and attitudes in determining the extent of organisational genderedness. In more gendered ones, like those categorised as traditionally male-dominated, embedded gender biases among decision makers tend to perpetuate inequalities (Kalev and Deutch 2018; Wynn 2020). They also argue that lack of progress towards greater equality commonly results from misalignment between conceptualisations of cause and the design of responses, which undermines the effectiveness of the change programs adopted (Ely and Meyerson 2000; Kalev and Deutch 2018). Similarly, others like Mescher et al. (2010) argue that without addressing underlying cultural norms related to gender, the strategies adopted rarely lead to positive change in organisations. Benschop and Van Den Brink (2018) further highlight the role of organisational leadership to correctly interpret problems and initiate actions that go beyond sloganism (Cox and Blake 1991), or symbolic and verbal (Holvino et al. 2004).

Although these studies have recognised the significance of organisational leadership and ingrained biases in decision-making, there is a limited number of studies that focus on how leaders perceive workplace gender inequality, its sources and sustaining factors. Therefore, this study examines leaders’ views, perspectives, and their actions towards workplace gender inequalities in the traditionally male-dominated Australian transport and logistics industry. Moreover, this study aims to analyse the extent to which leaders’ conceptualisation of gender inequalities in the workplace facilitates or impedes progress towards achieving gender equality. This investigation will contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the subject and enhance our understanding of the role of leadership in promoting gender parity in traditionally male-dominated industries.

In the process of applying Wynn’s framework, we also make important contribution towards its broader applicability. Having been based on a single organisation case study, Wynn’s work calls for further research to investigate its application across a wider range of organisations and industries. Thus, by applying it in a multi-organisation, industry-wide study, we provide important validation of broader contextual application.

Study background – Australia’s transport and logistics industry

The Australian T&L industry was chosen as study context because of its pronounced historical workplace gender inequalities (Ng and Acker 2020; Strachan 2010). Also, the study followed from previous studies by members of the research team that found chronic skill shortages, an ageing workforce, and significant technological transformations in T&L (Gekara et al, 2019). The question for us was why, despite the clear need for an injection of labour and the availability of an untapped female workforce, the industry has retained this gendered profile. By August 2021, women represented only 22.4% of the total T&L workforce, up from 15.41% in 1984 (ABS 2021). Furthermore, women in the workforce mostly occupy part-time jobs. Figure 1 shows that of 156 companies reporting to WGEA in 2021, women represented on 26.7% of senior managers and only 3.2% of all CEOs. Moreover, the pay gap between men and women was 16.7% (WGEA 2022).

Figure 1. Women representation in management and leadership positions – Australian T&L industry − 2021.

Source: Created by authors from WGEA (2022)

These trends confirm previous studies, which noted limited impact from various strategies adopted by government and industry to bridge the gender gap in traditionally male-dominated industries. Baker et al.’s (2019, 436) study of 358 property and mining organisations concludes this ‘could be due to organisations choosing to focus less on gender-based HR initiatives as they are harder to design to address bias and discrimination’.

Based on a review of initiatives in 91 transport organisations in Australia, French and Strachan (2009) observed organisations were quicker to adopt the ‘soft’ approach of work–life initiatives that encourage access and retention, than to increase leadership representation through ‘hard’ gender-based HR initiatives. For Australian engineering organisations, Sharp et al. (2012, 568) argue ‘diversity policies fail to transform gender inequality because they do not address the male dominance of sexual politics’. Similarly, in Australia’s construction industry, French and Strachan (2015) conclude that strategies rarely challenge core organisational aspects that sustain the gendered status quo. Galea et al. (2020) find that informal gendered institutions obstruct women’s recruitment, retention, and progression in construction. They list male sponsorship, cultural fit, and traditional education pipelines; poor planning for career interruptions; gender stereotypes; and lack of transparency in promotion practices as the key barriers in recruitment and career progression for women in the industry.

Findings from these authoritative studies suggest that the problem may not lie in implementing change policies, but rather in the conceptualisation of workplace gender inequality’s causes and influences, by key decision makers, particularly its core sources and sustaining factors, and/or lack of political will to significantly challenge established conveniences. In light of this, the present study aims to expand on previous research by investigating leaders’ perspectives on gender inequality, with particular emphasis on its core sources and sustaining factors within the Australian T&L industry, which is predominantly male dominated.

The study methods

We utilised a qualitative industry-wide case study methodology (Meyer 2001) to investigate the gender equality question in the Australian T&L industry. Particularly, we focused on executive managers’ views on, and interpretations of, the sources and causes of gender inequality and how these affected the nature and effectiveness of the gender policies and strategies adopted.

Qualitative narratives were collected through semi-structured interviews (Holstein and Gubrium 1995) with key executive managers in which their understanding of, and views on, workplace gender inequality were explored alongside their role in, and the processes of, designing organisational gender policies and change programs. Focus on executives was on the premise that, in traditionally male-dominated industries, status quo is sustained by deep-rooted cultural embeddedness which shapes organisational structures, policies and practices (Sharp et al. 2012). Further, research on organisational behaviour shows that real change is only possible with sufficient executive commitment to landmark policy shifts (Benschop and Van Den Brink 2018).

Research in this area has mostly relied on worker accounts of, and experiences with, workplace gender inequality actions and outcomes, and has not critically interrogated the role of executive ideology, particularly as an enabler of, or impediment to, real change (Wynn 2020). An additional value-adding feature of this study is that, unlike many studies which tend to focus on an individual organisation, a group of defined organisations or just industry employers, we sought to capture both breadth and depth by including a wide variety of industry stakeholders, including key industry peak bodies; executives of T&L companies (including road, water transport, ports, and postal services); manufacturing and fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) organisation executives responsible for logistics and supply chain operations; and senior government officials. Thirty interviews were conducted, averaging 60 minutes in length (see Table 1). By this point, the research team was satisfied that sufficient material had been collected covering all of the broad aspects of the T&L industry. Within specific organisations, points of saturation were determined when the narratives collected started to repeat prior interviews. At this point, additional interviews would add little more value.

Table 1. Interview participants and their roles.

Interview Participants	Number of Interviewees	Role of Participants
Key Industry ProfessionalOrganisations(Peak Bodies) Organisations (Peak Bodies)	3	Senior Executives
Transportation and LogisticsOrganisations Organisations	Sea Transport (Shipping and Port Terminal Operators) 6	Senior Executives
	Land Transport(Trucking and Freight Forwarding)8 (Trucking and Freight Forwarding) 8
	Air Transport(Postal and Parcel)1 (Postal and Parcel) 1
	Warehousing & Logistics Services2 2
Manufacturing and FMCGOrganisations Organisations	4	Supply Chain and Logistics Executives
Governmental Organisations (T&L Industry)	6	Policy Executives

The analysis followed a thematic and cross-perspective approach (Miles et al. 2014). After formal transcription, interviews were systematically coded in NVivo 12 using a flexible, deductive, and inductive approach, with themes identified prior to (pre-determined), and following analysis of interviews (emerging) (Clarke and Braun 2017). Following Wynn’s (2020) executive ideologies of gender inequality, the interview responses were dissected and categorised along two thematic NVivo tree nodes, (1) causes and factors sustaining workplace gender inequality and (2) areas of inequality. Under the first tree node, the participants’ views were grouped into individualistic, organisational, and societal, and other sub-themes. The sub-themes were then subjected to a detailed examination based on different executive perspectives, thus providing a nuanced view of the industry executives’ understanding of, and responses to, workplace gender inequality. Under the second thematic tree node, the causes and sustaining factors were categorised in three areas of attraction and recruitment, retention, and progression to leadership roles. This stage of the analysis was adopted for two reasons. First, research has shown that these are the key points at which gender inequality manifests (Galea et al. 2020), and second, it enabled systematic and in-depth examination of the ways executives understood and addressed these manifestations. The results of the analysis are discussed in the following subsections.

For purposes of anonymity, interviewee identities are encoded in pseudonyms. To aid the reader’s understanding of the material collected, Table 2 provides essential identifiers for participants.

Table 2. List of pseudonyms.

Pseudonyms	Positions	Sector	Pseudonyms	Positions	Sector
Alec	Executive manager	Land Transport	Lisa	Supply Chain executive	FMCG
Ava	Chair-Board	Peak Association	Lizzy	Executive manager	Sea Transport
Ben	President	Peak Association	Lucas	Executive manager	Land Transport
Cassy	Executive manager	W’housing & Logistics Services	Margot	Executive manager	Land Transport
Charlotte	Executive manager	Government	Mark	HR Manager	Port Terminal
David	Executive manager	Government	Mary	Executive manager	Government
Emma	CEO	Peak Association	Mia	CEO	Land Transport
Fiona	Supply Chain Executive	M’facturing	Michael	Executive manager	Land Transport
Hannah	HR Executive	Land Transport	Oliver	Executive manager	W’housing & Logistics Services
Isabella	CEO	Land Transport	Olivia	Supply chain executive	M’facturing
Jenny	Executive manager	Land Transport	Paul	Executive manager	Government
Jess	Executive manager	Sea Transport	Peter	Operation Manager	Port Terminal
John	Executive manager	Sea Transport	Sophia	Executive manager	Air Transport
Jason	Operation Manager	Sea Transport	Steve	Executive manager	Government
Kevin	Executive manager	Government	Susan	Supply Chain executive	FMCG

Study findings

As stated earlier, how company executives conceptualise the need for organisational change shapes the nature and effectiveness of strategies adopted (Benschop and Van Den Brink 2018). Interviewees were asked to discuss their views on gender inequality, including causes, sustaining factors, impacts, and their organisations and industry’s responses, actions, and outcomes. This section presents the findings from these interviews on the dominant executive views on causes and influences of workplace gender inequality. Four dominant views were identified, including the individual woman, the society, the organisation, and the industry, as key influences on gender inequality. These are discussed in turn below.

The individual woman as source of inequality

One issue commonly identified as influencing low female participation in the workforce was the recruitment pipeline. Managers argued that there seemed to be a limited pool of suitably qualified and inclined women in the labour market to recruit from. This pipeline issue was mostly constructed from assumptions of individuals’ perceptions of T&L work, individual career preferences, skills, and competencies, and natural gender attributes that prevented or discouraged women’s engagement with T&L work. In this view, women were generally unwilling to work in the industry due to perceptions of difficulty and inconvenience. One interviewee, John, a sea transport executive manager, described how 150 responses to job adverts included only seven women. He observed that in his experience with recruitment, ‘there are some positions that women do not want to apply to’. Thus, many, like Emma, felt it was not possible to ‘… blame the organisation’. Mia explained that ‘… not enough women actually put themselves forward to gain those opportunities’, suggesting few women trained for T&L industry jobs. The pipeline issue was also explained as partly driven by women’s personal career choices and preferences; women make conscious choices regarding which jobs to apply for and what kind of work they want to do. Other explanations included women’s need for employment flexibility, so they can effectively balance domestic and work responsibilities, and their natural physical ability to perform most of the work involved, particularly in operations. Isabella explained that women increasingly have more choices in their careers and are unlikely to choose careers not ‘suitable’ to their abilities, preferences, and convenience.

Interviewees also explained that the dominance of men in senior positions simply reflected general labour market gender demographics. Another common argument was that women’s career progression was often hindered by low confidence, lack of aggressive drive, lack of assertiveness, and weak negotiation skills. Mia observed that, ‘often women will say I’m not qualified enough, I don’t have a degree in this and that …’. Margot, an executive manager of a land transport company, cited women’s lack of sufficient ambition; that most women prefer not to accept the pressure and the politics around managing upwards in companies:

… most women just are happy to get fulfilment out of life from other areas apart from the political scramble to get to the top of a company.

Conversely, Sophia attributed low female leadership representation to women’s lack of confidence to step up for leadership roles. Lisa similarly explained that women do not apply for a position unless they feel fully competent for it, while men would ‘give it a go’ even if unsure.

Similarly, weak negotiation skills (due to lack of confidence or general predisposition to be satisfied with what is offered) were presented as reasons most women in the industry, even in senior positions, earn less than men for the same job. Fiona, a supply chain executive, blames gendered socialisations, saying:

[T]he difference is that men are raised as better negotiators and they’re raised with that confidence to say I want this much money and I deserve this much money. We’re [women] raised to be less confrontational…

Failure in professional networking was highlighted as a significant barrier to career advancement. One interviewee observed that, due to lack of interest, confidence or lack of time, many women tended to avoid industry professional networking events. It is, however, through these networks, which Emma described as ‘boys’ clubs’, that job opportunities are found, and careers shaped. To this end, Mary argued that women must break into the networks, create their own networks, and support one another the way ‘men always support one other’.

Invoking the ‘individual choices’ argument, some participants explained women may avoid ascending to senior management ranks because commitments would conflict with their need for flexible working arrangements suited to domestic duties and commitments like childbearing and raising. The same argument was presented to explain lower overall financial benefits relative to men. Lukas, a land transport manager, observes:

[T]he fact that the women have to have time off work sets them back … when they’re on maternity leave they’re not paid superannuation … Therefore, when you fast forward to retirement, well, a lady’s superannuation may be less than that of a male.

The society as source of inequality

The second most emphasised source of gender inequality was society; that certain embedded socio-cultural expectations, traditions and attitudes about women and work prevented women from pursuing certain jobs or leadership roles. Like individual considerations, these were presented as forces outside the organisation’s control. Interviewees highlighted gendered social role allocation, gendered perceptions of domestic responsibilities of women, and social constructions of the ability and suitability of women to perform certain roles. Picking up Fiona’s earlier point, there was a common view that women are often socialised with expectations, attitudes and ambitions that differ from men – primarily that men are breadwinners and women are responsible for unpaid domestic work. Mia saw gender inequality as reflecting overarching social exclusion where society expected, and accepted, that men get more opportunities than women. Sophia, an air transport executive manager, simply breaks it down to ‘societal norms about why more women don’t ride motorbikes; Why more women don’t drive trucks’. It was seen as non-traditional and rare that parents would tell their daughters, ‘… you should go and become a truck driver or a plumber or electrician or that kind of thing’. Further, Emma, CEO of a peak association, argued families, influenced by occupational stereotyping, play a big role in discouraging girls from certain industries perceived as ‘male’. She describes an incident when she, as representative of the company:

… went to a careers day and we spoke about transport and logistics, … parents would come around to the adviser and say, well let’s not talk about that [transport jobs] because that’s not where we see our daughter and her future.

Interviewees also emphasised home, family and culture as shaping women’s abilities and willingness to seek certain jobs. Some explained there were many communities in which women were not expected to work or mix with men freely or do work culturally perceived as men’s work. Oliver described experiences where, even with encouragement, women from certain cultural backgrounds declined leadership opportunities because they did not think women could or should be boss. Similar cultural barriers apparently inform some women’s inability or unwillingness to actively network. Closely related was the general perception of the essential role of women as mothers and caregivers; that because of this social expectation, women are pushed into jobs that allowed for significant flexibility with time and geographical convenience. Most T&L work, as Jess, a sea transport manager, explained,

… is not nine to five, that’s for sure, because it’s international. You can have calls at 11 pm at night, 10 pm at night. So, that would really scare anybody off, especially if you have a young family…

From another perspective, Hannah explains that,

… a fuels truck driver works a 14-hour shift, and it rotates between days and nights. So, there would be probably an expectation that a female wouldn’t want to do that. If someone said, ‘well, could I just do days?’, they wouldn’t think that was feasible …

The same applies to long-distance train-driving, dock-work, seafaring and even warehousing.

The organisation as source of gender inequality

The organisation was also identified as a source of inequality with its embedded masculine culture, structure, and attitudes. The term ‘boys’ club’ was used in several interviews to illustrate a general perception of the core of the problem. Olivia explains that ‘when you start as a man, you automatically get slotted into the bloke circle kind of thing, whereas as a female, you don’t often fit’. Lizzy also observes that,

In terms of the recruitment and the promotion and the engagement, one of the challenges is we’ve already got a very strong, or dominant, male agenda in senior positions. If you’ve got 60-year-old men in senior management positions, they don’t relate as comfortably with a female as they do with a male.

Sophia described the resulting lack of gender diversity as a major factor perpetuating inequality.

… there is a white, middle aged, male sort of view of the world that can permeate, and I see it at different levels. I see it at board levels, and I see it at facility levels as well. It’s not overt … when you have too many people that are the same together, you can’t help but create lack of diversity of thought and expression in an idea.

Steve, a senior government official, identified this issue as a major risk across many organisations in the industry:

Unfortunately, they are the role models and the trainers of next generation. I think even if we get some diversity in there and equality, it only lasts a year or six months. Because it’s just toxic.

According to Lizzy, within many organisations, embedded masculine attitudes and structures create an environment where women struggle to fit in and/or succeed. She explains:

If you’re recruiting into a team that is male-dominated, and one of your criteria is cultural fit, then a female fitting into that team is going to be really difficult … I think it’s that which is probably the biggest barrier in the first instance.

This organisational culture of gendered attitudes was variously illustrated. Alec explained a common attitude among the various organisations he had worked at: women are deemed physically incapable of most operational T&L tasks and are assumed to be prone to causing or suffering injury. There are higher risks of ‘compensation claims and injuries’ and therefore higher insurance premiums for organisations. As a result, ‘the hiring manager would go towards the “Arnold Schwarzenegger” guy, because they actually have the physical capability to do the role, although the female’s coming in and saying, yeah, I can do it’. In such cases, the actions of the manager are supposedly for the good of the woman. Similar to the benevolent discrimination described earlier, there is apparent tendency by the organisation to ‘protect’ women from unsafe, unsuitable, or inconvenient work. David confirmed instances where rostering automatically excluded women from certain tasks and shifts on that basis. They were mostly allocated to more convenient 9–5 jobs because night shifts, in the organisation’s view, might be either inconvenient or unsafe. However, odd shifts frequently attract extra pay, and sometimes performance bonuses.

John agreed with his organisation’s view that certain jobs are just unsuitable for women:

… if you have to go and just carry huge rods and discuss with vessel crew and argue about things, be out in the rain or on 38-degree days let’s say to lash containers, this is not something that women would choose to do.

The problem, as others argued, is that what is best for women, was decided based on unconscious, bias-driven assumptions of what a woman could and couldn’t do.

Interestingly, although many of the interviewees recognised the organisation as an important source of inequality, they were quick to defend it on the argument that, unlike individual and societal forces they could not control, organisations had significantly improved their structures, attitudes, and practices. Cassy argued her organisation was changing and that similarly, others within the industry were not what they once were. She argued that there were increasingly more opportunities for women because of organisational gender equality initiatives. Generally, the view was that gender inequalities at work were mostly a result of societal and individual factors and that, although the organisation took some of the blame, they could be excused on two grounds: (1) They were making remarkable efforts and dedicating sufficient resources to tackle the problem, but (2) their internal efforts were often undermined by external societal and individual level obstacles that were difficult to control.

The industry as source of gender inequality

In our earlier described thematic grouping of executive views, several arguments fell into the ‘other’ group which predominantly points to a fourth ideology, not identified in Wynn’s work. This emphasised the industry as a major source of workplace gender inequality, based on certain characteristics. Some of these characteristics included the embedded cultural identities of the industry, the nature of industrial relations, certain regulatory requirements that applied to particular industries and the perceived levels of risk and insurance considerations. In the interviews, it was common to conflate industry and organisation, however, detailed analysis identified specific ways the T&L bore certain histories and particular characteristics that sustained a masculine identity and male dominance. According to interviewees (for example, David and Alec quoted above) the prevailing perception and narrative that T&L work was risky makes employers wary of allocating ‘hard’ physical tasks to certain kind of workers, like women, perceived accident prone. Peter explained, in case of damage or injury insurance companies will ‘often question the appropriateness of task allocation’ and, apparently, if it was a woman, ‘they try to pin it on the company’. Michael, a land transport manager, sums it up like this:

… the issue stems from the top because labour laws as well as OH&S laws are centred around what they would call a person, what they think a person’s restrictions are … I think that’s centred around a man, a male, someone who is able to lift a lot more than they would be able to – not saying that women can’t.

He explained that conditions, and associated penalties, could influence a hiring or rostering manager’s decision to hire women or allocate them certain roles or tasks. Jason, a sea transport operation manager, best illustrates this perception of the ‘right’ T&L worker when speaking of the only woman in yard operations: ‘we have one “girl” working in the yard … but she is not your girly girl, if you know what I mean’.

Enterprise agreements and union intervention were also presented as a gender equality obstacle. Like many traditional industries, the T&L industry has always been heavily unionised. Union’s notions of fairness and equal representation automatically favoured men, who comprised majority of membership. Some interviewees argued that this application of ‘fairness’ often undermined employers’ attempts to preference women in recruitment, role allocation, and promotion. John explained that their enterprise agreement has ‘… a particular pathway into joining the workforce, which has to go through the tough jobs first to get to the easier ones up the ladder’. Describing employment and promotion pathways in container terminal work, Mark, a port terminal HR manager, explained that everyone, irrespective of gender, age, or previous experience, must begin from the lowest, most physically intensive, roles before moving to relatively lighter ones, like driving straddles or office-based operational roles like tower-room monitors. He explained that although they could easily recruit women directly into these lighter roles, ‘… they won’t let us, and it is in the EBA … it would be unfair to others who had done their time …’.

Aggressive professional networking is another industry characteristic that disadvantages most women. According to views quoted earlier, networking determines career opportunities, especially progression to leadership. Networks were described as predominantly male, featuring ‘boys’ club’ mentalities and attitudes that discouraged most women. According to Ava, an industry-wide system is established that maintains male privilege and, intentionally or not, excludes most women. To fit into these networks, she ‘… literally changed parts of my personal life and lifestyle because it was incompatible with being taken seriously’.

One might ask here if these are industry-wide or simply forms of organisational obstacles. Our argument is that organisational action, for example allocation of tasks, recruitment, as above is influenced by the nature and characteristics of the industry. We also argue that cultures, practices, and mentalities historically embedded in the industry present a strong influence on how individual organisations behave. This is evident in how the same structures and cultures identically manifested across several unrelated organisations – like those represented by Mark and John above. The T&L industryin this case, has a deeply embedded historical male dominance that creates gendered organisations with particular gender regimes (Acker 1990, 2006).

How executive interpretations influence organisational response

The foregoing analysis shows industry executives viewed external (that is, individual, societal, and industrial) factors as the most important barriers to workplace gender equality. These conceptualisations of gender inequality causes were closely reflected in the kinds of potential solutions suggested.

Descriptions of the variety of initiatives and programs adopted to address gender inequality suggested that most organisations emphasised uplifting women’s skills and competencies through training and career mentoring and by embedding work–life flexibility to enable women easily juggle work and home responsibilities. Apparently, many organisations had initiated activities meant to enhance proactive promotion of T&L careers in their organisations to girls in schools, universities, and the public generally. Some offered special training scholarships, industry internships and graduate training programs for young women as a way of attracting more women. There was a view that women in tertiary education should be exposed to T&L opportunities and actively encouraged to pursue them. Jenny proposed to ‘get the schools, TAFEs, universities, all of those people on board, to show how the industry has changed … many opportunities for women’. Lizzy proposed that ‘a big opportunity is getting people at school and changing that subconscious bias at an early age’.

In the area of promotion and career advancement, emphasis was leadership training opportunities to develop leadership skills. This was followed by career mentoring programs adopted to build confidence and courage to proactively reach for leadership positions and negotiate better pay. Many also explained that their organisations had established mentoring schemes to help women build and use professional and social networks. Relatedly, many participants thought that such training and mentoring could help women begin to form their own networks and professional safety nets. Emma’s view, for example, was:

It’s about us in our own networks supporting our network of women and consciously looking for opportunities… I mean, the more senior you get, it’s not the job application through a HR company that gets you a job. It’s your network that gets you those jobs.

Others explained the importance of training women to develop skills and attributes necessary to successfully navigate male-dominated professions. Sophia’s company had, apparently, initiated such training to empower women to undertake senior roles, to which she argued women ‘should attend training programs on how to be more confident’, and learn to ‘ignore the loser voice’ and how to apply for leadership roles. Fiona echoed this, proposing greater training emphasis on soft skills:

I think one thing to address is the whole soft skills, like EQ side of things, and actually have programs for women and basically spelling it out for women: why you don’t have the confidence that men do … Why scared to ask for the money that you really deserve?

The dominant emphasis on training and mentoring-related solutions, and the fact that most of the adopted programs focused on the same suggests that, because the key policymakers saw gender inequality from the individual deficiency angle, the majority of organisational policies were thus focused. Little was suggested about changing the organisation’s embedded cultures and structures. Instead, all the managers interviewed were emphatic about the positive efforts their organisations were making and how these were often made difficult by other factors – individual deficiencies of preferences and societal forces.

Concluding assessment

Many questions continue to occupy debates on workplace gender equality. In this research, we focused on three: What are the sustaining forces of gender inequality? Why, despite much industrial and organisational transformation, is gender inequality so enduring? How do executive ideologies of gender inequality shape responses and outcomes?

There is increasing gender equality legislation around the world (Memusi 2020), and greater focus on corporate social responsibility (Grosser et al. 2016), as vehicles for gender equality, in response to mounting consumer group pressure, and inclusion of gender equality in the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. At a time when reputational capital is important for business competitiveness, being perceived as a socially responsible business is critical. Yet traditional ‘male’ industries remain so. What sustains this was mainly this study’s focus. The literature shows that T&L is one of the most male-dominated industries, and one with limited gender equality progress, despite seemingly greater government and industry efforts (Okon and Richard 2017). What, then, hinders significant progress?

Wynn’s 2020 study, used as a framework for our own analysis, suggests a possible explanation. Wynn observed that most company executives attributed continuing workplace gender inequality to individuals and societal factors, as opposed to embedded organisational cultures and structures. In observation of gender policy deliberations, she noted that this attribution influenced the nature and character of organisational responses.

While we arrive at the same conclusion, our study differs from, and contributes to, Wynn’s in two significant ways. First, it expands the scope of Wynn’s study from one organisational case study to an industry-wide multi-organisation context. We, therefore, importantly help to demonstrate the framework’s applicability to broader multi-organisational and industry-wide contexts. Second, based on our expanded scope of the study, we observe and propose an additional important dimension to Wynn’s executive ideologies of gender inequality – the industrial dimension. We, thus, propose four ideologies: individualistic, organisational, societal, and industrial. As described previously, particular industry characteristics operate beyond individual organisations within any industry; they are informed by the nature of work undertaken, the kinds of dominant occupations, specific regulatory pressures, and the nature of industrial relations. Galea and Chappell (2022) similarly suggest that hegemonic masculine codes are often hidden in male-dominated industries and operate through formal and informal rules, which play a powerful role in maintaining masculine privilege. Academic and policy debates on sources of workplace gender inequality have, however, tended to treat them as one, which perhaps explains Wynn’s omission of the industry while focusing on the organisation. Understandably, Wynn’s seminal work focused on a single organisation. Ours examined an entire industry, including interviews with industry peak organisations.

Our analysis clarifies that, consistently across different organisations, little fault was attributed to the organisation. Admittedly, how policies are conceived, adopted, and implemented is often subject to multiple and complex inputs. Whereas all four ideologies are present in the process, our analysis finds that most blame was attributed, first, to individual women for their career choices, physical capabilities, skills, attributes, and abilities, and second, to society for restrictive socio-cultural beliefs and practices, which primarily shape individual women’s choices. The industry also featured more prominently in the minds of the executives with the view that T&L was a masculine workplace and was therefore, unsurprisingly, male dominated. For this very reason, Okon and Richard (2017) explain women are less likely to succeed in transport job applications because of an embedded, mostly unconscious, view that transport work is men’s work. Although the role of historically embedded organisational cultures, structures, and attitudes were acknowledged, they were mostly downplayed or excused. Thus, Pfister (2010) questions whether women really cause or significantly contribute to their disadvantage, and what the organisation’s role is. Ng and Acker (2020) argue that embedded cultural and structural factors discourage entry, undermine progression and are responsible for poor retention as most women soon find masculine attitudes, in all aspects of the workplace, uncomfortable, as Galea et al. (2020) also argue. An important question in our analysis at this stage was the extent of authority and influence the organisation’s executives has towards the gender policy design and outcomes for women. Considering our starting point that how the executives viewed a problem determined the kinds of policies adopted, this becomes an important question. The interview narratives clearly place executive managers at the top of organisational policy making and workers look to them to create and drive change. Thus, the observation that most managers tended to hold the view that the problem of gender inequality was more a result of societal and individual factors as opposed to organisational suggesting that the policies and strategies adopted were most likely to be misaligned with the most immediate impediments to gender equality, i.e. organisational cultures, processes and structures. We therefore conclude that there is a tendency for convenient avoidance, and externalisation by business executives, of the problem of workplace gender inequality; refusal to take ownership of the problem, according to Colley et al. (2021). We suggest that this undermines the efficacy of any change programs adopted and, in fact, helps to further embed and sustain workplace gender inequality. Convenient externalisation of the problem automatically provides organisations’ executives with an equally convenient ‘get out of jail’ card proclaiming limited control of, and hence diminished responsibility for, the situation. The common argument, unsurprisingly, was that organisations were working hard on implementing programs and initiatives that could achieve faster progress, but for external factors. We suggest that the starting point for effective organisational gender strategies should be, as Benschop and van den Brink (2018) and Heap et al. (2018) argue, that organisations are not innocent: they are responsible for inequalities, actively shape inequalities, do not only import these mindsets from societal or individual levels, and must change the cultures from inside. From a general standpoint, our research, together with Wynn’s make important contribution towards growing scrutiny of executive perception and its influence on gender policies in organisations. Predominantly, research has focused on women in the boardroom and women in management but rarely does it cast the spotlight on the role of the subconsciously biased executive mentalities in sustaining workplace gender inequalities.¹

Directions for future research

Considering the persistence of the workplace gender inequality problem and its significant implications, socially and economically, there is no limit to the need for further research in this area. In a sense, our research was much easier and rather straightforward, considering the context of analysis. The transport and logistics sector, like many traditionally male dominated sectors, lends itself easily to this analysis. We suggest that similar analysis is required focusing on the so-called feminised sectors, or those sectors considered more gender equal. The hidden undercurrents of inequality are likely to be ignored under general assumption of progress. Additionally, research is required to examine gender inequalities alongside social intersectionality. For example, how do indigenous women, women with disability and ethnic minority women experience inequality at work. This is an aspect that has not been sufficiently explored and understood. Furthermore, following from the conclusions from this paper, research is required to explore the extent to which the dominant executive ideologies on gender inequality shape organisational gender policies and their effectiveness.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge all the industry participants in the research who took the time to honestly share their views in the interviews.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Aida Ghalebeigi

Aida Ghalebeigi is a researcher at Roy Morgan Research. Prior to this, she was an academic at RMIT University and leader of the Gender Matters research cluster in the Global Transport and Logistics Research Group. Her research has focused on workplace gender equality in the male-dominated industries.

Victor Gekara

Victor Gekara’s research and teaching focus on workplace transformations and questions about the future of work. His research has focused on the implications of such transformations on nature of employment, workforce skills and workers, experience of work.

Shiva Madani

Shiva Madani is an academic in the School of Accounting, Information Systems and Supply Chain at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Her teaching and research interests lie broadly in the domain of supply chain and logistics management, with a focus on strategic development and competitiveness of seaports.

Notes

1. Research received ethics approval from Business Research Ethics Committee, RMIT University.