The paper "Gender Diversity: A Work in Progress" is a good example of a literature review on human resources. Following a media article written by Williams (2011, pp 1-4) on gender diversity in the Australian companies, based on released new figures detailing the proportion of female workers on their employee lists and managerial positions. It is stated that most firms have done so as a necessity to comply with the new guidelines of corporate governance. The report has been released amid uproar on the lack of gender diversity in relation to most senior ranks in the Australian corporate ladder.
An analysis done by Weekend Business in regard to annual reports of the ASX100 firms so far rates highly only a single company, Ramsay Health Care, in which female senior managers are more than men, thus its workforce is about 84 % female, including 75 % women in senior positions. But Ramsay, like Primary Health Care, has no female director. According to labor issues study commissioned the Australian Financial Services Institute, just a paltry 28 % of ASX100 companies had well-stipulated policies of equal opportunity and diversity comprehensive enough to be regarded as satisfactory. The sheer lack of gender diversity in corporate managerial positions has grown from what Williams (1) describes as a peripheral issue with no meaningful action to a subject of heated debate in corporate governance.
Early explanations in relation to this trend attributed it to psychological defects in the economic rationale of Human Capital theory (Williams, Ruth. 2011). They have been rejected by the views that recognize the role of work and patriarchy interrelationships. For example, there has been the identification of certain development by men in relation to work strategies so as to maintain job clear job demarcation with women.
This has been witnessed in skills mystification. Many research writers have over time described ways in which the Australian family and division of labor ideology literary shape the subordination of women in paid work when considered in terms both in a material and ideological way. The paper, therefore, addresses the theoretical backgrounds of gender diversity in regard to the role of human resources in personnel development in organizations.
Cockburn, C., 1986. Machinery of Dominance:Women, Men and Technical Know-how, Pluto
Dickens, L. 1997, “Gender, race and employment equality in Britain: inadequate strategies and
the role of industrial relations actors”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 282-289.
Powell, G.N., 1988. Women and Men in Management, Sage, CA, p. 147
Noon, M. & Hoque, K. 2001, “Ethnic minorities and equal treatment: the impact of gender,
equal opportunities policies and trade unions”, National Institute Economic Review,
Vol. 176, pp. 105-16.
Kochan. T.A. & Barocci. T.A. 1985. Human Resource Management and Indtistrial Relations. Boston: Little Brown.
Bamber. G. & Lansbury, R. 1989. New Technology: International Perspectives on Human Resources and Industrial Relations, London: Unwin Hyman.
Arvey, R.D., 1979. “Unfair Discrimination in the Employment Interview – Legal and Psychological Aspects”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86 No. 4, 1979, pp. 736-765.
Guest, D. 1987, “Human resource management and industrial relations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 503-521.
Brenner, J. & Ramas, M., 1984. “Rethinking Women’s Oppression”, New Left Review, Vol.
144, pp. 33-71.
Williams, Ruth. 2011. Gender diversity: a work in progress. Retrieved from