Escalator or Step Stool? Gendered Labor and Token Processes in Tech Work

Abstract

Gender scholars use the metaphor of the “glass escalator” to describe a tendency for men in women-dominated workplaces to be promoted into supervisory positions. More recently, scholars, including the metaphor’s original author, critique the glass escalator metaphor for not addressing the intersections of gender with other relevant identities or the ways that work has changed in the twenty-first century. I apply an intersectional lens to understand how gender and race shape women’s career paths in tech work, where twenty-first century changes to the organization of workplaces are common. I build on theories of raced and gendered labor and the glass escalator to make sense of women’s careers in a contemporary field dominated by men. I find some evidence that white women, but not women of color, experience something similar to a “glass escalator” where they are promoted into management, but those promotions are a smaller step up—more step stool than escalator. These promotions move women out of technical positions and towards business and management, releasing engineering teams from the pressure to fully incorporate women.

What do we mean by broadening participation? Race, inequality, and diversity in tech work

“…Black and Latinx workers face many of the same challenges as minority workers in other predominantly White professions including lower pay and racial bias (Alegria, ; Alfrey & Twine, ; Oh & Lewis, ). For women, this is compounded by gender bias.…”

“…In tech work specifically, Black women struggle to feel a sense of belonging (Alfrey & Twine, ) and move into decision‐making positions (Alegria, ). Alfrey and Twine () examine the intersection of gender and race‐related exclusion for women in tech.…”

“…They argue that White and Asian women who disrupt normative femininity felt a greater sense of belonging at work than their more heteronormatively feminine counterparts, an approach that did not produce the same benefits for the Black woman in their gender‐fluid group (Alfrey & Twine, ). Alegria () further demonstrates that White women and their managers tend to think of them as more capable of interpersonal rather than technical work, which has the effect of pushing White women out of technical roles and into mid‐level management. Although, the workers interviewed for this study described interpersonal skills as something women generically possess, in practice it was racialized—only White women found themselves pushed toward management due to the recognition of their “people” skills.…”

“…Although, the workers interviewed for this study described interpersonal skills as something women generically possess, in practice it was racialized—only White women found themselves pushed toward management due to the recognition of their “people” skills. Women of color, including Asian women, entered managerial positions only when they specifically and intentionally sought them out with training, degrees, and strategic job changes (Alegria, ).…”

“…Building from the literature on racial inequality in tech work, I show that people of color are neither fully represented nor included in key decision‐making roles—consequently, we see evidence of racially inequality in the products of technical work. Racial difference is systematically present in who does which jobs (Banerjee, ; Banerjee & Rincón, ), who gets promoted (Alegria, ; Saxenian, ; Shih, ); and who experiences harm at the hands of seemingly neutral technologies (Benjamin, ; Daniels, , ; Noble, ; Sweeney, ). These racial inequalities have broad consequences as algorithms and artificial intelligence manage more of our lives.…”