Observation
A few years ago I spent several months working as a volunteer in an animal rescue centre. There were around ten animal carers working there full time. Most were basic level carers but two were supervisors. Supervisors were deemed to have more experience and, as the position carried more responsibility, they earned a higher wage than the people below them. Additionally, in the office there was the centre manager and the administrator. The manager was rarely seen out among the animals and the staff – she tended to stay in her office most of the time.
When I had been working there for about a month, one of the supervisors handed in his resignation which opened up a job for a new supervisor. The talk among the staff was that it would be given to Emma, a woman who had worked at the centre for five years and who had worked with animals since she had left school. However, a month later it was announced that the role had been given to Ian, a man who had only been working at the centre for five months and who had not worked with animals prior to his job at the centre. I remember being very surprised at this result, as many of the staff were. Emma had so much more experience and knowledge than Ian. It seemed that the position had been given to Ian for the reason that he was the only man on the team.
Analysis
Although the facts are there that Ian got promoted even though he had less experience than Emma, it is possible that he deserved the position for other reasons. However, as I was working among people who felt outraged at the result, I may have been influenced by them and motivated to agree with what they believed. As I was a volunteer at the centre I was keen to fit in and be popular. I wanted to be able to identify with the other staff and have them count me as one of their own and, therefore, this probably added to my scepticism about Ian’s worthiness for the job of supervisor.
At the time, I firmly believed that the result of the promotion was a blatant case of discrimination against women in the workplace. However, I wanted to socially interact with the group of women I was working with. Looking back on the situation, now that I am distanced from it, I believe that I could have been wrong.
Insight
In summary, at the time, I believed the job allocation at the animal rescue centre to be an incidence of discrimination against women. However, now that I am distanced from the situation I can see it was more likely that I was trying to share a group identity and so I took on their ideals and opinions as my own. However, it is impossible to be certain about the reason for Ian securing the job. It could have been because he was a male and therefore, arguably, more dominant and a better leader, or it could have been that he possessed many other skills that Emma did not. There are certainly bit limitations in the observation. In order to gain a better insight into the employment patterns at the centre it would be necessary to analyse the happenings in many job offers over a period of time, rather than just one.
