Baseball,Beer,and Bulgari

Abstract

I use cultural capital as a conceptual framework for examining gender inequality at work. While much previous research has been situated in hypermasculine work settings, this study takes place in an industry (retail fashion) and an organization that are not hypermasculine—yet, the company’s cultural capital is dominated by men, and a glass ceiling persists. Using ethnographic data collected at the headquarters of a major Midwestern multinational retail corporation, I examine this puzzle. I explain how the cultural capital valued by upper management is gendered and contributes to the maintenance of the glass ceiling, and how members of upper management succeed or fail at activating their cultural capital. I also illustrate how the company’s industry and internal structure enable some women and gay men to successfully navigate a men-dominated work culture. In doing so, I attempt to synthesize previous studies on homophily and gendered organizations.

Keywords

cultural capital gender inequality work organizations

Introduction

Popular conceptions of corporate upper management include images of men executives bonding over rounds of golf and after-work martinis. The higher reaches of organizational management hierarchies are perceived as a “boys’ club” where women are excluded. These images highlight the role that culture and gender play in the reproduction of inequality within corporate and professional workplaces, as women are disproportionately excluded from management positions, lag behind white men in power and authority, and face a glass ceiling in terms of their upward mobility (Chernesky 2003; Cotter et al. 2001; Gorman and Kmec 2009; Elliott and Smith 2004; Kay and Hagan 1995; Maume 1999, 2004; Rosser 2004). A 2011 analysis of Fortune 500 companies found that women constituted just 14.4 percent of executive officers and 7.6 percent of the top executive earner positions; major corporations such as Apple, Delta, Comcast, and Exxon Mobil had no women executive officers (Catalyst 2011).

Previous research documents the significance of culture and interpersonal relations in the reproduction of inequality in professional workplaces. Kanter’s (1977) landmark work introduced the concept of homosocial reproduction, in which white men hire, mentor, and promote other white men with whom they are socially and culturally similar. This process occurs within corporations in which the organizations themselves are gendered in terms of definitions of jobs, competence, and the “ideal worker” (Acker 1990; Britton 2000; Britton and Logan 2008). Bourdieu’s ([1979] 1984, 2001) concept of cultural capital, which refers to the role that certain cultural knowledge and practices play in the reproduction of inequality, helps bridge research on gender inequality at work at the organizational, cultural, and interactional levels. Although cultural capital’s significance has been identified in many settings, it has seldom been applied in research on workplace inequality or gender inequality at work.

I use ethnographic data to examine gender, cultural capital, and inequality at the headquarters of a major Midwestern international retail corporation. I focus on a level of upper management just below the topmost executives to observe the impact of culture on the next generation of the company’s leaders. I explore how the dominant cultural capital at this level is gendered and contributes to the maintenance of the glass ceiling. I illustrate how members of upper management succeed or fail at activating their cultural capital. Unlike previous studies, I focus primarily on social events that take place outside of work. I demonstrate how the company’s industry (retail fashion and apparel) and internal structure (which relies on a strong degree of interdependence between departments and brands) enable some women and gay men to successfully navigate a men-dominated work culture. As such, this research site differs from the hypermasculine workplaces typically studied in research on gender and corporate culture.

Gender, Culture, and Inequality at Work

Professional workplaces are often gendered organizations where jobs and standards of competence are structured and perceived in gendered terms, and gender inequality is reproduced through the policies, practices, and culture of organizations (Acker 1990; Britton 2000; Britton and Logan 2008). Because the traditional definition of an ideal worker is a man who is dedicated to the organization and unencumbered by family or parenting concerns (Acker 2011; Williams 2010), men are still perceived as stronger candidates for management, even in women-dominated occupations such as nursing, elementary school teaching, and social work (Cognard-Black 2004; Williams 1992, 1995). A prime example of gendered organizations is Pierce’s (1995) research, which described the masculine culture of law firms: “Rambo litigators” excluded women lawyers from social events, made unwelcome sexual advances on women at the office, and spoke in terms of raping witnesses and seducing juries. Similarly, Dellinger (2004) revealed that men accountants at two distinct magazines (one feminist, the other pornographic) constructed masculinity differently depending on the cultural norms of their workplaces. In an “embattled” setting of the feminist magazine, men accountants constructed masculinity in contrast to the feminist culture of the organization; in the “safe” setting of the pornographic magazine, men accountants were freer to embrace certain aspects of extreme masculinity and reject others. Participants in Turco’s (2010) study of the leveraged buyout industry described its culture as “macho” and “fraternity-like,” and akin to a locker room. Phrases such as “going balls to the wall” and “raping a company” are a part of the industry’s vernacular.

Unsurprisingly, the gendered structure of an organization affects how men and women act at work. Martin (2003) highlights the importance of examining how workplace interactions contribute to gender inequality, arguing that men and women draw on available “gender practices” while simultaneously practicing gender—this two-sided dynamic, produced through interaction, negatively affects women at work. Gender becomes embedded in the workplace culture that dictates how employees are expected to behave. This daily, ongoing performance reinforces the gendered nature of the organization and results in unequal outcomes for women.

Homosocial reproduction is an example of how the gender dynamics of workplace interactions disadvantage women. Kanter (1977) uncovered the importance of social and cultural similarity in managerial hires, and found that positions higher in the corporate hierarchy were marked by increasing uncertainty in decision making that, in turn, required interdependence and rapid communication among managers and their subordinates. These job characteristics led managers to value trust, predictability, and shared understandings in their hires, and to seek to maximize these traits by hiring employees who were socially and culturally similar to them. Homophily is demonstrated through cultural practices in which men share their interest in sports or bond over weekend outings of golf, dinner parties, and visits to strip clubs. This process clearly benefits white men the most, and illustrates how the demographics of an organization are reproduced over time (Elliott and Smith 2004; Erickson, Albanese, and Drakulic 2000; Gorman 2006; Ibarra 1997; Kanter 1977; Roth 2004a, 2004b).

Cultural Capital and Work

I use the concept of cultural capital to extend the insights of previous research on gender at the organizational and interactional levels. Cultural capital refers to the role that cultural knowledge, tastes, practices, attitudes, and goods play in the reproduction of inequality (Bourdieu 2001, [1979] 1984; Swartz 1997). Although Bourdieu originated the concept as part of a broader theory of social class reproduction, it has been used to examine the reproduction of inequality in specific American social institutions including education (Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997; Carter 2005; DiMaggio 1982; Dumais and Ward 2010; Lareau 2003; Wildhagen 2009), health care (Malat 2006; Shim 2010), and the legal system (Kinsey and Stalans 1999).

Within institutions, the dominant group determines the cultural capital that is valued. Individuals who meet the institution’s cultural standards are more likely to succeed than those who cannot. These expectations are generally informal and unwritten, so learning the rules to the game—and even understanding that there is a game to be played—is an important matter for actors who compete over scarce resources in the institution. Lareau (2003), for example, found that middle-class children have an advantage over their working-class peers in part because their parents’ parenting strategies and attitudes about education were more aligned with the class-based expectations of their teachers and administrators, and because their parents understood that their cultural resources could be leveraged to help their children.

This framework facilitates a thorough examination of the cultural knowledge that is valued in an institution and how this form of capital is enacted and converted into advantages in the professional workplace through social interactions. Thus, it enables researchers to investigate how locally determined cultural structures affect individuals. Although leading scholars in the areas of work and culture have suggested that cultural capital could be essential to understanding how inequality is reproduced at work (Lamont and Lareau 1988; Vallas 2003), relatively few sociologists have used this approach. The extant literature centers on two key themes.

First, counter to Bourdieu’s emphasis on high-status culture, valued cultural capital at work tends to be comprised of popular culture and work-related knowledge. Erickson’s (1996) study of the private security industry in Toronto found cultural variety—knowledge of mainstream, popular culture topics (such as sports, magazines, and best-selling books)—to be more advantageous at work than elite culture, which was viewed as a “waste of time” with no obvious business use in the competitive private sector. Business-related culture, such as reading industry journals and knowing about high-end restaurants for meetings, can be an important form of cultural capital (Erickson 1996; Kay and Hagan 1998; Sherman 2007). Erickson (1996) argues that managers need business culture knowledge to dominate employees, while also knowing about cultural resources that allow them to coordinate with subordinates (e.g., discussing sports).

Second, valued cultural capital in professional workplaces tends to be controlled by white men managers. Sports are a particularly important cultural resource for employees seeking to bond with and impress men managers (Erickson 1996; Davies-Netzley 1998; Turco 2010), as study participants noted the importance of discussing, playing (golf, especially), and attending sporting events with men managers. Turco (2010) found sports to be so central in her research setting that its terminology pervaded work discussions with talk of “deal quarterbacks,” and problem employees being put “in a penalty box.” In a study of corporate executives’ attitudes about mobility and success, men attributed their success to individual attributes such as hard work and a competitive nature, while women stressed the importance of developing cultural interests that powerful men enjoyed, such as discussing sports and politics (Davies-Netzley 1998). As such, the cultural capital valued by corporate management and necessary for upward mobility was highly gendered. Similar results are found in studies on cultural mastery at work that do not use a cultural capital framework (Jackall 1988; Kanter 1977; Morrill 1995; Roth 2004b). In sum, women who are not able or willing to adapt to men-dominated forms of cultural capital are disadvantaged in terms of workplace success and mobility.

The Present Study and Research Setting

My work extends the previous literature on gender and cultural capital at work in two key ways. First, I use ethnographic methods to examine how this capital is activated, primarily outside of the workplace. In social institutions, individuals must possess cultural capital (i.e., comprehend which cultural knowledge is important in the institution) and know how to skillfully activate this capital with gatekeepers in the appropriate contexts. Just as possessing a good hand of cards is of no value if one does not know how to adeptly play the cards by the rules of the game being played, possessing cultural capital is of little use if one does not know how to use it in the correct manner (Bourdieu 1976; Dumais and Ward 2010; Lareau 2003; Rios-Aguilar et al. 2011; Tramonte and Willms 2010). It is important to understand how individuals succeed in cultural terms given that in the upper ranks of management, the criteria used to evaluate performance become increasingly vague, and tied to organizational success (Dornbusch and Scott 1975) and conforming to personality traits and behaviors defined and favored by upper management (Ibarra 1999; Jackall 1988; McIlwee and Robinson 1992; Morrill 1995). Previous research on cultural capital at work does not thoroughly engage the question of activation.

Second, much of the previous research on gender, culture, and social interactions at work is situated in organizations or industries that are characterized by hypermasculine behavior. These include law firms (Davies-Netzley 1998; Kay and Hagan 1998; Pierce 1995), the finance sector (Roth 2004b, 2004a; Turco 2010), and men-dominated settings such as the private security industry examined by Erickson (1996), in which men comprised 70 percent of the employees and supervisors, 91 percent of the managers, and 94 percent of the owners. By contrast, my research is set at the corporate headquarters of AMP (a pseudonym), a multinational retail corporation that specializes in well-known lines of fashion accessories and everyday apparel. With annual revenue in the billions and an international market presence, AMP is a dominant player in its market space. AMP’s headquarters are in a large Midwestern city, and house the primary functions that support the company’s retail stores, including marketing, communications, operations, customer service, and human resources. More than 1,200 employees, spread across several retail brands, work at this location. AMP is recognized nationally for promoting a progressive, employee-friendly corporate culture (it is often compared to celebrated corporate cultures such as Southwest Airlines and Zappos.com) and is praised locally for its efforts to promote women and racial diversity. AMP is also heavily involved in volunteer and charitable efforts in its local community.

By virtue of AMP’s industry (retail fashion), the company’s stated focus on diversity, and its involvement in philanthropic work, which contrasts with business leaders who disdain activities with no clear use in a competitive industry (Erickson 1996), the company provides a unique site for examining gender, culture, and inequality. Furthermore, AMP offers a paradox: although the culture is not hypermasculine and women are generally pleased with the company, AMP is still dominated by men in many ways and there is a clear glass ceiling in upper management. By examining the valued cultural capital at AMP, I provide insight into this paradox. I address three key issues in the remainder of the article. First, I discuss the importance of cultural capital at AMP and explain how the valued cultural capital at AMP’s glass ceiling is gendered. Second, I examine the role that gender plays in terms of employees who succeed or fail in activating their cultural capital. Last, I discuss the structural and agentic factors that explain why some women and gay men succeed—and some white, straight men fail—in a masculine work culture.

Data and Methods

I collected data over a twenty-two-month period. I gained access to AMP via an informant named Alice (all names used are pseudonyms), a close friend and colleague for more than twenty years since we met at our first corporate jobs (not at AMP) after college in the late 1980s. Alice is white, in her early forties, and has been with the company for more than ten years, having worked her way up to middle management. Alice works with employees in a variety of departments at every level of the company’s hierarchy, so her guidance was invaluable, as was her undergraduate training in journalism and sociology. Her credibility helped me establish relationships with participants, as she is friendly with employees from the janitorial staff to the highest levels of management, well trusted, and widely viewed as an excellent contributor and positive presence.

I use three sources of ethnographic data. First, I accompanied Alice to six official AMP events (e.g., major fundraising events for the company’s philanthropic activities, and an annual holiday party), and more than three dozen informal, after-work gatherings, including happy hours, parties at managers’ homes, and cultural events. These outings were spread out evenly over the first twenty months of my time in the field, and tailed off near the end, as I reached the “saturation point” (Glaser and Strauss 1967). I conducted informal interviews with thirty employees, split evenly by gender, in these settings, which were invaluable for observing interactions between employees of different levels of the company’s hierarchy. I captured my observations with cellphone voice memos and written notes, all of which were transcribed after I returned home.

Second, I conducted in-depth interviews with thirty additional employees (twenty women and ten men, equally distributed across AMP’s hierarchy) who I identified through purposive, snowball sampling. The interviews averaged seventy-five minutes and were conducted in a setting of the employee’s choosing, including AMP’s cafeteria, conference rooms, and nearby dining establishments. Roughly half of the interviews took place at AMP’s headquarters, which facilitated a comparison of the participants’ interactions with fellow employees in and outside of work. A semi-structured approach enabled me to explore my research questions and remain open to emergent themes, which was important given the relative scarcity of work in this area (Rubin and Rubin 2011).

In both types of interviews, I asked about a variety of issues, including perceptions of how employees succeed and advance; networks; the impact of gender, race, and class at the company; and their family class background. To develop questions about the cultural capital that is valued at AMP, I used data from a pilot study at the company, the relevant literature, Alice’s guidance, and my own corporate experience. I designed questions around four types of work-related sociocultural interactions: official, company-sponsored functions (as previously described); organized, company-sanctioned groups and activities (e.g., volleyball team, book club); informal gatherings organized by individuals such as happy hours; and the topics of conversation at work.

Last, I conducted weekly briefings with Alice. The discussions averaged one to two hours in length, and were crucial for discussing my observations, assisting in the confirmation or disconfirmation of emerging themes, and discussing future strategies.

This research was approved without revision by my local institutional review board. All formal interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim; I took field notes on informal interviews during and immediately after the observational events. I coded and analyzed all transcripts and notes in Atlas.ti, carefully reviewed transcripts to code for preexisting themes, and used grounded theory techniques to analyze newly emergent themes (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Rubin and Rubin 2011). I also used personal memos throughout the study to reflect on developing themes, coding decisions, and my overall progress (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 2011).

I have associated with AMP employees, including some of the participants, at social events during Alice’s entire tenure at the company. My personal background was also a valuable asset during my fieldwork. Before my doctoral studies, I spent twelve years in the corporate sector (none at AMP), at companies including familiar organizations such as SPSS and Thomson Publishing. This experience helped me interact with employees in and outside of the company headquarters. Many participants appreciated that I could relate to corporate life and that I was not, as they described, a “typical” academic. I am a white man, and during my fieldwork, was close to forty. Participants expressed their trust in me for different reasons. My corporate experience and displays of AMP-valued cultural capital seemed to put many white men at ease: I drank, talked about sports, and shared corporate war stories with them. Some women enjoyed these practices as well. Other women appreciated that I was investigating the role of gender at the company, and viewed me as an ally in terms of challenging inequality through my research and teaching. Overall, participants viewed me as a combination of acquaintance (through Alice) and researcher. With twelve hundred employees and consultants on-site, it was easy to blend in. I was able to code-switch as necessary between a former corporate worker who could empathize with employees and a sociologist who was often critical of the corporate sector. At no point did a participant express any concern over my being at their workplace or social events, nor did I ever feel challenged or uncomfortable in my interactions inside or outside of the headquarters.

AMP’s Vice President of Human Resources granted me access to the headquarters, but was not interested in my results, so participants understood that my findings would not be revealed to management. Although official demographic reports were not available to me, I was able to view organizational charts, and gain consistent estimates from several participants, including those in upper management. Unless otherwise noted, all participants described here are white.

Findings

Gender at AMP

AMP’s corporate headquarters have a positive vibe, with energetic, fashionably dressed employees working in well-designed offices. Nearly every employee I spoke with concurs with AMP’s reputation as an excellent place to work. They believe in the company’s mission and philanthropic activities, feel that they are fairly compensated, and are proud of the company’s products. Their sense of satisfaction is supported by high scores on employee surveys and a relatively low rate of turnover. Women are generally pleased with the company. Despite some frustrations over the glass ceiling—often, their only complaint about the company—women feel positive about how they and other women are treated, and find AMP to be more progressive in terms of gender equality than other employers. Men also spoke positively about the gender climate, expressing admiration for the importance of particular women colleagues or the strong women leaders in their brands. A few men related that they had worked for excellent women managers throughout their entire careers at AMP.

No participant had experienced or heard about instances of blatant gender discrimination or sexual harassment, and I observed nothing of the sort in the field. I experienced a far less men-dominated culture than I found at companies I worked for (in the same city as AMP), particularly in the software industry, where women were taunted with gendered barbs and reduced to the role of hostess at company functions. AMP’s less masculine culture provides a unique opportunity to investigate gender inequality in a context where one is perhaps less likely to expect it.

However, AMP has a glass ceiling. As described in Table 1, AMP’s employee population is roughly divided into three tiers. The bottom third ranges from entry-level positions to those requiring a college degree but not supervisory responsibilities. The middle tier begins with the first level of management and extends up to the leadership teams that are composed of group vice presidents (GVPs) who oversee entire brands or divisions, and the associate vice presidents (AVPs) just beneath them. The top level of the hierarchy is the executive management team, who reside in a row of glassed-in suites, the only offices in an “office without walls” environment. Women comprise roughly 70 to 80 percent of the employees in the bottom tier and one-third of middle management. However, women make up just one-fifth of the top four positions in middle management, with most of these at the senior director and director levels—thus, less than 10 percent of the leadership team positions are held by women. Women comprise 18 percent (2/11) of the executive management team, which is consistent with historical trends, as this level has never included more than two women at once. For example, in one retail brand of roughly 170 employees, 35 employees are in the top four positions of middle management, and 8 of them (22 percent) are women. Of those eight, seven are directors or senior directors, one is an AVP, and none is a GVP. The gender distribution of this brand is typical of others in the company. The gender imbalance is not due to supply: many participants pointed to women who they considered to be excellent upper management candidates, and who play major roles in key departments, rather than traditionally feminized departments such as human resources or customer service.

Table 1.

AMP’s Corporate Hierarchy and Gender.^a

Percentage of Women	Hierarchical Tier and Positions	Relevant Names Cited in This Article^b
• 18%	Tier 3:	Catherine (executive VP)
	CEO, chief officers, and executive vice presidents (11 in total)	Four executive VPs from meeting at Flanagan’s
• Less than 10% on the leadership teams	Tier 2 (in descending order or responsibility):	Dan (group VP)
• 20% in top four positions	Leadership teams	Wilson (group VP)
• 33% overall	Group vice presidents (GVPs) over major divisions or brands	Molly (associate VP)
	Associate vice presidents (AVPs)	Katrina (associate VP)
	Lower and middle ranks of management	Kyle (senior director)
	• Senior directors	Brenda (senior director)
	• Directors	Carson (senior director)
	• Senior managers	Ron (senior director)
	• Managers (first level of management, with responsibility for multiple projects and at least one direct report)	Molly (senior director)
		Wendy (director)
		Skip (director)
		Alice (director)
		Sonia (senior manager)
		Jeremy (manager)
		Linda (manager)
• 70%−80%	Tier 1:	• Lola (Designer)
	Ranges from AMP’s lowest-ranked positions (e.g., customer support, clerical support) to professional positions that require a college degree but do not include supervision of other employees or major projects

These figures are based on interviews with employees across AMPs entire hierarchy, and my observations of the company’s organization charts.

For clarity, this column only includes employees referenced in the article.

Cultural Capital at AMP

Cultural capital at AMP is centered in the company’s informal culture. I use the term informal culture to distinguish nonwork activities from official corporate events, such as the annual holiday party and AMP’s philanthropic activities, in which participation is essentially mandatory. AMP’s informal culture is situated primarily in happy hours or karaoke nights at local bars and restaurants; departmental parties at managers’ homes; co-ed sports teams and exercising in the company gym; and attending professional sports or cultural events. The informal culture is not an exclusive club. Most participants, including women and people of color, felt that they were known to be open to everyone. When I attended the official company events or spent time at the home office, I frequently heard employees discussing various social outings.

Successful activation of cultural capital is a three-step process. First, employees must understand that regular participation in the informal culture is important. Many employees without college degrees, or who see their current work as “just a job,” are unaware of the significance of the informal culture. As Stuber (2005) found, working-class employees in professional settings often feel uncomfortable in these settings and often prefer a clear delineation between work and home. Second, employees must know about the topics of discussion favored by management, including sports, fashion (which relates to AMP’s core business), exercise and fitness (the company gym is a key site where employees compete to get treadmills next to high-level managers), and parenting/family issues (a challenge for childless employees, which includes all of the gay men in this study). Also important is what is not said: controversial topics such as politics and religion, and overly negative views of the company’s mission, should be avoided. Fashion must also be embodied as there is an unwritten expectation for employees to know the current trends and dress in stylish, business-appropriate clothes.

Last, in addition to possessing knowledge about the informal culture, employees must also be able to activate their cultural capital in interactions with the appropriate people in the proper contexts. Keys to successful activation include: interacting with superiors who are not more than two or three hierarchical levels above them and with whom they have an existing relationship; not being overt or aggressive in their attempts to network; and being able to convincingly discuss managers’ favored topics. The benefits of successful cultural capital activation in the informal culture include increased visibility to key managers and decision makers, increased work-related social capital and opportunities for mentorship, access to insider company knowledge, and further opportunities to demonstrate their personality and background outside of the workplace. Interacting with supervisors outside of work is important given evidence that the pace of work has quickened over the past two decades (Maume and Purcell 2007), which suggests less time for socializing during work hours. At AMP, participants stressed how the fast pace of the work day limited their opportunities for discussing much outside of their immediate work tasks.

Every high-level manager I spoke with explained that while employees had to be good performers, proper involvement in the informal culture, with all of the aforementioned benefits, was essential as well. Many, including two top executives, rated cultural participation to be as important as quantifiable work performance. One executive described the ability to navigate diverse social situations across various departments as crucial, claiming that at middle management and above, cultural capital explains 70 percent of employee success at the company. Catherine, an executive, explained that the informal culture gave her an opportunity to “see people in a broader light,” and uncover intangible qualities that are often not revealed through daily work. Kyle, a senior director, referred to both his subordinates and his own chances of upward mobility when he stated succinctly: “You have to play.” Employees cannot advance solely on cultural capital, but with rare exceptions, they cannot succeed without it, either.

Cultural Capital and Gender at the Glass Ceiling

AMP’s informal culture changes at the upper reaches of middle management, where the glass ceiling begins. It is more exclusive in terms of the hierarchical level of the participants. Lower-tier employees (e.g., customer support representatives) are less likely to be invited—one director noted the need to “blow off steam” about work with peers without worrying about what is said—and are less likely to view them as relevant. The participants are homogenous in many ways: white; graduates of quality colleges or universities in the Midwest; middle-class in family origin; and able to avoid issues with work–family balance. Most are strong performers: AMP is careful about promoting/hiring to this level, and help is available for those who struggle. Incompetent or unmotivated workers—where work is fast-paced and demanding—tend to not last long. They resemble Hochschild’s (1997) workers in that they find work to be a source of pleasure.

At this level, the informal culture is widely perceived to be more masculine, men-dominated, and heteronormative than at events open to all employees. Because men hold most of the positions at and above the upper-middle levels of management, they are more likely to determine the location and cultural content of events. Women are rarely explicitly excluded, but often feel unwelcome because of the masculine character of the activities, which frequently take place in sports bars, golf courses, and co-ed sports leagues, where men are the most likely to be competitive and lead their teams. The majority of the women at this level link their frustrations over the glass ceiling to the masculine informal culture. Wendy, a thirty-five-year-old director of a technical group, described her main complaint about AMP in cultural terms, noting the “extra-curricular, guy, rah-rah things that go on at this level,” such as men playing poker, drinking, and going to concerts together. Wendy believes women face a glass ceiling, as it is hard for women to get to AVP (two levels above her position) in part because of the culture, which is “very male-oriented at that level . . . it makes it tough to be a woman with that group.” I relayed Wendy’s views anonymously to Catherine, the most powerful woman on the executive management team:

Absolutely, she knows that if you’re there, you have to play the game. It’s important. I would say from my experience with the other executives, it is definitely the “good old boys’ club.” I think a lot of people at the company would agree that once you’ve gotten to a certain level—I’d say from AVP on up—the boys’ club and favoritism rules. Those guys do things together. You have to figure out what you’re willing to do and make your own way. It certainly helps if you golf! (laughs sarcastically) It’s what you’re comfortable with, I guess. I think the higher up you go in our company, the more apparent it is.

Catherine was not opposed to doing certain things with “the boys” when she felt it was necessary. She laughed and said, “I can suck up as well as anyone when I need to,” but generally, the informal cultural events were “not her thing” and she did not enjoy socializing with other executives. Wendy’s and Catherine’s observations were substantiated by two men managers: “There is definitely a bit of a boys’ club at my level,” said Carson, a senior director. This acknowledgment is surprising given that in previous research on cultural capital at work, men downplayed the “boys’ club” and described corporate success in terms of individual attributes such as hard work and a competitive nature (Davies-Netzley 1998).

Brenda is a senior director of a department that is vital to AMP’s bottom line. In our first of several meetings, she described the importance of the informal culture: “Hell yes, it definitely helps the men. Anybody who says differently is lying. It’s extremely exclusive.” She offered an example of how successful cultural capital activation translates into advantages for men. A woman director, new to her senior role, came to her first weekly meeting of directors and struggled badly with interpreting results from her report of the prior week’s business. Brenda felt that the man VP who led the meeting emphasized her struggle by prodding her with questions. Soon after, a similar incident happened with a colleague in the same weekly meeting:

I watched a man who’s part of the club called the “boys’ network” by a few of us. He got promoted to a similar position for a different brand, came to his first meeting, starts to report his numbers, stumbles a moment or two, and the VP supplies the numbers for him. “Well, so-and-so, you mean. . . .” I sat there thinking “this is bullshit.” I’m not saying I like either of these individuals better than the other. But that’s unfair.

Brenda elaborated that the two directors had roughly the same degree of tenure and competence in their positions. She was certain that the man had gained an advantage—protection and assistance from a VP—through his activation of cultural capital. Soon after being promoted to that position, he joined a group of men executives who ran together at lunch and bonded over drinks after work. The woman director did not participate in the informal culture and did not have the same mentorship. Gender differences in mentorship and networks that are crucial to success in the corporate sector are well known (McGuire 2002; Ragins and Scandura 1997). Other women at Brenda’s tier believed that white men who are active in the informal culture gain protection, mentorship, and other advantages as they move up the managerial ladder.

AMP’s men-dominated informal culture at this level was apparent with the team I spent the most time with. Dan and Wilson, both in their early forties, are GVPs over staffs of roughly hundred employees each. Employees frequently described them as “regular guys” and “beer-drinking, sports-watching, family-oriented men.” Of the many men I interacted with, they were the most likely to drink heavily at informal events, smoke cigars, and tell off-color jokes. By comparison, most other men managers came across as more refined and professional interpersonally. Yet, I was told that Dan and Wilson had no problem interacting with the top executives above them.

Women were not actively excluded from the outings Dan and Wilson organized—they liked a crowd and generally invited everyone at or above their levels. Many women, however, made it clear that they did not appreciate their interpersonal styles or the tone set at their outings, and often stayed away. A woman whose supervisor reported to Dan described him as “coarse and immoral.” When I conversed with women in these settings, the topics veered toward sports, drinking, or other more typically masculine topics, while my conversations with these same women at work and at formal company events focused on family or less masculine interests such as scrapbooking or shopping. Some men even bristled at the cultural tone set by Dan and Wilson—a man who reported directly to Wilson told me that he did not especially enjoy associating with them because “the vibe with them is too insular, too male, and too mean” (in terms of mocking other employees), but felt like he needed to participate to remain in their favor.

Succeeding at Cultural Capital Activation

Many pointed to Skip as the epitome of a successful navigator of the informal culture. Not yet thirty, he began as an intern and was promoted four levels in two years. By contrast, outstanding employees generally are not promoted more than one level per year. The consensus was that he was an average employee who worked hard to advance culturally. His colleague Lola noted:

I firmly believe his success is because of his social connections. He knows the right bullshit words to say to make people like him. He started going to the gym and talking sports, started making a lot of contacts with big names in the finance group. Then he started running with those guys (executives at lunch) and after that . . . he’s already up to manager now! A lot of people question that. People who work with him more directly than me say that he’s not at the level he should be. He’s very young for his position. It pays to run with the big-wigs!

Many colleagues reacted to Skip’s career trajectory as Lola did, with more bewilderment than anger. Indeed, Skip was charming when he interacted with managers above him, and was quick to offer me a beer or a funny quip. He seemed to have something relevant to say to everyone above him, whether it was about running to Alice or about wine to a senior director with a 400-bottle cellar in his home. Yet, he was not ingratiating or cloying, did not overstay his welcome in conversations, and did not attempt to talk to managers who were too far above him. After I left the field, Skip was promoted to the level of Director.

However, women and gay men were also able to succeed in AMP’s masculine informal culture, an unexpected finding given previous findings. Alice and I met at 6:00 p.m. at Flanagan’s, a popular downtown microbrewery/restaurant, before a charity fundraiser. Ron, a Senior Director, organized the outing. Joining us were five other middle managers (Alice, Molly, Kyle, and two others), Molly’s husband (Sean) and Kyle’s partner (Davey), and me, for a total of seven men and two women. All were dressed fashionably, with most wearing trendy eyewear (brands included Bulgari and Prada). Flanagan’s is divided into bar and restaurant sides—we sat in the bar. It was July and all of the big-screen TVs showed a game featuring the hometown professional baseball team. The bar was filled with other young professionals (most dressed in business casual wear or suits), and loud with conversation and the sounds of the game. The wait staff were mostly young women in their twenties, with the exception of two men bartenders.

Everyone at our table drank pints of beer and shared appetizers. We began by catching up on work and family matters—including happenings at AMP, my research, Molly’s children, and Kyle and Davey’s plans to build a new house. The conversation turned to baseball, and a comparison of the hometown team’s fortunes to the city’s professional football team, which we discussed for most of the rest of our time there. All of the men at our table were big baseball fans, and Molly and Alice were casual fans and active in the discussion. After a couple of hours, we left for the fundraiser, which was being held at a conference space a few blocks away. The following field note describes what happened next:

On our way out, we ran into four white men VPs, all in nice, dark suits. They had been on the restaurant side. One joked, “Oh, this gang looks like trouble.” Alice, Kyle, Molly, and Ron immediately struck up a conversation with two of them, with Ron mentioning that we were watching the game and having a few drinks before the fundraiser. Kyle speculated that the team did not have enough relief pitching to contend for the pennant; Ron added that it was too late to trade for help, but that a “bullpen-by-committee” approach might work. Alice asked what that meant, and when Kyle explained, she remembered that one of the city’s great teams from the 1990s used that approach. Molly added that she had little faith in the manager. The encounter was approximately ten minutes. I stood on the outskirts, close enough to hear, but not so close to be intrusive (none of the VPs knew me). They continued to chat with the VPs about the game and what items they planned to bid on at the fundraiser. No specific work topics were discussed. They were clearly comfortable with the VPs, though they rarely worked with them directly. Kyle seemed to know more about baseball than the VPs, but he was careful not to make this obvious. (fieldnotes)

As we continued to the fundraiser, Kyle noted that it was good to have a direct discussion with the executives, as they were generally not accessible in the office except for highly structured meetings. Kyle and Molly felt positively about the encounter: they had an opportunity to bond and converse while also demonstrating their commitment to the company’s charitable mission. Later, I followed up with Molly, who smiled while saying, “Every little bit helps. You slowly build a relationship through these things.” A man who worked with Molly expressed to me his disappointment with missing a chance to network with the VPs.

This evening typified AMP’s informal culture in terms of the setting (a loud, crowded bar), the topics of conversation (roughly 60 percent of the conversation was about sports, drinking, and running, and 20 percent about work—although two of the middle managers have kids, we barely discussed them), the fashion (all participants were fashionably dressed, although it was not a major discussion topic that evening), and the pace of conversation (fast and animated, with all participating). An employee who was not energetic and into the relevant topics would have struggled to participate. The evening also typified AMP’s informal culture in that an encounter with executives was not guaranteed, but like a lottery, you had to at least play to have a chance to win. Molly and Kyle, as did many who succeeded at cultural capital activation, believed that one single episode guaranteed nothing—the payoff came through the accumulation of such meetings.

Although men typically dominated in these masculine settings, Molly, Alice, and Kyle are examples of how women and gay men often succeeded in the informal culture. Four women who reported to Dan and Wilson directly or indirectly through their supervisors typified the successful women: they confidently discussed the managers’ favored topics, drank with executives, did not outwardly object to the occasional (rarely sexist) off-color joke, and were comfortable in the informal culture. All four recognized that, in addition to being considered excellent workers, their upward mobility was positively affected through their success in the informal culture. They embraced the culture and strategized on how to best succeed at it. This runs counter to women in previous studies, who expressed frustration over having to adapt to their men-dominated work cultures (Davies-Netzley 1998; Pierce 1995; Turco 2010).

For example, although Alice is a sports fan, she asked her husband for tips about sports news to use in conversation; she was also a distance runner who discussed upcoming races with executives. Molly was a ringleader in organizing events in the informal culture. Women outside of this team embraced the cultural capital game as well. Catherine described “choosing her spots” about when to engage with it, which helped to facilitate her ascent to be the most powerful woman on the executive team. Katrina, who was promoted to AVP during my fieldwork, enjoyed the events and joked that she “could drink any of the boys under the table.” Likewise, some openly gay men thrived in the informal culture. Although Kyle, a gay senior director, sometimes tired of the demands of the heteronormative informal culture, he was confident and charming discussing sports, fashion, and current events with executives. He was keenly aware of how cultural capital aided him, describing it as a process of “two steps back (for being gay and not having kids), then two steps forward (for loving baseball, being fashionable, and drinking).”

Failing at Cultural Capital Activation

Despite AMP’s masculine informal culture, success is not simply a matter of drinking and talking sports with “the boys.” Many men fail at cultural capital activation. Jeremy is straight, married without kids, and in his mid-forties. He is a talented, trendily dressed designer who wins external awards for his work. Yet Jeremy was so distressed over his lack of upward mobility despite “doing everything I can to play the game,” that he eventually sought therapy to cope with his frustrations. He went to happy hours, exercised in the company gym, and tried to connect with managers over their favorite topics, and continued to fail. He attributed his difficulties to his disinterest in sports (he tried to feign interest) and his lack of confidence in interpersonal interactions. Jeremy described how he felt invisible to some in management:

There are senior men that will go to certain guys, and you’re in the room and it’s like you’re invisible. They’ll just come up and say to the other guy, “What did you think of that game last night?” How do they know I didn’t watch the game? There’s a disconnect there, a severe one. It’s irritating. Why are you so familiar with certain people? Can’t you dialogue about something else?

In social interactions with managers, Jeremy appeared anxious and too eager to impress managers with the right comment, like a student who raises his hand before you are finished asking the question. His attempts to discuss sports and fashion were unpersuasive, and he often stumbled over details even though he knew enough about both to converse. Whereas Kyle was smooth in his interactions with managers above him, Jeremy came across as someone who was not comfortable in his own skin, and was quick to turn negative when things did not go his way in the informal culture. Colleagues at his level believed that he was also too narrow in terms of who he attempted to network with. Jeremy was similar to many other men who did not succeed in the company’s informal culture despite possessing the traits and cultural knowledge that should lead to networking success through homophily. As such, Jeremy was the epitome of the employee who possesses cultural capital but failed at its activation.

Some employees who possessed what would generally qualify as cultural capital in other professional work settings—advanced degrees, refined cultural interests, and skilled interactional styles—struggled in AMP’s informal culture. Linda, a corporate trainer with a master’s degree in education, is forty and married. Early on, she described to me her plans for advancing to upper management and retiring from AMP. Although her supervisor and her colleagues told me that she was skilled at her work, she struggled in the men-dominated informal culture. She openly disdained sports, drinking, and noisy bars, and their importance in her brand’s culture. In a fashion-forward company, her clothes tended to be dreary and old fashioned.

Linda believed that she could advance by being good at her job and connecting with upper management through alternate means. Because she mostly avoided the informal cultural events, I interacted with her primarily at the company’s formal events. There, her eagerness to impress upper managers was apparent: she cornered managers in conversations and “laughed a little too hard at managers’ jokes,” as one described it. In one instance, as soon as Linda had told a story about visiting a Renaissance festival in a nearby city, the VP in the conversation abruptly changed the subject and asked what I thought about an upcoming basketball game. Managers’ attempts to escape conversations with her were noticeable. Before my fieldwork was complete, Linda was let go, with her manager describing her problems to me as “more about fit” than actual work performance. Although Linda’s cultural capital might have been beneficial in other social contexts, it did not help her at AMP, nor did she effectively activate or adapt the capital that she had. As a result, her career progress stalled, and she ultimately was asked to leave the company.

Explaining Success and Failure

I met Alice and Kyle at Bistro, an elegant restaurant/bar near the HQ, after work. Friday night. 20-25 there at the peak, less than 10 when we left three hours later, most of the usual suspects. I’m again struck by the fast pace and range of topics, all while drinking: travel to NYC; Bulgari, Prada, D&G (why does Bono always wear Bulgari frames?); the local baseball and basketball teams (as always), who’s running next year’s marathon, The Kite Runner (and other fiction I didn’t note), office gossip. Given my circles, I’m used to this. I’d love to drop a new employee into a happy hour to see if they can keep up. (fieldnotes)

Explaining successes and failures in the informal culture involves the interplay of structure and agency, as the cultural capital framework facilitates an examination of how individuals act within locally determined cultural structures. At AMP, employees must be good performers, and also able to possess and activate cultural capital for all aspects of the informal culture. Successful employees at this level cannot love sports and dress poorly, or drink with the right managers but not know which celebrities are wearing Versace. As such, AMP differs from the workplaces in previous studies, in which women primarily described specifically developing a strategic interest in sports to connect with their men colleagues (Davies-Netzley 1998; Roth 2004a; Turco 2010). Paradoxically, while sports is the most heavily discussed topic at AMP, it is also the most negotiable—that is, participants do not have to be fanatics, they must at least demonstrate a passing interest and cannot openly show contempt.

For women and gay men who succeeded, the valued cultural capital at AMP aligned with cultural interests that they possessed before joining the company. Many described being lifelong sports fans, and Alice and Helen, who discussed long-distance running with some executive managers, were runners before they came to AMP. Many on Dan’s and Wilson’s teams told college drinking stories and genuinely enjoyed being social after work. An important aspect of cultural capital is examining the variations among individuals to meet institutional expectations. For these individuals, existing cultural interests and skills aligned with managerial expectations of the informal culture, and they were strategic in how they employed their cultural capital.

Despite the masculine aspects of the informal culture, the company’s valued cultural capital includes a decidedly less masculine topic in discussing and embodying fashion: one was nearly as likely to hear “Bulgari” or “Prada” as one would hear references to the local sports teams. Even the characteristically masculine topic of athletics had a less masculine side, as knowledge about exercise and fitness were important aspects of the valued cultural capital. Women outnumbered men at the company gym, and many women who succeeded at cultural capital activation were runners or athletes in other sports. Furthermore, the internal structure of the company is relevant, as AMP relies heavily on cross-functional teams and interdependence between departments and brands to achieve its goals. Employees frequently transfer to other places within the company. The ability to interact with colleagues from many departments, inside and outside of work, is significant for workplace success. Although the informal culture is masculine, “Rambo-esque” men (Pierce 1995) would not fare well at AMP.

Clearly, the informal culture structurally disadvantages women more than men. Many women believe that men more easily interact with the informal culture at this level, which leads to resignation and anger. Sonia, a senior manager, noted, “If I was going to do that and move up, I feel like I would have to change some of my values that are really important to me. That, I won’t do. I have people that I would interact with at that level who don’t have the same values.” Sonia disdained the culture’s emphasis on sports and “carousing,” and the way that it would disturb her work–family balance. Compounding women’s frustrations is the recognition that there is less resistance among men to participate. While a few men objected to some aspects of the informal culture, not one man at this level expressed a concern about sacrificing their values to be involved. Many men did not even recognize that the informal culture could be unwelcoming to women. Overall, more women than men opted out of engaging with the informal culture, and their cultural capital disadvantages likely hindered their opportunities to advance.

Discussion and Conclusion

AMP’s informal culture is an important setting for making impressions, expanding networks, and sharing information. Managers firmly believe that the informal culture is important for their employees’ evaluation and success. Employees who do not activate the requisite cultural capital risk falling behind those who do. Women are most disadvantaged in this regard. Participants believe that while cultural capital cannot save an unproductive worker, strong performance alone is not enough to advance. This supports previous findings that in an organization’s upper levels, meeting cultural expectations is often as important as quantifiable performance (Jackall 1988). At the very least, this study illustrates employees’ and managers’ perceptions of how cultural capital affects their (and their colleagues’) opportunities for success.

Previous studies operationalized cultural capital at work in terms of work-related culture (Kay and Hagan 1998; Sherman 2007) and popular culture (Davies-Netzley 1998; Erickson 1996; Turco 2010). I found both to be important: sports, drinking and socializing, and exercise/fitness are all major components of cultural capital at AMP, as is expressing and embodying knowledge of current fashion trends, which is related to the company’s core business. Unlike previous studies in which women identified primarily sports to be significant for workplace success (Davies-Netzley 1998; Roth 2004a; Turco 2010), AMP employees must possess and activate all aspects of cultural capital to be successful. This reveals the breadth of a company’s informal culture, as opposed to stereotypical notions of golfing with the boss.

By focusing on cultural capital, I synthesize research that incorporates both structural (gendered organizations) and individual-level (homophily) causes of gender inequality at work. The former finds that gender is built into nearly all aspects of an organization, while the latter contends that homophily preferences in social interactions among white men disadvantage women. I find aspects of both. The valued cultural capital at AMP—a local cultural structure defined and dominated by men—is clearly gendered. Yet, while cultural capital is used to exclude certain groups, women and gay men are not actively excluded at AMP as they are in other studies in which women describe being barred from men-only social events (Davies-Netzley 1998; Roth 2004b; Turco 2010). Furthermore, some women and gay men thrive in the informal culture, which runs counter to homophily theory predictions. At AMP, cultural capital serves as a mechanism that drives and screens for homophilous relationships. For powerful men, dominant cultural capital promotes sociocultural similarity in a way that takes precedence over gender or sexual orientation, even while the informal culture still excludes more women than men.

Examining a less masculine site than those in previous studies enables us to consider the conditions in which women and gay men succeed in a workplace culture. AMP’s core industry of retail fashion is significantly different from the legal and financial services businesses that are often studied. Likewise, AMP’s internal structure is key, as its reliance on interdependence and mobility between teams and brands fosters internal competition for the best resources. This lessens the incentive for hypermasculine behavior, and may partly explain why women are not overtly excluded from the informal culture. Given the evidence on the durability of the glass ceiling, the fate of women at work can seem predetermined: white men bond over sociocultural similarities and thrive in occupations in which gender and masculinity permeate every aspect of an organization. Yet examining this site provides insight into how women and gay men succeed in a masculine work culture. Contrary to previous research, the women and gay men in this study did not simply adapt to the cultural interests of the company’s powerful men—rather, they exploited the less masculine aspects of the culture and skillfully activated cultural capital accumulated before joining the company. Combined with a keen sense for navigating social situations, cultural capital activation helped women and gay men succeed in the informal culture without sacrificing their integrity. Thus, this study facilitates an examination of agency without overlooking the constraints of cultural structures.

That said, I do not criticize those who fail at or opt out of the informal culture, nor do I intend to downplay gender inequality at AMP. The informal culture defined and shaped by AMP’s powerful men is unfair to both women and men who are uncomfortable in masculine settings, as well as employees whose family or financial situations prevent them from becoming involved. Even the gay men and childless women who succeeded had to overcompensate in a heteronormative informal culture in which children and family were often discussed (as evidenced by Kyle’s “two steps back” comment). At this level, the participants are seasoned corporate veterans who are used to dealing with a heteronormative work culture and do not perceive it as a major obstacle. One can imagine how new employees might struggle with this issue. Still, understanding the success of women and gay men provides insight into how such individuals respond to unwelcoming cultural structures. This level of insight is necessary in an era when inequality mechanisms at work have become more subtle and difficult to document (Acker 2006). While participants did not believe that powerful men managers were overtly sexist, Dan and Wilson were typical of high-level AMP managers in being unaware of how their privilege and masculinity shaped the informal culture. Thus, ethnographic methods are essential for documenting how inequality operates at the interactional level in a company like AMP where after-work activities play such a vital role.

My study does not directly compare to ethnographies that focus on at-work behavior, as this article’s data come primarily from interactions that take place out of work, and employees’ perceptions of how those interactions translate to workplace success. While I interviewed and occasionally interacted with employees at AMP’s headquarters, I was not able to follow them throughout the workday, nor did I have access to official measures of work performance. While I was disappointed to not have this next level of access, my research reaffirms the significance of unpaid work that is situated outside of official work hours and duties. High-level managers confirmed the significance of this milieu for advancement in the company. Even at this progressive company—with AMP’s reputation as a worker-friendly culture, and its high levels of employee satisfaction—workers compete with each other in a narrowly defined informal culture that is men-dominated and heteronormative.

A key question remains unanswered. While I identify the characteristics of successful cultural capital activation, my data do not further support the identification of factors that differentiate successes from failures. The employees at this level of the company are relatively homogenous in terms of demographics and performance. Getting to a finer level of granularity in my data collection was beyond the scope of this project. A more complete, longitudinal understanding of how and why cultural capital activation works—of the moments of exclusion and inclusion (Lareau and Horvat 1999)—remains elusive in workplace research. Cultural capital research has not adequately addressed this question, nor has the social psychological literature on legitimation, stereotypes, and status expectations (e.g., Johnson et al. 2006; Schwalbe et al. 2000). In workplace interactions between dominant and subordinates, what combination of attributes leads to successful activations of cultural capital? This is a compelling question of structure and agency. As Martin (2003) notes, capturing fluid practices in interactions is extremely difficult. Yet, it is essential for research on inequality. By continuing to examine this black box of interaction, researchers will develop a more exact understanding of the mechanisms that drive inequality at micro-interactional level. This study demonstrates the value of cultural capital, theoretically, and of ethnographic methods, methodologically, for investigations of this type.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Rhys Williams, David Maume, Jennifer Malat, and Kathryn Feltey for their helpful comments, and to Lindsay Stutz for her research assistance.

Author’s Note

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2008 American Sociological Association meetings in Boston.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Support for this research was provided by funding from the Taft Research Center and the Kunz Center for the Study of Work & Family, both located at the University of Cincinnati.

Author Biography

David Purcell is an assistant professor of sociology at Kent State University. His interests include inequality, the scholarship of teaching and learning, culture, and race. His current projects include research on cultural capital, everyday racial segregation in metropolitan areas, and introductory sociology.

References

Acker

Joan

. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4 (2): 139–58.

Acker

Joan

. 2006. “Inequality Regimes.” Gender & Society 20 (4):441–64.

Acker

Joan

. 2011. “Theorizing Gender Race and Class in Organizations.” In Handbook of Gender, Work and Organization, edited by Jeanes

Emma

Knights

David

Martin

Patricia Yancey

, 65–80. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

Aschaffenburg

Karen

Maas

Ineke

. 1997. “Cultural and Educational Careers: The Dynamics of Social Reproduction.” American Sociological Review 62 (4): 573–87.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. 1976. “Marriage Strategies as Strategies of Social Reproduction.” In Family and Society, edited by Forster

Robert

Ranum

Orest

, 117–44. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. (1979) 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. 2001. “The Forms of Capital.” In The Sociology of Economic Life, edited by Granovetter

Mark S.

Swedberg

Richard

, 96–111. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Britton

Dana M.

2000. “The Epistemology of the Gendered Organization.” Gender & Society 14:418–34.

Britton

Dana M.

Logan

Laura

. 2008. “Gendered Organizations: Progress and Prospects.” Sociology Compass 2 (1): 107–21.

10.

Carter

Prudence L.

2005. Keepin’ It Real: School Success beyond Black and White. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Catalyst. 2011. 2011 Catalyst Census: Fortune 500 Women Executive Officers and Top Earners. New York: Catalyst.

12.

Chernesky

Roslyn H.

2003. “Examining the Glass Ceiling: Gender Influences on Promotion Decisions.” Administration in Social Work 27 (2): 13–18.

13.

Cognard-Black

Andrew J.

2004. “Will They Stay, or Will They Go? Sex-Atypical Work among Token Men Who Teach.” Sociological Quarterly 45 (1): 113–39.

14.

Cotter

David A.

Hermsen

Joan M.

Ovadia

Seth

Vanneman

Reeve

. 2001. “The Glass Ceiling Effect.” Social Forces 80 (2): 655–81.

15.

Davies-Netzley

Sally Ann

. 1998. “Women above the Glass Ceiling: Perceptions on Corporate Mobility and Strategies for Success.” Gender & Society 12 (3): 339–55.

16.

Dellinger

Kirsten

. 2004. “Masculinities in ‘Safe’ and ‘Embattled’ Organizations: Accounting for Pornographic and Feminist Magazines.” Gender & Society 18 (5): 545–66.

17.

DiMaggio

Paul

. 1982. “Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status Culture Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School Students.” American Sociological Review 47 (2): 189–201.

18.

Dornbusch

Sanford M.

Scott

W. Richard

. 1975. Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority: a Theory of Control Applied to Diverse Organizations. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Dumais

Susan A.

Ward

Aaron

. 2010. “Cultural Capital and First-Generation College Success.” Poetics 38 (3): 245–65.

20.

Elliott

James R.

Smith

Ryan A.

2004. “Race, Gender, and Workplace Power.” American Sociological Review 69 (3): 365–86.

21.

Emerson

Robert M.

Fretz

Rachel I.

Shaw

Linda L.

2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Erickson

Bonnie H.

1996. “Culture, Class, and Connections.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1): 217–51.

23.

Erickson

Bonnie H.

Albanese

Patricia

Drakulic

Slobodan

. 2000. “Gender on a Jagged Edge.” Work and Occupations 27 (3): 294–318.

24.

Glaser

Barney G.

Strauss

Anselm L.

1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

25.

Gorman

Elizabeth H.

2006. “Work Uncertainty and the Promotion of Professional Women: The Case of Law Firm Partnership.” Social Forces 85 (2): 865–90.

26.

Gorman

Elizabeth H

Kmec

Julie A.

2009. “Hierarchical Rank and Women’s Organizational Mobility: Glass Ceilings in Corporate Law Firms.” American Journal of Sociology 114 (5): 1428–74.

27.

Hochschild

Arlie Russell

. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Metropolitan Books.

28.

Ibarra

Herminia

. 1997. “Paving an Alternative Route: Gender Differences in Managerial Networks.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60 (1): 91–102.

29.

Ibarra

Herminia

. 1999. “Provisional Selves: Experimenting with Image and Identity in Professional Adaptation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (4): 764–91.

30.

Jackall

Robert

. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press.

31.

Johnson

Cathryn

Dowd

Timothy

Ridgeway

Cecilia L.

Cook

Karen S.

Massey

Douglas S.

2006. “Legitimacy as a Social Process.” Annual Review of Sociology 32 (1): 53–78.

32.

Kanter

Rosabeth Moss

. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.

33.

Kay

Fiona M.

Hagan

John

. 1995. “The Persistent Glass Ceiling: Gendered Inequalities in the Earnings of Lawyers.” British Journal of Sociology 46 (2): 279–310.

34.

Kay

Fiona M.

Hagan

John

. 1998. “Raising the Bar: The Gender Stratification of Law-Firm Capital.” American Sociological Review 63 (5): 728–43.

35.

Kinsey

Karyl A.

Stalans

Loretta J.

1999. “Which ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead and Why? Cultural Capital and Legal Mobilization in Frontline Law Enforcement.” Law and Society Review 334 (4): 993–1023.

36.

Lamont

Michele

Lareau

Annette

. 1988. “Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments.” Sociological Theory 6 (2): 153–68.

37.

Lareau

Annette

. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

38.

Lareau

Annette

Horvat

Erin McNamara

. 1999. “Moments of Social Inclusion and Exclusion: Race, Class, and Cultural Capital in Family-School Relationships.” Sociology of Education 72 (1): 37–53.

39.

Malat

Jennifer

. 2006. “Expanding Research on the Racial Disparity in Medical Treatment with Ideas from Sociology.” Health 10 (3): 303–21.

40.

Martin

Patricia Yancey

. 2003. “‘Said and Done’ versus ‘Saying and Doing’: Gendering Practices, Practicing Gender at Work.” Gender & Society 17 (3): 342–66.

41.

Maume

David J.

1999. “Glass Ceilings and Glass Escalators: Occupational Segregation and Race and Sex Differences in Managerial Promotions.” Work and Occupations 26 (4): 483–509.

42.

Maume

David J.

2004. “Is the Glass Ceiling a Unique Form of Inequality? Evidence from a Random-Effects Model of Managerial Attainment.” Work and Occupations 31 (2): 250–74.

43.

Maume

David J.

Purcell

David A.

2007. “The ‘Over-Paced’ American: Recent Trends in the Intensification of Work.” In Research in the Sociology of Work, vol. 17, Workplace Temporalities, ed. Rubin

Beth A.

Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.

44.

McGuire

Gail M.

2002. “Gender, Race, and the Shadow Structure: A Study of Informal Networks and Inequality in a Work Organization.” Gender & Society 16 (3): 303–22.

45.

McIlwee

Judith Samson

Robinson

J. Gregg

. 1992. Women in Engineering: Gender, Power, and Workplace Culture. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

46.

Morrill

Calvin

. 1995. The Executive Way: Conflict Management in Corporations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

47.

Pierce

Jennifer L.

1995. Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms. Berkeley: University of California Press.

48.

Ragins

Belle Rose

Scandura

Terri

. 1997. “The Way We Were: Gender and the Termination of Mentoring Relationships.” Journal of Applied Psychology 82:945–53.

49.

Rios-Aguilar

Cecilia

Kiyama

Judy Marquez

Gravitt

Michael

Moll

Luis C.

2011. “Funds of Knowledge for the Poor and Forms of Capital for the Rich? A Capital Approach to Examining Funds of Knowledge.” Theory and Research in Education 9 (2): 163–84.

50.

Rosser

Sue V.

2004. The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed. London: Routledge.

51.

Roth

Louise Marie

. 2004a. “Bringing Clients Back In: Homophily Preferences and Inequality on Wall Street.” Sociological Quarterly 45 (4): 613–35.

52.

Roth

Louise Marie

. 2004b. “The Social Psychology of Tokenism: Status and Homophily Processes on Wall Street.” Sociological Perspectives 47 (2): 189–214.

53.

Rubin

Herbert J.

Rubin

Irene

. 2011. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54.

Schwalbe

Michael

Godwin

Sandra

Holden

Daphne

Schrock

Douglas

Thompson

Shealy

Wolkomir

Michele

. 2000. “Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis.” Social Forces 79 (2): 419–52.

55.

Sherman

Rachel

. 2007. Class Acts: Service and Inequality in Luxury Hotels. Berkeley: University of California Press.

56.

Shim

Janet K.

2010. “Cultural Health Capital.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51 (1): 1–15.

57.

Stuber

Jenny

. 2005. “Asset and Liability? The Importance of Context in the Occupational Experiences of Upwardly Mobile White Adults.” Sociological Forum 20 (1): 139–66.

58.

Swartz

David

. 1997. Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

59.

Tramonte

Lucia

Willms

J. Douglas

. 2010. “Cultural Capital and Its Effects on Education Outcomes.” Economics of Education Review 29 (2): 200.

60.

Turco

Catherine J.

2010. “Cultural Foundations of Tokenism: Evidence from the Leveraged Buyout Industry.” American Sociological Review 75 (6): 894–913.

61.

Vallas

Steven P.

2003. “Rediscovering the Color Line within Work Organizations: The ‘Knitting of Racial Groups’ Revisited.” Work and Occupations 30 (4): 379–400.

62.

Wildhagen

Tina

. 2009. “Why Does Cultural Capital Matter for High School Academic Performance? An Empirical Assessment of Teacher-Selection and Self-Selection Mechanisms as Explanations of the Cultural Capital Effect.” Sociological Quarterly 50 (1): 173–200.

63.

Williams

Christine L.

1992. “The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the “Female” Professions.” Social Problems 39 (3): 253–67.

64.

Williams

Christine L.

1995. Still a Man’s World: Men Who Do “Women’s Work,” Men and Masculinity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

65.

Williams

Joan C.

2010. Reshaping the Work-Family Debate: Why Men and Class Matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.