My Responses to Case Study 15.

3 in Northouse’s study
In this blog post, I provide responses to questions asked in case study 15.3 on
page 414 of Northouse’s (2016) book. The title of the case study is,
“Pregnancy as a barrier to job status.” First, I present a synthesis which is
succeeded with what I consider to be the real issues as contained in the case
study. Thereafter, I provide responses to the questions asked in the case
study. The responses to this case study were informed using insights gleaned
from numerous studies presented in Northouse’s (2016, pp. 397-420) study
and the Unit 8 Lesson notes.

The setting in the case study is an organization where some women are
known to have been eased out of their positions as a result of becoming
pregnant. The incident of interest involves a woman named Marina who has
served the organization for 10 years and aspired for higher responsibilities.
Marina possesses the required formal qualifications and works experience to
aid her aspirations. While pursuing her goal, she becomes pregnant. Marina’s
situation also appears to follow past precedents wherein eventually, the
women involved ended losing either their position or their aspirations, or both.
Apparently, all these occur despite the existence of laws that clearly protect
the interests of women.

I believe that women becoming pregnant should not be seen as a catastrophic

occurrence in any organization, after all, it is a naturally occurring situation just
as needing to use the restroom once in a while is. On this basis, from Marina’s
perspective, I do not see any issues, more so, she has served the
organization for 10 years already. However, judging from the organization’s
perspective as implied by the comments of Roy, her immediate boss, the
immediate concern seemed to be the uncertainties surrounding how the
organization would fare in her absence especially as adjustments to the role
of other employees or the possibility of having a new hire, become necessary.

Question One: What advancement barriers is Marina encountering?

The case study suggests that Marina already possessed the work experience
and qualifications needed for the role she was aiming at. In addition, there
was no information to access Marina’s effectiveness or otherwise. Lastly,
evidence from the case study suggests that women who had become
pregnant like Marina “were eased out of their positions before they gave birth
or shortly thereafter” (Northouse, 2016, p. 414). In the light of all these, the
advancement barrier which Marina was encountering is clearly that of
prejudice against women. In addition, the evidence also implies that the
existing norm was that most women who became pregnant were
systematically prevented from advancing their careers.

Question Two: What should Roy have said when Marina told him she
was pregnant?
There ought to be very clear and fair company policies that cover occurrences
such as women having to take leave of absence during or after pregnancy.
Ideally, Roy’s responses to Marina should have been informed by such
organizational policies. At the least, Roy should have asked Marina to make a
formal request; he should also have assured her that her request for maternity
leave would be channelled to the appropriate department for further
consideration and fair treatment.

Question Three: What could Roy do to ensure that Marina’s work will be
covered during her absence and that taking time off would not hurt her
advancement?
To ensure that Marina’s work will be covered during her absence, first, Roy
should have listened to her plans. Thereafter, as her boss, he is responsible
for evaluating and considering a more practical approach which is in
accordance with applicable company policies, if peradventure, Marina’s plans
needed further adjustments. I believe that with technology, it is a lot easier to
work from any location; hence, the options available to Rob are potentially
numerous.

To ensure Marina’s career is not hurt by her absence, Rob should ensure that
Marina is kept abreast of and also promptly notified of all work-related
information and developments during her absence. This includes every
information regarding work, training opportunities, and more. In addition to
strengthening that sense of belonging, such updates would ensure Marina
better settles in after returning from her leave. This is clearly the right thing
which Rob should do even if it were a male subordinate involved.

Question Four: What type of organizational changes could be made to

benefit Marina and other pregnant women in this organization?
Going by Rob’s last comments – “there’s no point talking about this now. We’ll
think about this later”, emphasis on “we’ll think about this later.” This clearly
suggests there exists a norm or an organizational practice regarding cases
similar to Marina’s. Sadly, the organizational practice does not seem to favour
the interests of women, especially when they become pregnant.

Evidence suggests that women are no less effective, no less committed and
no less motivated than men, in leadership roles (Northouse, 2016, p. 404).
Hence, a key change that could benefit Marina and other pregnant women in
the organization is to massively re-orient top management towards realizing
how much benefits they stand to gain by encouraging women’s active
participation in top leadership roles. This change would also help reduce such
prejudices against women who are caused by gender stereotypes and others.
With this foundation, organizational norms would naturally be transformed;
this would result in policies that do not discriminate against women like
Marina, such policies should remain fair to everyone regardless of their
gender.