Acker builds his theory on the aspect of gender roles in the workforce. The theory was developed in 1990 when males dominated the labor market (Acker 144). It suggests that the organizational structure was not as neutral as it seemed. The organizations were male-dominated, and men fully occupy the most powerful positions. Acker describes various traits of a worker who can be considered a universal or ideal worker in the workforce.
The ideal universal workers in the labour market were males only. Men have fewer distractions, are always available and they can fully perform with all focus on the centrality of work. They are unencumbered without any caring duties and can therefore focus all their time, energy and attention on productivity. A worker’s productivity at the workplace should not be affected by the individual’s personal life, and the work should also not interfere with his private activities.
The universal worker should give themselves selfishly to work performance. This system was dictatory as the worker had to leave his family, children and private life and dedicate their entire life to productivity at work (Acker 147). An ideal worker should be ambitious enough and work hard for promotion and career advancements. The old worker version that required 100 percent devotion of the employer was not an ideal model. The universal worker presumed as productive cannot be efficient in the present 21st century. The current labour market has reformed and can facilitate work efficiency and social life. There no longer exists the ancient universal worker who abstractly was a man. Presently, the workforce is occupied by both females and males.
The ideal worker expectations no longer apply today, and this is because the labour market has reformed over time. The aspect of gender equality has changed the perspective of men being the ideal universal workers. Women just like their male counterparts have been promoted to senior positions in various organizations. For example, the law requires that during recruitment and employment a third gender rule has to be used. Even in political leadership women have been empowered to top positions.
With the advancements in technology, much of the work has been automated, and individuals do not have to commit their time to work fully (Neely 280). The emergence of computers with well-programmed operation systems has enabled background operations, and they can perform various tasks without naturally being monitored. Further discoveries such as the introduction of zoom and google meet have facilitated working from home. For instance, board meetings that require all executive leaders to be present can be conducted virtually from different locations.
In the present day, with improvement in education, there are many graduates in the labour market that provide the skills needed. This ensures adequate staff at workplaces, making it unnecessary to overwork one person. Civilizations, rights and freedoms of the ideal worker of today have given them the power to only work within the required time. For instance, the constitution outlines that civil servant should only work for eight hours in a day (Neely 290). This has enabled people to do their jobs effectively and still have adequate time for their families and socialization. The new ideal worker has the power to choose when to join the workforce and when to quit.
In conclusion, an ideal universal worker should be one who is fully committed to work. Such employees should not have other duties such as family activities or care provision roles. It is for these requirements that Acker considered males to be ideal universal workers. Unlike women who have to perform motherly roles men are available always and can commit fully to productivity. However, in the present day, such qualifications do not apply. The current system has made the workforce more inclusive and has empowered women through gender equality.
Works Cited
Acker, Joan. “Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations.” (1990).
Neely, Megan Tobias. “The portfolio ideal worker: Insecurity and inequality in the new economy.” Qualitative Sociology, vol. 43, no. 2, 2020, pp 271-296.