Research Note: Organizational Theory: Blind and Deaf to Gender?

Abstract

This Research Note argues that Organizational Theory (OT) has been resolutely blind and deaf to gender and suggests how a gendered approach may be developed. Despite the fact that authors such as Richard Brown (1976) and Janet Wolff (1977) argued long ago that gender should figure more largely in organizational analysis, little progress had been made. OT has accepted, and continues to accept, male ideology as the status quo. Male ideology and values must be uprooted and be seen. We must recognize the ideologies of difference which define us as men and women and the inequality that this often produces.Descriptors: ~ ~ . ~ , Organizational Theory and Behaviour (conflated in this paper to OT) as discipline areas have done little to address the question of why formidable barriers prevent the advancement of women, minority ethnic groups and the disabled. Gender divisions have been largely treated as irrelevant or invisible, in practice (Thompson and McHugh 1990). Half the population of organizations has been ignored, left at the edge or just tagged onto OT texts. Behaviour in organizations which mitigates against women and minorities is viewed as normal and therefore, in some way, acceptable. The subject area has been presented as evaluatively neutral and apolitical, but it has chiefly represented the work of men as it is chiefly men who work and therefore men who should be studied. The purpose of this Research Note is to draw together the evidence to show how organizational theory is tenaciously blind and deaf to gender. The gendered nature of organizational life is shown to be generally ignored and there is no recognition that women's work experience may be different to that of men's as a result of power relations that differentiate society at large (Burrell and Heam 1989). A suggestion will also be made about how a gendered approach may be developed. Issues concerning women and work have been considered by many as less important. OT has developed a male identity. If not ignored altogether or marginalized as a separate and distinct area in OT, women as employees are regarded as indistinguishable from men in any respect at Monash University on June 5, 2016 oss.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Gender fatigue: The ideological dilemma of gender neutrality and discrimination in organizations

“…Research on gender and organizations has analyzed the emergence, persistence, and transformation of gender discrimination in detail (e.g., Alvesson & Billing, 1992;Hearn & Parkin, 1983;Knights, 1997;Mills & Helms Mills, 2006;Mills & Tancred, 1992;Wilson, 1996). A common theme is that although workers are often constructed as disembodied and gender neutral, if one looks at the skills, behaviours, and norms that these workers are expected to display and conform to, it becomes obvious that the ideal worker tends to have more masculine characteristics, traits, and behaviours (Acker, 1990;Ferguson, 1984;Kanter, 1977;Martin, 2001;Peterson, 2007;Tienari, Quack, & Theobald, 2002).…”

An investigation of silence and a scrutiny of transparency: Re-examining gender in organization literature through the concepts of voice and visibility

“…Equally, we argue for a differentiation between 'surface states' of exclusion and difference that run through much of the broadly liberal feminist work on visibility associated with 'token' status and deep processes, described by many post-modern and post-structural theorists, of maintaining power through the dynamic relationship between invisibility and the norm. In applying these distinctions, we throw new light on the growing and increasingly diverse field of gender and organization studies (GOS) -a field which has, in turn, grown out of a desire to acknowledge and redress the absence and silence of women in the development and content of organizational theory (Mills, 2002;Alvesson & Due Billing, 1992;Wilson, 1996;Martin & Collinson, 2002). Our paper is organised as follows.…”

Troværdig syg: klasse og køn i sygdomsfortællinger

“…Eksempelvis har kønsstudier fokuseret på køn-sidentiteter og hvordan de skabes i organisationer (fx Adkins, 1995;Wilson, 1996;Townsley, 2003), ligesom etnisk herkomst og seksualitet har fået opmaerksomhed i organisationsforskningen (fx Deitch et al, 2003;Ward & Winstanley, 2003). Det skaerpede fokus på menneskelige relationer i organisationer, som vi har oplevet i den seneste tid, har ansporet en ny organisationsforskning, som fokuserer på identitetsarbejde og magtforhold (fx Casey, 1999;Trethewey, 1999;Alvesson & Willmott, 2002;Merilainen et al, 2004;Ball, 2005;Hoobler, 2005;Mik-Meyer, 2009, 2010aMik-Meyer & Villadsen 2012).…”