gendered observations and experiences in executive women's work

Gendered observations and experiences in

executive women’s work

Peter A. Murray, Faculty of Business, University of Southern QueenslandJawad Syed, Kent Business School, University of KentHuman Resource Management Journal, Vol 20, no 3, 2010, pages 277–293

This article explores gendered observations and experiences of executive women on the basis of commonworld views or lenses through which gender differences are interpreted and understood. Three types oflenses are identified from both the literature and the data: monocultural, statistical and structural. Thediscussion explores the relationships and ties between each lens noting the overlapping characteristics.A qualitative study is used to index the various themes and the coping strategies employed by executivewomen in Australia based on specific work experiences in leadership and gender relations. The studyadds to existing gender theory by highlighting how gendered lenses can be used to explore genderhierarchies and inequality regimes which lie at the centre of executive women’s work.Contact: Dr Jawad Syed, Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7PE,UK. Email: [email protected] and Assoc Prof Peter A. Murray, Faculty of Business, Universityof Southern Queensland, Queensland, Australia. Email: [email protected]_113 277..293

INTRODUCTION

Building on the work of Acker (1990, 2000, 2006), Blair-Loy (2001), Connell (1987, 1995)and Ward (2004), this article advances the idea that gender is an institution within whichactors respond to mutually sustaining cultural and institutional forces which can be

better understood through different gendered lenses. Although not explicit, three types can berecognised from prior research: monocultural, structural and statistical. We define genderedlenses as common world views through which gender relations are fixed and understood, whichin turn influence social patterns of behaviour within organisations and wider society. Inadvancing the notion that a monoculture is a schema that orders and constructs ideas of selfand society (Blair-Loy, 2001), we place the experiences and observations of executive women inlegal and institutional contexts that lead to meaningful reflection. We argue that consideringcontext as a means of discovering how gendered organisations change and develop over time(Ward, 2004) is useful in examining the structure, power and statistical implications oforganisational controls. We examine these through gendered lenses identified from scholarlyliterature in the field and develop propositions of gendered behaviours.

Our discussion of gender and executive women focuses on institutional gendering thoughequal employment opportunity (EEO) and employment regulations as well as on organisationalgendering through workplace cultures. In this respect, the article is informed by Connell’s(1987) theorisation of multiple levels of gendering and the synergy between them. Similarthemes are emergent in Acker’s (2000) research, such as in her description of inequality regimesand power hierarchies in society and the workplace. Connell (1987, 1995) suggests that genderrelations are produced and reproduced via pre-existing institutions, norms and practices, aswell as through the relationships between individual women and men which are frequentlydominated by the normative or hegemonic masculinity. Acker (2000) highlights the role ofintersectionality in this debate by arguing that inequality regimes are constituted through

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00113.x

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 20 NO 3, 2010 277

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Murray, P.A. and Syed, J. (2010) ‘Gendered observations and experiences in executive women’s work’. HumanResource Management Journal 20: 3, 277–293.

ordinary organising processes in which gender, class, race and other forms of inequality aremutually reproduced. Specifically, they can be described as ‘loosely interrelated practices,processes, actions, and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender, and racialinequalities within particular organisations’ (Acker, 2006: 443). For instance, class controls arerepresented by managerial practices and procedures for doing work. Class is not only explicitin male-dominated managerial practices, but also implicit in the design and control of work,the type of work and how such practices are perpetuated from one workplace to the next(Acker, 2006).

While there has been a significant increase in the ratio of women workers and managers inthe last few decades in Australia and other industrialised countries, there are still very fewwomen making it to the top. For example, based on a study of five multinational corporationswith model equality policies, Wajcman (1999) examines whether women really bring a distinctfeminine style of management to organisations. Her study highlights the processes of masculineorganisational cultures that sexualise women and exclude them from senior management.Through its use of gendered lenses, this article offers a fresh perspective on these issues in thecontext of the relationship between executive women at work in Australia and the ongoingreproduction of inequality regimes in organisations.

The article is structured as follows. First, a contextual overview of EEO of executive womenin Australia is outlined. In the ensuing section, we define and explain the gendered lenses andidentify their mutual connections. Next, we describe the qualitative study, which draws onempirical data located within the Australian context, and we explore the results through eachlens. We examine each proposition consistent with the broad aim of determining how genderand organisational hierarchies are related. The discussion highlights the role of gendered lensesas a conceptual framework to explore gender hierarchies and inequality regimes which areinfluential in executive women’s work.

CONTEXT: EXECUTIVE WOMEN IN AUSTRALIA

There is a plethora of research on the cultural and structural challenges that women inAustralian workplaces generally face as they rise through management ranks (e.g. French andStrachan, 2007; Piterman 2008), and on the lack of women in top leadership positions moregenerally (Weyer, 2007). Businesses have been found to operate an implicit staffing andpromotion criterion that favours Anglo-Australian men. Sinclair’s (2004: 17) research, focusingon the construct of leadership in Australia, suggests that gender and power have shaped andlimited leadership to ‘a white male idea’. Along with a growing body of researchers (Karpin,1995; Chesterman et al., 2005; Piterman, 2008), Sinclair identifies a masculine ‘norm’ thatdominates across organisational settings, supported by gender stereotypes that inhibit thecultural response and recognition of female authority. Similarly, drawing on a survey ofemployers, Burton (1997) found a worrying ‘male bias in key industry sectors’ against theemployment of women. More than a third of respondents admitted ‘they prefer employingmen’ (p. 13).

Despite some institutional and legal changes supporting equal opportunities in theAustralian workplace in the last few decades, women’s increased participation in the workforcegenerally, and at the professional level specifically, has not translated into increased numbersof women at senior and executive levels (Piterman, 2008). Statistics show the movement ofwomen through business hierarchy into top level positions has been slow. Indeed, the profileof Australian women in executive positions supports research assertions that despite nearly 40years of investigation, the dearth of women in management remains a ‘perennially critical’ and

Experiences in executive women’s work

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 20 NO 3, 2010278


‘tricky’ issue to deal with (French and Strachan, 2007). The exclusion of women from theboardroom is recognised as a symptom of deeper problems requiring solutions focusing on theexisting culture (Sinclair, 1998; White, 2001).

Gendering appears to be an embedded institution in Australian organisations. Despite theobvious gains and the gender-neutral rhetoric of public policy, there is a sense that progresstowards gender equality is stalled (Probert and Murphy, 2001). Similar outcomes are identifiedby Pocock and Masterman-Smith (2005) whose research highlights the limitation of workchoices available to women in Australia. According to More (1999), there is a belief by thedominant male elite in Australia that the ‘problem’ of diversity has been solved simply on thebasis of legislative change. However, while recent changes to workplace laws have beengenerally successful in eliminating blatant gender discrimination, the precarious balancebetween work and family has been perpetuated by organisational policies and practices thathave impoverished equal opportunity practices by reducing available benefits or protections(Piterman, 2008; Syed and Kramar, 2010).

According to a recent report by the Women in the Workplace Agency (Equal Opportunity inthe Workplace Agency [EOWA], 2008), the number of Australian women executive managersin the ASX 200 (an index of stocks listed on the Australian Securities Exchange) is less than 11%.Nearly half of all ASX 200 companies (45.5%) had no female executive managers, and less thana quarter had two or more female executive managers. Of ASX 200 companies, 54.5% have atleast one woman in an executive management position, which is lower than in the US (85.2%),Canada (65.6%), UK (60%) and South Africa (59.3%). French and Strachan (2007) found similarpatterns in the finance industry. While some finance companies were exempt from reporting tothe EOWA, on the basis that they were meeting a range of EEO targets, this did not alwaystranslate into promotional opportunities or managerial roles. Women who do make it toexecutive roles are overwhelmingly clustered in support services that do not provide access tothe profit-and-loss or direct client services that are widely considered essential for rising to thetop (EOWA, 2008). There is thus an acute under-representation of women in executive andsenior management positions in the Australian workforce. We now turn to a discussion ofgendered lenses as a basis for understanding these contexts.

GENDERED LENSES

The monocultural lens

The Australian workplace reflects a monocultural dominance (Tillbrook, 1998; Syed andMurray, 2008), emanating from what may be described as the ‘middle-class, twentieth-centurymodel of devotion to a managerial career’ (Blair-Loy, 2001: 690), which creates employerexpectations of gender relations and managerial commitments in the structure of work (Kramar,2004; de Cieri and Kramar, 2008; Knox, 2008). This common culture underpins a rugged malestereotype that creates a platform for organisational class practices that reinforce managerialbeliefs and power inequalities in the workplace. According to Acker (2006), class controls area type of inequality regime that characterise organisational hierarchies; our focus is on malemanagerial class.

The monocultural lens reflects two things: (a) a masculine ideology embodied in the actualnature of the work itself and (b) gendered expectations of the type of roles performed. Themonocultural beliefs reflect gender differences that define workplace behaviour (More, 1999;Blair-Loy, 2001). Gendered substructures are reproduced as a result of everyday and ‘genderneutral’ practices (Acker, 1990), which become emboldened through gendered lenses, shaping

Peter A. Murray and Jawad Syed



the way in which people act out a given role and/or perpetuate specific class practices thatinfluence the behaviour of people in institutions.

Some scholars suggest that visible controls are evidenced in the typical Australian workculture through ‘cloning’ the male work model based on systems and structures of power andcontrol (French and Strachan, 2007; Knox, 2008). Research in other national contexts suggeststhat roles and routines that become embedded provide meaning to action via role congruence(Eagly, 1987; Konrad and Cannings, 1997), institutionalising certain behaviours while outlawingothers. In practice, studies of women in Australia have found that masculine structurescontinue to polarise relations between the sexes in ways that generally subordinate, marginaliseor undermine women with respect to men (Sinclair, 1998; Piterman, 2008).

The monoculture relates to ways of speaking, or ways of behaving, that includedemonstrating emotional control, behaviours attributable to masculine styles of leading such asbeing commanding, influential and instruction-giving (Karakowsky and Miller, 2002; Syed andMurray, 2006). What is deemed ‘acceptable behaviour’ simply reinforces traditional genderedmanagement control. Traditional markers limit new behaviours such as diversity practices byreproducing more of the same behaviour, such as basic minimum legal compliance whilemaintaining male norms (French and Strachan, 2007; de Cieri and Kramar, 2008). Monoculturaldominance mandates particular management actions to suit the elite who are mostly whitemale professionals in the Australian context. This is not meant to essentialise executive womenas less mobile than any other group or groups in society (e.g. migrant workers) with fewstrategies or ideas of their own. Rather, it reflects dominant practices in the workplace. Thisleads to the first set of propositions.

Proposition 1a: Monocultural practices remain dominant in the Australian workplace.

Proposition 1b: The current experiences of executive women reflect few opportunities in theworkplace.

The statistical lens

Employers use statistical averages for demographic groups in assessing their longevity in thejob (Konrad and Cannings, 1997; Piterman, 2008), which leads to statistical discrimination.Statistical averages and common beliefs place ‘labels’ on both men and women as being suitedmore to one occupation than another. Social expectations on the basis of gender bias employerattitudes in equal promotional opportunities, in claims for equal pay or to attributes peculiarto women that become markers of current and future behaviour. For instance, a commonmisconception is that women will leave work for family reasons, perpetuating the idea thatwomen are not reliable (Murray and Syed, 2007). In past studies, statistical discrimination isvisible in succession planning (Blair-Loy, 2001), in different types of bank roles (Acker, 2006)and in executive positions in Australian finance companies (French and Strachan, 2007).Statistical discrimination has been touted as the main reason for large numbers of womenin the UK being forced into restrictive part-time work, effectively stalling career development(Tomlinson, 2006).

While contemporary employers increasingly base succession planning and promotionalactivity on the competencies people possess, e.g. skill and experience (de Cieri and Kramar,2008), statistical discrimination forges a different outcome. For instance, role congruence inAustralian law firms marginalises women to support roles by rewarding hours on the job,particularly if ‘billable’ hours are the main criteria of success (Murray and Syed, 2007).Managerial class controls embody statistical perceptions that the firm will face job commitment




problems in promoting executive women. In a study of promotions in two companies in the USand Canada, respectively, Konrad and Cannings (1997) reported that women were pressured todemonstrate their commitment and competence more rigorously than their male counterparts(p. 1319).

Statistical discrimination is not only based on the perceptions of gender, on managerial rolesor on whether people will stay in work or leave. Rather, it also reflects how social, cultural andorganisational systems reinforce managerial decisions about women’s representation (Blair-Loy,2001; Acker, 2006). This is evident in research findings indicating that women represent a muchsmaller percentage than men on foreign assignments for family, cultural and other socialreasons (Caligiuri et al., 1999). The link between the monocultural and statistical lens is the wayin which the reproduction of existing norms and practices reinforces a particular pattern ofgendering in organisational practices. Irrespective of legislation, these lenses representconvenient managerial class practices in which masculine norms of management maintaincontrol. As French and Strachan (2007) point out, legislation does not translate into increasesin executive positions. This leads to a second set of propositions:

Proposition 2a: Statistical discrimination remains influential in the modern workplace.

Proposition 2b: Statistical discrimination continues to restrict the promotional opportunitiesof executive women.

The structural lens

Government legislation and organisational policies related to diversity form the basis of thestructural lens. The former is designed to speed up laws concerning equal opportunity such asthe introduction of equal opportunity legislation in 1999, which together with other regulationsrepresents the institutional case for reform (Syed and Kramar, 2010). In comparison with theinstitutional case, the business case is the advancement of organisational policies that promotediversity solutions through diversity management; this mostly accounts for industry’s response.When organisational policies are not well defined, however, monocultural practices are simplyreproduced, leading to statistical discrimination.

In linking gender experiences to structural lenses, the connection lies in the lack ofmandatory benefits. While a recent change in government in Australia has witnessed somerestrictions on Australian Workplace Agreements (which previously reduced or placedadditional conditions on benefits available to many working people), existing agreementscontinue for up to 5 years, and benefits and entitlements still have to be negotiated by unionson behalf of most working Australians (Syed and Kramar, 2010). The overwhelming majorityof executives, including executive women, continues to work under individual common lawcontracts and remain outside the industrial relations system of awards, enterprise agreementsand Australian Workplace Agreements. The Australian workplace continues to be based onproductivity and economic determinism that is selective in deciding flexible policies that enablesocial rights, particularly for working women.

Another relevant issue is the blurring of work duties and home life which reinforces theneed for better workforce relations between management and employees (Conway and Monks,2008). Better workforce planning within the Australian hospitality industry, for instance, hasimproved these relations (Knox, 2008). However, approximately 90% of Australian firms haveless than 100 employees, are not considered large and are less likely to be influenced bylegislation, much less by the design of work that promotes gender legitimacy. Accordingly, thedesign of work is based on old class traditions; benefits related to work and family are not a




high priority (Pocock, 2007). In relation to leadership, the glass ceiling remains an invisiblebarrier for women and minority groups (Kramar, 2004; Weyer, 2007). This leads us to the thirdset of propositions:

Proposition 3a: The sense of entitlement for executive women has not increased.

Proposition 3b: Legislative change has had a marginal influence on the positive experiencesof executive women.

THE RESEARCH

The research was based on a qualitative study of executive women’s personal experiences andobservations of institutional and organisational work practices in Australia. The data werecollected between 1994 and 2006 by examining the speeches of 36 executive women from awell-known edited affirmative action and employment relations Australian publication titledMaking the Link. The speeches were a mix of personal testimonies, loose as well as scientificevidence-based presentations and prescriptive recommendations by practitioners, presented atan annual women’s conference on gender issues and employment relations. So as to providea truthful reflection of gender work practices, the selection of speeches was based on either‘gendered work experiences’ and/or ‘women in leadership’. Only top-ranking womenexecutives were selected for the study because of a greater likelihood that this cohort wouldmore accurately represent gendered experiences; executive roles were classified by occupationand position (Table 1). Executive women in this study worked in a wide cross section ofindustries including very large external companies, public companies, government agencies,industry associations and universities.

Multi-method research was used to analyse the text as a collection of symbols expressinglayers of meaning of executive women’s experiences at work (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Theresearchers were interested in understanding the actual lived experiences, the gender relationsencountered and the meanings that lay behind the various events and phenomena reflected inthe executive women’s accounts. Themes related to managerial class controls across the threelenses (monocultural, statistical and structural) were identified, coded and indexed by usingNVivo (a qualitative data analysis software package produced by QSR International, Australia).To help make sense of the executive women’s experiences and observations, summaries fromNVivo were then collapsed into a role-ordered matrix and a thematic conceptual matrix (Milesand Huberman, 1994). A role-ordered matrix describes a role as ‘a complex of expectations andbehaviours that make up what people do or should do, as a certain type of actor in a setting’(p. 122), while a thematic conceptual matrix is useful in grouping together similar themes. Therole-ordered matrix was a list of managerial class controls and gender relations experienced byexecutive women (Table 2). These experiences were then matched to the two commoninequality regimes of gender and masculine managerial class. This procedure was repeated foreach occupational role.

The thematic conceptual matrix (Table 3) was used as a summary for each of the role-orderedmatrices and matched to each lens. That is to say that these summaries provided a visualaccount of the inequality regimes to determine whether collective experiences supported orrefuted the three proposition groups. The researchers also transported from NVivo the copingstrategies employed by executive women as they encountered these experiences. Again, thesewere used to support or refute the propositions. Metaphors were used by the researchers as theexperiences unfolded as a way to describe managerial complacency, to highlight aspects ofgender relations and managerial class controls.




THE RESULTS

Monocultural lenses

The experiences of executive women talk of a painful journey and a decade-long strugglecampaigning for women’s rights. There are some noticeable marks of normative masculinity inthe workplace. For example, a ‘battle’ metaphor is clearly recognisable. The executive women

TABLE 1 Occupational positions and organisational classification

Stage of research Occupation Classification

Early (1995–1998) Professorial fellow EducationPrincipal ConsultancySex discrimination commissioner AgencyDirector, Equal Opportunity in Public Employment AgencyChief executive officer IndustryGroup captain, RAAF Defence forceExecutive officer, Office of Status of Women AgencyConsultant researcher ConsultancyChief executive officer Industry bodyExecutive human resources IndustryGeneral manager, human resources IndustryEEO manager Industry

Transition (1999–2002) University professor EducationCompany board chair IndustryEEO consultant ConsultancyUniversity professor EducationDirector, Equal Opportunity Agency AgencyAdmiral, Chief of Defence Force Defence forceSenior industry officer Trade unionDeputy chancellor ProfessionalPresident, National Tertiary Education Union UnionDirector, human resources IndustryHead, Women’s College ProfessionalChief executive officer Agency

Emergent (2003–2006) Manager, fire brigade AgencyPetroleum geologist IndustryDirector, human resources IndustryMember of Parliament GovernmentDeputy Leader, Member of Parliament GovernmentLaw partner ProfessionalSenior operations manager IndustryGirls school captain EducationUniversity professor EducationSenior vice president IndustryNavy officer Defence forceSex discrimination commissioner Agency

EEO, equal employment opportunity; RAAF, Royal Australian Air Force.




talk of ‘heroines and victims’ and that it was critical to formulate a ‘battle plan’ becauseorganisations viewed diversity (i.e. the organisational equivalent of the appointment of an EEOmanager!) as an imposition and infringement of their rights. Male managers’ reaction wastypical of gendered differences: ‘If you can’t take the heat, then get out of the kitchen’ (chiefexecutive officer [CEO]-1). According to this executive, little has changed and old perceptionsof equal work were organised on gender lines. If a woman was to ‘make it’ to the top, then shemust adopt male-type characteristics and become ‘one of the boys’. This view was consistentlyevident in the data, for example:

A corporation perceived as analogous with the patriarchal family usually predictsthat family members (employees) expect males to assume leadership roles andwomen to fulfil domestic chores (support functions). Further, father (seniormanagers) knew best; accordingly, family members should not question his (sic)wisdom. This latter expectation resulted in substantial smoothing and avoidance ofconflict. Finally, sons (junior managers) were expected to await patiently their turnto lead, while women contentedly busied themselves with the housework.(professor)

Common to gendered experiences were terms such as exclusion, alienation, outsider,different, out of place, resistance, impenetrable, boundaries, barriers, rejection and isolation.Each of these was linked in some way to the experiences of working in a male monoculture,descriptions of the workplace itself as something resembling group solidarity, inner circle,networks, camaraderie, bonding and in-group understanding. These terms seemed consistentas a dominant class theme related to mostly male managerial values for organising work. AsAcker (2006) notes, ‘because women have more obligations outside of work than do men, thisgendered organisation of work is important in maintaining gender inequality . . . the unequaldistribution of women and men in organisational class hierarchies’ (p. 448). Women foundthemselves having to conform to a typical image of a ‘heroic leader which was the dominant

TABLE 2 Role-ordered matrix of managerial women

Occupation Gendered experiences and observations Inequality regimes

Managingdirector

1. Like any war, there are heroines and victims. Gendered experiences1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Masculine managerialclass controls2, 3, 4, 5, 7

2. Battle plan was formulated.3. ‘Generals’ demanded absolute allegiance.4. EEO manager was an imposition and infringement

on management.5. ‘If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen’.6. Early role of EEO manager was treacherous.7. Focus on social justice in public sector; focus on

productivity and competition in private sector8. Organisation was making the same mistakes.9. Perceptions still existed.10. Role of wife and mother still pre-eminent.11. Choices were painful when deciding about family.

EEO, equal employment opportunity.




mindset of decision makers’ (consulting principle). For instance, paternalistic attitudes towardspregnancy divided women into two categories: (a) those in the promotion stream and (b) thosewho are not, with many women deciding to postpone having children and/or avoiding makingtheir intentions known fearing retribution. Some preferred to ‘leave the battlefield altogether’(executive officer).

Organisations appeared to be generally driven by pro-masculinity structures across thestudy period, and a battle metaphor of ‘generals demanding absolute allegiance’ and little

TABLE 3 Typical thematic conceptual matrix

Monocultural Statistical Structural

Gender hierarchies Roles and group positioning LegalWomen cannot take the heatAct was a work in progressMonocultural image in

boardroomInformal male networksWomen not commercial

enoughWomen are mainly in support

rolesValues as class controls

Culture is formal obstacleWomen involvement not

matched by practiceAffirmative Action Act was

seen as saviour but was notMany subcultures existed

favouring male workSpoke of goodwill phase,

legislation phase, culturalphase; the latter had a longway to go

Common work termsdescribing male roles

Battle heroines and victims

Middle management increasedbut 75% plus women inlower clerical/other roles

Benefits reduced or removed,forcing women to part-timeand casual work

Woman perceived as ‘goodfor support roles’ only

Few women on companyboards

Still low % in administrativepositions

Percentage of women whowill remain in ‘active’service but will leave tohave family

Role discrimination on thebasis of gender andmaternity decisions

Treacherous EEO roles andpoor perceptions ofaffirmative actionlegislation by business

Rise in workplaceagreements and collectiveagreements dismantlingworker benefits

Workplace Relations Bill didnot regulate for differentforms of work

SocialPaternalistic attitudes

towards pregnancyWomen postponing childrenHiding pregnancyPainful family choicesAccepted that more men will

work than women

Coping strategiesRaise awareness of cultural

change needed to CEOsIdentify barriersLearn from menNo turning backBattle metaphor, invisible

cloak

Boards should reflectcommunity standards

Make uniform assessmentsbased on merit

Showcase successful womenEstablish women’s networksMore women attending

university challengingtraditional class hierarchies

Invisible cloak metaphor

Need to advance EEOagenda

Renew battle plans andreinforce positions

Let us get toughLobby governments’ force

complianceRose-coloured glass

metaphor

CEOs, chief executive officers; EEO, equal employment opportunity.




flexibility in labour management practices was consistently evident. Pre-existing perceptionsabout which occupations were more suited to women made it difficult to pursue a managerialcareer. Executives in the current study saw a large gap between what is espoused and what isexperienced because the ‘rhetoric about employee involvement is not matched by practice’(professorial fellow). This is consistent with a lack of fit to corporate culture, lack of career pathsand mentoring, exclusion from male networks, conflicts between personal and professionalvalues, having children and a different management style (More, 1999; Ward, 2004).

We find support for Proposition 1a, that is, monocultural practices remain dominant in theAustralian workplace. Experiences related to roles and a summary of these can be viewed inTables 2 and 3 to support the findings. Gains are minimal and small; they are in contexts wherethe workplace continues to be dominated by class relations that shape sexualised attitudes andassumptions. The monoculture continues to disadvantage groups of women along occupationallines and roles, and on the basis of gendered perceptions and expectations related to thelongevity of work, future work expectations of a particular group (e.g. ‘suitable’ occupations,working mothers or single-income families) and whether these groups can be economicallysustainable over a longer period of time. Experiences noted are a collection of gender gaps andmanagerial class controls that support the proposition.

We also find support for Proposition 1b, that is, the current experiences of executive womenreflect few opportunities in the workplace. On the basis of the experiences highlighted andrecent statistics cited earlier by EOWA (2008), there appears to be modest improvements inexecutive women representation, yet expectation has not given way to significant gains inmanagerial roles. Overall, an improvement in attitudes by allowing EEO implementation is notenough to confront inequality regimes; monocultural influences continue to remain dominantand are reproduced through managerial controls.

Statistical lenses

Unfavourable work practices (e.g. inadequate maternity leave provisions; a perception thatsome roles were more suited to men than women) witnessed many women leaving full-timefor part-time work, reinforcing the secondary status of women as best suited to part-timeemployment. The ‘increasing reliance on individual contracts allows gender dynamics toharden which undervalues women’s work by undervaluing occupations’ (president, NationalUnion). While it was acknowledged that the most effective instrument for changing attitudeshas been women’s exodus from home to work, many women continued to:

bang their heads against the glass ceiling [that might otherwise be] better employedon something more constructive . . . Compared with the rigidity of corporate life,the flexibility of self-employment seems to offer a solution to many workingwomen’s greatest problem: reconciling career and family. (CEO-3)

Accounting for her experiences on a drilling rig, one executive suggests that her profession isdominated by male managers who believe a rig is ‘no place for a woman with most managershaving larger rooms and women feel guilty for occupying a male room’ (petroleum geologist).

Increasingly, executive women are ‘fighting the myth that women don’t belong’ (petroleumgeologist). Others suggest that while ‘people have trivialised women’s roles in sexual andmaternal ways; women should not try to be everything to everybody’ (professor). Here we seea greater call to be confident and determined by staking out a position and sticking with it.While viewing the world through (the metaphor of) ‘rose-coloured glasses’ has encouragedwomen to be confident and assured in the workplace, there remains an occupationalconformance to statistical forms of discrimination in some professions:




The legal profession appears to indirectly discriminate against women with familycommitments since a lawyer’s worth to the firm is often determined by billablehours and the availability to remain at work to meet tight deadlines. This means thatwomen with children face particular challenges. Practical issues, such as child-minding, part-time work, flexible hours and a welcoming environment need to beaddressed in order to heighten female participation in the legal profession. (lawpartner)

While there is evidence that several companies are recognising the link between diversityand change to the extent that organisational culture is challenged (Kramar, 2004), culturalchange and the advancement of the status and quality of life for working women were slow.A lack of flexibility remained in providing for the different phases of a woman’s career. Genderinequality was built into the way work contracts were negotiated. With only ‘7 percent ofindividual contracts containing work and family incentives, women are vulnerable’(parliamentary member). While it was easy to suggest it was ‘up to women themselves tochange’ (HR director), women in general (other than executive women) continued to be‘over-represented in low paid, casual jobs’ (commissioner). The researchers found a commontheme that matched the new metaphorical stance: that is, ‘woman’s rights have gone beyondlaws and goodwill to an expectation that employers must do more’ (vice-president). This wasinterpreted to mean that a greater sense of entitlement is expected by working women andmen. Similarly, the reality that existing relationships between employers and family, betweenpublic and private, are unstable and highly contingent (Pocock, 2007) reflects much of thediscussion.

The metaphor rose-coloured glasses can be used to describe what women are saying andhoping for versus what they are experiencing. The results suggest that there is a determinationby women to break the glass ceiling and challenge both gender discriminatory practices and theidea that women should be perceived as more suited to specific roles and occupations. Culturechange is evident in the themes and actions by companies in appointing models and mentors.Underpinning these is a new perception by younger women that Generations X and Y ‘will bethe ones to break the glass ceiling by proving themselves and by contributing to organisationalteams through tolerance and respect’ (school captain). The lure of success is not unrealistic inone sense because women are tackling gender boundaries. What is hoped for, however, may nottranslate into real progress according to one executive. While values are built on a perceptionthat ‘we can do anything’ and an ‘idealised view that women can achieve the same things asmen, it simply doesn’t happen in practice’ (petroleum geologist). However, some commoncoping strategies emerged in Table 3. The notion of equivalence, of changing perceptions, ofmoving on from the past and taking control, were suddenly more important. For theresearchers, these new values seemed to be romanticised as the nature of occupational roles hadnot changed greatly.

We find support for Proposition 2a, that is, statistical discrimination remains influential inthe modern workplace. Experiences related to roles and a summary of these can be viewed inTables 2 and 3 to support the findings. The validity of the statistical lens remains given thesecondary status of women and along with the type of occupational roles performed. Whileexecutive women have improved their overall position relative to men, women continue to bepolarised through role types, and specific experiences can be categorised as widening gendergaps and increasing managerial class controls.

We find support for Proposition 2b, that is, statistical discrimination continues to restrict thepromotional opportunities of executive women. Salient experiences across the themes support




the view that statistical discrimination restricts promotional opportunities throughmonocultural practices and gendered differences. Our position is moderated, however, by thedegree to which legislation has been enacted and implemented, such as the extent to whichdiversity management is practised.

Structural lenses

Executive women’s accounts thus far are perhaps a carry-over from the effects of theAffirmative Action Act 1986. Although the central tenet of the Act was a call for greatercommitment to equality by the senior levels of the organisation, companies were finding it hardto implement a push towards equal representation of women at all levels. The large differencesbetween senior women’s representation compared with those occupying support roles highlightthe problems for companies in turning around a stereotypical perception that women’s roleswere different to men’s.

Equal opportunity, however, was in the process of being promoted beyond workorganisation and hierarchies. The Karpin Report of 1995, a report about the managementdevelopment practices of Australia, helped in changing some management perceptionsrelated to work practices in general, particularly better ways of capitalising on diversity. Thereport highlighted the differences between working women’s experiences compared to thoseof men: ‘Waiting for change by evolution was a strategy which had failed’, according to oneCEO. The report highlighted lack of awareness by management of poor representation ofwomen at senior levels.

The ‘invisible cloak’ is another metaphor visible in the data, which builds on themonoculture to the extent that the real intention of management is really about maintaininggender inequality regimes irrespective of legislation. The invisible cloak is the story of theemperor with no clothes. Here, the swindler spins for the emperor a fine cloak made of goldthat only the brilliant and insightful can see. The story follows that the emperor cannot see thecloak but is too embarrassed and ashamed to admit it, henceforth, he wears the cloak in frontof his servants, who, not wanting to appear stupid themselves, likewise agree that the cloak isbrilliant; that is, until a young boy in the emperor’s presence states the unthinkable: ‘theemperor has no clothes’. There is a consistency in executive women’s experiences thatorganisations are ‘wearing invisible cloaks by thinking they have solved the problem of EEO’(CEO-3). For instance, organisations interpreted gender equality as a need to employ EEOofficers and industrial relations experts in an effort to ‘organise and control the main issues andcomply with EEO legislation’ (EEO consultant).

There appears to be a flurry of organisational activity in relation to ‘demonstrating’ strongercommitment to EEO. Some women described these advances in terms of illustrating theircompany’s support for equal representation. Others suggested that organisations were confusedbetween maintaining management control on the one hand with the need to adopt EEOprinciples on the other. A small percentage of women were being promoted into executivepositions, and work–family balance was a common concern:

There was a fundamental contradiction between their expectations and what theirlives were really like at work and in their family, however their experiences in theworkplace was of exhaustion and a sense of failure in trying to accommodate bothwork-family fit. (senior industry officer)

Change, however, was evident. Women generally valued their increased economic freedomand financial independence, the increased opportunities that followed and the benefits gainedthrough legislative change. Many executive women noted that women appeared to have




‘bought the march of progress lie based partly on the belief that women themselves mustchange’ (EEO consultant). For others, the new notion of EEO was merely a smokescreen, abelief propagated by men that diversity is a ‘woman’s issue, that is, it is less a debate aboutmen since it suits many to keep gender as topics about women’ (senior industry officer). Someof the accounts pointed to the differences between EEO principles and what was viable andallowable in practice: ‘Mind you, I haven’t quite reconciled how you have a family and work,when you are completely at the whim of clients’ (board member, law firm). This quotereinforces what Acker (2006: 443) suggests that systemic disparities exist between participantsin power and control over goals, resources and outcomes.

Equal opportunity legislation was treated with scepticism even disbelief that ‘the genie istrying to escape the bottle’ (HR director, Union). While legislation was confronting to themonoculture, it was not visualised as any great threat to traditional class controls such assupervisory practices and norms which seemed very much ‘visible’ to these women. Ifanything, organisational diversity as a result of legislation is portrayed in a simplistic and basicway, adding weight to the view that Australian organisations were paying ‘lip service’ to thephenomenon (Syed and Kramar, 2010).

We find support for Proposition 3a, that is, the sense of entitlement for executive women hasnot increased. Experiences related to roles and a summary of these can be viewed in Tables 2and 3 to support the findings. In fact, some structural changes, such as the reworking of theAffirmative Action Act 1986 as the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999,rather weakened the gender equality provisions of the previous Act and adversely affected thesense of entitlement for executive women. While some very large companies have implementedmaternity leave provisions for both men and women, inequality regimes are still commonacross work roles and hierarchical arrangements, and Acts of parliament are not enforcedthrough compliance. Hence, companies may or may not implement EEO or report suchpractices to the EOWA. Significant cultural change is still required.

We find support for Proposition 3b, that is, the legislative change has had a marginalinfluence on the positive experiences of executive women. While legislation has reduced unionpowers and awarded conditions in one sense, considerable flexibility in interpreting thelegislation has meant little or few maternal/paternal benefits available and even scaled backentitlements in some occupations. Hence, entitlements (e.g. maternity leave, work–life balance)are sporadic and inconsistent across Australian organisations (Pocock, 2007), suggesting thatexisting patterns of work will remain for some time.

Implications for HR policy and practice

With a view to effective understanding and management of gender diversity at the executivelevel in organisations, our findings may have important implications for HR practice. Given theprevalence of monocultural, statistical and structural stereotypes facing executive women,organisations may use our findings to tailor their HR policies in general, and their selection andcareer management practices in particular, towards creating gender diversity and inclusion inthe workplace. With respect to selection practices, organisations should focus on objective,relevant criteria to hire executives with the potential and capacity to lead. As far as careermanagement practices are concerned, close attention should be paid to job characteristics suchas job autonomy, skill variety, task identity and task significance (Humphrey et al., 2007), witha view to promoting people on competency and skill irrespective of gender. Further,organisations should also pay attention to autonomy, support and empowerment of executivewomen when they design and implement other HR practices, such as employee training anddevelopment (Kuvaas and Dysvik, 2009).




Transforming a corporate culture to be more inclusive of gender diversity would requiresustained commitment and exemplary behaviours from top management. To be inclusive, topmanagement, male executives in particular, will need to recognise monocultural and structuralbarriers facing executive women, and consider such barriers in designing organisationalpolicies and practices. Leaders will need to build on equal opportunity principles that supportstaffing, reward, evaluations, training and promotion (Carr-Ruffino, 2007). Refraining fromstatistical stereotypes which originate from, and in turn reinforce, social stereotypes of gender,management will need to create strategies that are based on reliable sources of data on groupcharacteristics. Similarly, management might avoid negative connotations (Carr-Ruffino, 2007)and instead focus on understanding and valuing gender differences (Adya, 2008).

Not unlike their male counterparts, executive women may expect (and have a right) to beconsidered a valued organisational employee, to experience development and promotionopportunities, and to be integrated smoothly into the organisational structure and routines. Tothis extent, both female and male executives develop psychological contracts regarding work.With such expectations, women committing to their professional careers may be disappointedwith the monocultural, statistical and structural barriers they face in the workplace.Organisations should monitor and minimise the breach of such expectations throughsocialisation that reinforces the organisational commitment to the employees’ growth,providing formal integration opportunities and commitment to diversity management (Adya,2008).

Organisations may focus on designing and implementing good checks and balances to makesure that male executives and employees do not have unfair advantages over women (e.g. byrestricting the effects of the ‘old boys network’ in the managerial class), and there ought to beprogrammes to sensitise male employees to women’s needs and difficulties. At the executivelevel, team and trust-building organisational development programmes might be useful tocreate an inclusive workplace and to ease male employees’ feelings of being threatened by theimplementation of equal opportunity policies (Ng and Chiu, 2001).

CONCLUSION

In comparing various themes and metaphors, the increased number of coping strategiessuggests the increased confidence of executive women in coping with the effects of the threegender lenses (Table 3). At no stage, however, did these women appear to be in total controlof their careers because of the inequality regimes and managerial controls that existed acrossthe three lenses. While coping strategies might be useful in tackling gender regimes such asgender and class differences, inequality regimes per se (in the way work is organised andcontrolled) pose a dominant challenge to EEO.

In theorising the relationships in the study, we follow Acker’s (2000, 2006), Blair-Loy’s (2001),Connell’s (1987) and Ward’s (2004) accounts of the relationships between structure and agency.Inequality regimes in particular are useful as a way to link various managerial controls fromsupervisory practices to wage setting, access to promotional opportunities through promotionalpolicies, hierarchical roles, and gendered and sexualised assumptions, to the way work isorganised. Our contribution lies in examining gendered hierarchies and masculine managerialcontrols through gendered lenses. In this study, we have outlined how scholars might analyseand review inequality regimes through the monocultural, statistical and structural lens. Out ofthese, the monocultural lens seems particularly pervasive. The study in general points to theaggressiveness of the dominant control feature of class and the monocultural lens. Similarstudies in the US, for instance, found that professional women saw the culture of their work




group as highly masculine, aggressive, competitive and self-promoting (Martin and Meyerson,1998), which might also call for, as Acker (2006) suggests, adaptations to expectations thatinterfere with family responsibilities.

Scholars suggest that gender inequity should be studied at multiple levels of analysis byanalysing how women construct their lives within and outside the workplace with the limitedresources at their disposal (e.g. Connell, 1987). The current study is indicative of those parts ofstructure that become institutionalised models of hierarchy in the workplace (Blair-Loy, 2001).At the extreme, the monoculture continues to polarise gender relations (Knights and Kerfoot,2004); a case in point is Blair-Loy’s (2001) masculine schema that calls men to consumingprofessional careers while expecting their wives to provide domestic care (see also MacDonaldand Liff, 2007).

Given that the experiences noted here are robust accounts of the ties between the threelenses, the study supports the idea that ‘multiple consciousnesses . . . allows individuals andgroups to recognise that no system of domination is more primary than another’ (Ward, 2004:83). In Australia, there is a strong need to systematically unravel the complexities of genderhierarchy and the pervasiveness of managerial practices that maintain gender (and class)differences.

The three gendered lenses may be useful in conducting an in-depth research on gender inmanagement in Australia and elsewhere. Future research might examine in more detail therelationships between the shape and degree of inequality because few organisations inAustralia are very large, with the great majority small to medium. Similarly, an interestingconundrum lies with smaller organisations where gender regimes might be more common, yetnot quite as complex as larger organisations which are affected by the steepness of theirhierarchy and where class relations might be more embedded.

Another possible direction is to examine how executive women in Australia and elsewhereuse language to construct and perform their social identities as a leader or manager. This canprobably be done by analysing the discursive strategies and linguistic devices involved in their‘performance’ of leadership, exploring and considering the problematic of such performance.For example, in their study on femininity at work in New Zealand, Holmes and Schnurr (2006)demonstrate how public performances of powerful women are typified by double-voicingstrategies, i.e. the ways in which speakers manage and interpret components of feminine ormasculine styles for particular effect. Extending this argument, scholars may also criticallyexamine the applicability of executive women’s accounts across fault-lines such as race,ethnicity and sexual orientation.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlierdraft of this article.

REFERENCES

Acker, J. (1990). ‘Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations’. Gender and Society, 4:139–158.

Acker, J. (2000). ‘Revisiting class: thinking from gender, race, and organizations’. Social Politics:International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 7: 2, 192–214.

Acker, J. (2006). ‘Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations’. Gender and Society, 20:441–464.

Adya, M.P. (2008). ‘Women at work: differences in IT career experiences and perceptions betweenSouth Asian and American women’. Human Resource Management, 47: 3, 601–635.




Blair-Loy, M. (2001). ‘Cultural constructions of family schemas: the case of women financeexecutives’. Gender and Society, 15: 686–709.

Burton, C. (1997). Women in Public and Private Sector Senior Management. A Research Paperfor the Office of the Status of Women. Canberra: Department of the Prime Minister andCabinet.

Caligiuri, P.M., Joshi, A. and Lazarova, M. (1999). ‘Factors influencing the adjustment of women onglobal assignments’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10: 2, 163–179.

Carr-Ruffino, N. (2007). Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace. Boston, MA:Pearson Addison-Wesley.

Chesterman, C., Ross-Smith, A. and Peters, M. (2005). ‘The gendered impact on organisations of acritical mass of women in senior management’. Policy and Society, 24: 4, 69–91.

de Cieri, H. and Kramar, R. (2008). Human Resource Management in Australia, Sydney: McGraw-Hill.Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and Power, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities, Cambridge: Polity Press.Conway, E. and Monks, K. (2008). ‘HR practices and commitment to change: an employee-level

analysis’. Human Resource Management Journal, 18: 1, 72–89.Eagly, A. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behaviour, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.EOWA (2008). 2008 EOWA Census of Women in Leadership, North Sydney: Equal Opportunity for

Women in the Workplace Agency.French, E. and Strachan, G. (2007). ‘Equal opportunity outcomes for women in the finance industry

in Australia: evaluating the merit of EEO plans’. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45: 3,314–332.

Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2006). ‘Doing femininity at work: more than just relational practice’.Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10: 1, 31–51.

Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007). ‘Integrating motivational, social andcontextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the workdesign literature’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 5, 1332–1356.

Karakowsky, L. and Miller, D. (2002). ‘Teams that listen and teams that do not: exploring therole of gender in group responsiveness to negative feedback’. Team Performance Management,8: 146–156.

Karpin, D. (1995). Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australia’s Managers to Meet the Challenge of theAsia-Pacific Century. Report of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills.Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Knights, D. and Kerfoot, D. (2004). ‘Between representations and subjectivity: gender binaries and thepolitics of organizational transformation’. Gender, Work and Organization, 11: 4, 430–455.

Knox, A. (2008). ‘Gender desegregation and equal employment opportunity in Australian luxuryhotels: are we there yet?’ Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46: 2, 153–172.

Konrad, A.M. and Cannings, K. (1997). ‘The effects of gender role congruence and statisticaldiscrimination on managerial advancement’. Human Relations, 50: 1305–1327.

Kramar, R. (2004). ‘Does Australia really have diversity management?’, in E. Davis and V. Pratt (eds),Making The Link: Affirmative Action and Employment Relations, Sydney: CCH Australia Ltd, pp.19–26.

Kuvaas, B. and Dysvik, A. (2009). ‘Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsicmotivation and work performance’. Human Resource Management Journal, 19: 3, 217–236.

MacDonald, S. and Liff, S. (2007). ‘Working for the family’. Human Resource Management Journal, 17:2, 118–133.

Martin, J. and Meyerson, D.E. (1998). ‘Women and power: conformity, resistance, and disorganizedcoaction’, in R. Kramer and M.A. Neale (eds), Power, Politics, and Influence, Newbury Park, CA:Sage, pp. 311–348.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, London: Sage.More, E. (1999). ‘Dancing through the glass ceiling’, in E. Davis and V. Pratt (eds), Making the Link,

Sydney: CCH Australia Ltd, pp. 53–63.




Murray, P. and Syed, J. (2007). ‘Gendered lenses in context: observations and experiences ofmanagerial women’, in E. Davis and V. Pratt (eds), Making the Link: Affirmative Action and IndustrialRelations, Sydney: CCH Australia Ltd, 17, pp. 63–69.

Ng, C.W. and Chiu, W.C.K. (2001). ‘Managing equal opportunities for women: sorting the friendsfrom the foes’. Human Resource Management Journal, 11: 1, 75–88.

Piterman, H. (2008). The Leadership Challenge: Women in Management. Report prepared for theAustralian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and IndigenousAffairs, http://www.consultinghp.com.au/theleadershipchallenge.pdf, accessed 16 October 2009.

Pocock, B. (2007). ‘Work–life “balance” in Australia: limited progress, dim prospects’. Asia PacificJournal of Human Resources, 43: 2, 198–209.

Pocock, B. and Masterman-Smith, H. (2005). ‘Women and workchoices’. Journal of Australian PoliticalEconomy, 56: 126–144.

Probert, B. and Murphy, J. (2001). ‘Majority opinion or divided selves? Researching work and familyexperiences’. People and Place, 9: 4, 25–33.

Sinclair, A. (1998). Doing Leadership Differently, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Sinclair, A. (2004). ‘Journey around leadership’. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,

25: 1, 7–19.Syed, J. and Kramar, R. (2010). ‘What is the Australian model for managing cultural diversity?’

Personnel Review, 39: 3, in press.Syed, J. and Murray, P. (2006). ‘The participation of women in multi-disciplinary action teams’, in E.

Davis and V. Pratt (eds), Making the Link: Affirmative Action and Industrial Relations, Sydney: CCHAustralia Ltd, 16, pp. 65–72.

Syed, J. and Murray, P. (2008). ‘A cultural feminist approach towards managing diversity in topmanagement teams’. Equal Opportunities International, 27: 5, 413–432.

Tillbrook, K. (1998). ‘An exploration of the current under-representation of senior women managersin Australian universities’. Women in Management Review, 13: 8, 291–298.

Tomlinson, J. (2006). ‘Routes to part-time management in UK service sector organizations:implications for women’s skills, flexibility and progression’. Gender, Work and Organization, 13:585–605.

Wajcman, J. (1999). Managing Like a Man: Women and Men in Corporate Management, Sydney: Allen &Unwin.

Ward, J. (2004). ‘Not all differences are created equal: multiple jeopardy in a gendered organization’.Gender and Society, 18: 82–102.

Weyer, B. (2007). ‘Twenty years later: explaining the persistence of the glass ceiling for womenleaders’. Women in Management Review, 22: 6, 482–496.

White, K. (2001). ‘Women in the professoriate in Australia’. International Journal of OrganisationalBehaviour, 3: 2, 64–76.




gendered observations and experiences in executive women's work

Documents