Gender, Power and Organisation: : A Psychological Perspective

Citation

Meisenhelter, M.C. (1998), "Gender, Power and Organisation: : A Psychological Perspective", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 70-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm.1998.11.1.70.1

In her Introduction, Paula Nicolson stresses that Gender, Power and Organisation is not just another book about women in organizations. Rather, she aims to examine workplace gender issues from the feminist perspective. She writes: “it is about the psychological consequences of [this] gender imbalance for women” who aspire to and hold high ranking positions in organizations (xi). Nicolson is true to her word. The book does not merely describe the different behaviors displayed by men and women in the workplace. Nor is it a supporting argument for the proposition that women face unique challenges on their journey to the top. Instead, Nicolson takes these ideas as givens, and looks at what she considers to be the more important questions: what causes the behavioral differences between men and women? What effect do they have on a woman’s self‐image and psycho‐social‐development?

At the heart of Nicholson’s book is a conceptual model that answers the first question, and becomes the basic assumption for exploring the second. While Nicolson does not expressly delineate a model, her ideas coalesce into what can be envisioned as a cycle of four phases. The cycle begins with the assumption that organizations are rooted in the patriarchal tradition, which is maintained through cultural and organizational socialization processes. Girls and boys learn what masculinity and femininity mean, and assimilate gender‐specific role expectations. Traditionally, gender roles depict men as aggressive, achievement oriented, independent, autonomous and the natural heirs to power. Women are viewed as the objects of men and the instruments toward their development and success. Women are expected to be subordinate, cooperative, dependent and nurturing. In short, femininity is about motherhood, and masculinity is about power (Chapter 3).

Nicolson next describes how sex roles translate in the workplace. The concept of sex‐role spillover is used to show how men and women bring their vision of what is expected of them (i.e. what it means to be masculine or feminine) into their careers (pp. 80‐81). Role transition has not been problematic for men, because the expectations of independence, achievement and power are the same in both spheres. The same was true for women prior to the 1970s. Because women initially took jobs in what we now call “female occupations”, the behaviors and roles used at home (deference, nurturing, serving) were applicable to their positions as nurses, teachers, secretaries and waitresses. However, as more women aspired to careers in traditionally male occupations (e.g. engineering, medicine, law, management), sex‐role spillover became a hindrance (rather than an aid) to women’s progress. As traditional feminine roles became less useful, ambitious women had to develop their own visions of what they should be and how they should act. Eventually, these visions were manifested in the behavior differences identified in the social science literature.

As behavioral scientists began to study “male” and “female” management styles and career strategies, the permanence of organizational patriarchy was guaranteed. Nicolson believes (as do other feminists and post‐modernists) that academic research, with its traditional positivistic ideology, is the force that legitimizes patriarchy as the organizational ideal. In short, research conducted by men, using male college students as “subjects”, performed in experimental conditions, will inevitably result in the elevation of male roles and behaviors. Even when research projects include women, denial of context predetermines that male behaviors will appear predominant. Without context, researchers have no choice but to ascribe differential behavior and career success rates to intrinsic/biological qualities rather than contextual qualities (pp. 18‐19).

The cycle achieves closure with the publication of empirical research results. Academic journals and conferences have a major impact on the belief system of those who are most influential in the socialization process. University professors “teach” teachers, health care providers, psychologists, social workers and the clergy. These professionals influence clients, patients, parents, students, etc. Insightfully, Nicolson points out that in the late twentieth century, academic research has an extended influence on the general public, because the media provides additional avenues for dissemination. Nicolson argues that as “scientific discoveries” become more visible on newscasts and educational programs, even those who do not participate in formal higher education will learn the values of the patriarchal system (p. 19). Hence, the belief in patriarchy becomes harder to challenge. And so, we find ourselves back at the beginning of the cycle, where patriarchal beliefs create role expectations, which spill over into the workplace, where behaviors are experimentally studied.

Paula Nicolson expressed two goals for Gender, Power and Organisation. The first was to explore how differences in role expectations and power relations develop in organizations. The second was to examine how these differences affect women emotionally and psychologically. Though I separate the questions in this piece, Nicolson examines them simultaneously. Nicolson enlivens her discussion of patriarchy’s dominance with rich examples from her life, the lives of women friends and colleagues, and from the work of other feminist writers. Here the reader comes to understand why Nicolson chose to focus on women in senior level positions. Her choice is grounded in the feminist concept of dualism, which in simple form can be characterized by the phrase “me at work” and “me at home” (Glennon, 1983). Nicolson believes that the gap between traditional feminine roles and the roles associated with professional work (men’s roles) widens as women progress upward on the corporate ladder. Therefore, studying high‐ranking women provides the richest context in which to examine the psychological effects of gender differences and power relations. This is what sets Nicolson’s work apart from other books on “women in the workplace”. Nicolson focuses specifically on the emotional and psychological processes experienced by women in senior positions. Most treatments of the subject tend to make generalizations about “the female experience” based on studies of women at all levels of work. As such, characterizations tend to discuss a composite description which ignores the political and gender‐related aspects associated with progressing toward the “male” side of the occupational continuum.

Nicolson entwines theory with example, by providing stories which engage the reader emotionally and intellectually. Nicolson’s work, particularly Part II, is an excellent example of writing in the post‐structuralism perspective (Richardson, 1994). To illustrate the depth of her writing, I offer the following examples. In a section titled “Blue stocking, virgin or executive tart”, Nicolson shares the experiences of women struggling to find a comfortable balance between their sexuality and the expectations associated with senior management positions. In “Boys will be boys”, Nicolson probes the thought processes of women deciding how to react when faced with sexual language and behavior in the workplace. These stories reveal the power of Nicolson’s book. She takes the “taboo” questions that all successful women have asked themselves, and brings them into the open. Nicolson’s approach educates the reader about the subject at hand, but more importantly, it ensures that the reader learns a great deal about herself.

Answers to the two questions posed in the Introduction are unfolded, not pronounced as “truths”. The reader is allowed to discover insights as Nicolson’s stories evolve, and examine them in light of their own experiences. For the record, here is one interpretation of what Nicolson hoped her readers would discern:

1. 1

   Successful women experience multiple “splits” within their self‐image. They discover how different they are from most everyone else. Professional women do not emulate the feminine ideal (i.e. dutiful wives and mothers), they are not the same as women in “female occupations” or even those in junior positions, and they are not “one of the boys”. Learning to live with this multi‐level dualism is emotionally, psychologically and physically stressful for these women.

2. 2

   Women face role boundaries which must be negotiated in order to be professionally successful. They constantly make trade‐offs between the behaviors associated with various roles. Walking this tightrope causes additional stress for senior women, because it rarely allows the real “self” to emerge. The ultimate loss occurs when women can no longer recognize that “real self”.

3. 3

   Women tend to approach their day‐to‐day work life in a reflexive manner. To navigate within and between roles, women engage in on‐going self‐discourse. They reflect on their strategies, decisions, behavior, and the consequences of all three. The insight gained from this reflexive discourse becomes the foundation for present and future choices. Because of this, women tend to be much more consciously aware of the trade‐offs they are forced to make.

4. 4

   A common strategy for negotiating internal “splits” and role boundaries is to create artificial barriers between roles. Such barriers are both physical and psychological, and serve to help women deny their sexuality and distance themselves from other women who represent undesirable roles. In short, women cut themselves off from that which makes them whole. The inevitable result is that successful women often end up as isolated, asexual beings living a very lonely existence.

Gender, Power and Organisation is an intellectually stimulating read. At the same time, it is an emotional journey into the lives of the women portrayed in the text, and unavoidably, into one’s own life. Whether the reader is male or female, there is a pathway to the personal and professional self. Nicolson provides a strong literature review as a framework for her premises, which is exceptionally helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with the feminist perspective. There is room for improvement in some of the writing, but that is a stylistic issue which is easy to address. There is, however, a problem which will not be so easy to fix.

While introducing the third and final section of the book, Nicolson states that she will “develop a model” to assist in women’s survival and growth within organizations (p. 137). In addition, she claims to offer “ways of putting feminist psychology into action” (p. 138). Unfortunately, neither of these efforts materialize. Part III is very brief (16 pages), and continues the discussion of what women do to survive. I saw no “model” written in a future or prescriptive tense. Nor did I find applications of feminist thought in the three pages allotted to that topic. Instead, Nicolson tells women to:

1. 1.

   recognize that men fear women’s strength, not their isolated presence;

2. 2.

   recognize that women will always be seen as women first, professionals second; and

3. 3.

   “support other women unequivocally” (p. 154).

This is a disappointing end for such a thought provoking discussion.

On the whole, I would recommend this book to fellow academics, graduate students in business and the social/behavioral sciences, and organizational consultants. The practical value of Nicolson’s work is to remind us that organizational interventions cannot have a positive impact on workplace situations unless they are developed with deliberate consideration of gender‐related roles and power relations. Despite the weak conclusion, I think Nicolson’s real contribution is heuristic. She provides a provocative treatise which will serve as the catalyst for discussion, debate and the revelation of new stories. In that respect, Nicolson has most definitely written a “good text” (Lincoln and Denzin, 1994).