Download Deconstructing Gender in Organizational Theories: Five Key Questions and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Retail Marketing in PDF only on Docsity!
M E N , ( P R O - ) F E M I N I S MLT A 3 / 0 0 , O R G A N I Z I N G• P. 3 7 3 – A N D 3 9 3 O R G A N I Z A T I O N S
R E G I N E B E N D L
Gendering Organization Studies:
A Guide to Reading Gender
Subtexts in Organizational
Theories
ABSTRACT
The application of Gender Theory to the subject of Organization Studies has led to the discovery and
formulation of previously unnoticed problems in the theory and practice of organizations. Specifically
it helps to expose the supposedly gender-neutral assumptions of organizational theories and organi-
zations. This article aims at presenting a framework for exploring the gender subtext within organiza-
tional theories. First, it offers a review of the literature that focuses on the various kinds of feminist
epistemologies in circulation and on the discourse these epistemologies have produced within organ-
izational theorizing. Then an analytical framework for revealing the gender subtext of organizational
theories will be constructed. This framework will be based on the postmodernist/poststructuralist no-
tion of ’deconstruction’. Then the article will formulate a number of deconstructive questions designed
to render the role of gender within organizational theories visible. Some final remarks conclude this
article.
Key words: organizational theories, feminist epistemologies, postmodernist/poststructuralist feminist
approach, deconstructive framework.
REGINE BENDL, Assistant Professor, Department of Retailing and Marketing, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Vienna, Austria
- E.mail: Regine.Bendl@wu-wien.ac.at
L T A 3 / 0 0 • R. B E N D L
1. INTRODUCTION
In the last two decades researchers from the disciplines of Women’s/Gender Studies 1 , Organi-
zation Studies and Sociology have confronted the field of Organization Theory with questions
about the role of gender. There are several reasons for this new line of inquiry:
- Organization theory 2 ”has generally and traditionally been constructed as non-gen-
dered. Written through a male perspective, culture and discourse, it has espoused
theories of empiricism, rationality, hierarchy and other masculinized concepts. In this
way organization theory has been implicitly gendered” (Hearn & Parkin, 1993, 149).
- While organizational theories reflect the practical concerns of their creators (both
the scholar(s) and the organizational participants whose actions are described by the
theories), the following theoretical questions should be asked from the perspective of
gender and gender studies: ’How do organizational scientists create knowledge?’,
’What kind of gendered knowledge do organization theorists create?’, ’What do they
theorize about?’, ’Who theorizes?’, ’What do the theories look like?’, ’Whose interest
does the theory serve?’, and ’Who benefits from it?’. 3 In fact organizational theories
- once they are presented as knowledge – guide organizational participants in their
efforts to understand and control organizations. In this sense, organizational scientists
’create’ organizations as much as they study them (see Calás & Smircich, 1992, 223).
- Organizations are the central social and economic institutions, with which most peo-
ple are in daily contact in one form or the other (e.g. work-place, schools, universi-
ties, social and help services ...). Therefore organizations are decisive factors for the
”well-being” of their subjects (see Alvesson & Billing, 1997), who are not gender-
neutral categories, but rather are women and men. 4
1 The terms ’Women’s Studies’ and ’Gender Studies’ are understood to be synonymous for the purpose of this article. For arguments whether or not there are valid distinctions between these terms, see, for example: Swiss Science Council, 1998; Delhez, Braidotti & Rammrath, 1998. 2 Organization Theory is composed of a multiplicity of largely incommensurable theoretical frameworks and schools of thoughts. In this article the term ‚ organization theory’ represents an umbrella term for organizational theories as well as organizations. Basically ’ organizational theories’ "serve the purpose to explain and under- stand organizations. What distinguishes them from common sense or every day knowledge of organizations is a greater degree of systematic procedure and that they can be criticized and checked inter-subjectively” (Kieser, 1995a, p. 1). There exist organizational theories which are part of macro-, meso-, or micro-levels. Since differ- ent organizational theories are based upon different fundamental assumptions as well as upon different tradi- tions, it is very difficult to compare the different theories (Incommensurability of theories, see Kieser, 1995a, 3). ’ Organization’ as defined in orthodox organizational analysis refers to ”a bounded societal system with specific structures and goals which acts more or less coherently” (Cooper & Burrell, 1988, 102). The term ’ organization studies’ denotes the academic discipline for the purposes of this article. 3 For the construction of knowledge from a feminist perspective, see, for example Code, 1992; Code, 1995; and Code, 2000. 4 Gender within this paper is understood as being socially constructed, a product of socialization and experi- ence (see e. g. Dietzen, 1993). ”Sex/Gender are discursive practices that constitute specific subjectivities through
L T A 3 / 0 0 • R. B E N D L
archal society and, in principle, has a larger range than the former perspective. The ’feminist
standpoint’ approach reasons that men’s dominating position in social life results in partial
and perverse understandings of society, whereas women’s subjugated position provides the
possibility of a more complete and less perverse understanding of society. This approach fo-
cuses on ”making the lives of women visible, viewing women as more than variables to be
considered in comparison with men, presenting women mainly as victims, but also as active
participants essential to the creation of their own lives. Research tends to be pro-women and
the focus is often strongly on women, rather than, as in the variable research, on comparisons
of men and women” (Alvesson & Billing, 1997, 29).
The third and final approach – the ’ feminist postmodernist/poststructuralist’^7 approach
questions gender categories in general which were taken for granted and remained unques-
tioned within the two feminist epistemologies outlined above. This strand no longer views no-
tions like man and woman, the male and the female, as fundamental, valid points of departure
but considers them to be unstable, ambiguous categories and to attribute false unity (see Alves-
son & Billing, 1997; Calás & Smircich, 1992; Flax, 1987; Nicholson, 1990; and Weedon, 1987).
The world is considered a fragmented place and analytical notions of race, class, gender, wom-
en and men are therefore also considered fragmented. ”As notions, women and men are lin-
guistic constructions and should therefore be dissolved in order to reveal the underlying diver-
sity and complexity. Talk about men and women does not simply reveal objective reality but
is part of discourses uncoupled or loosely coupled to any possible reality out there” (Alvesson
& Billing, 1997, 39).
Each of these three approaches provides a special focus for the question of gender and
therefore precipitates different results when applied to organization studies. 8 The postmodern/
poststructural approach will serve as the basis for this article's inquiry into the role of gender
within Organization Theory. This perspective allows to ask questions like ’Who is the subject
7 The terms Postmodernism andPoststructuralism are often used interchangeably. Both signal a ’crisis of cultur- al authority’ located primarily in the Western World, but Postmodernism and Poststructuralism are different strands within philosophy.Postmodernism comprises different philosophical positions, all of which partake in a critique of the ’grand ecrits’ (metanarratives of modernism) like Rationalism, Humanism, Marxism, Christianity, Capital- ism. Terms like ’Unity’, ’Truth’, ’Science’, and ’Sense’ are regarded as universalist and totalitarian within Post- modernism; instead Postmodernism focuses on multiplicity, variety, outward appearance, metaphors, form, body, incident and play (see Prechtl & Burkhard, 1999, 458). In Postmodernism ’grand ecrits’ have lost their power of legitimacy and are replaced by ’fragmental’ and ’petit recrits’ ( ”’small stories’ or ’modest narratives’, mindful of their locality in space and time and capable of adapting or disappearing as needed”, Calás & Smircich, 1999b, 651).Poststructuralism (also called Neostructuralism) is a reaction against classical structuralism. Poststructural- ism criticizes the idea of a meta-historical closed structure as well as the assumption of an all-overlapping struc- turalistic center (see Prechtl & Burkhard, 1999, 458f.). According to Beasley (1999, 89) ”Poststructuralism might be understood either as an approach which is distinguishable from postmodernism and hence having a separate status, or a subset of postmodernism, in which case postmodernism may become the ’proper name’ for a loose constellation of thinkers critical of the explanatory claims associated with modernism”. 8 Chapter two of this article considers this point in greater detail. For publications see Calás & Smircich, 1999a.
G E N D E R I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N S T U D I E S : A G U I D E F O R R E A D I N G …
of organizational theories?’ and ’What is represented and what is not represented in organiza-
tional theorizing?’, as well as allowing us to reflect ”upon the production of theory as a genre
and as an institutional and cultural activity” (Calás & Smircich, 1999b, 649).
The aim of this article is to provide a general analytical framework for the analysis of the
inclusion and exclusion of notions of gender within the language of organizational theories.
Since exclusions and inclusions of gender in traditional organizational research are mostly hid-
den, they form their own text within the text at large: the ’gender subtext’^9. In order to ana-
lyze/decode the gender subtext of any organizational theory a framework is needed, which
will guide the process of focusing on the construction/production of the existing text. In this
article, ’deconstruction’^10 will serve as the basis for such an analytical framework. Several rea-
sons for this choice can be offered (see Calás & Smircich, 1999b, 656f.): – deconstructions are
philosophical meditations delineated in very close readings of particular texts; – a deconstruc-
tive reading attends to the language of the text and those areas where language betrays itself; –
deconstruction pays attention to what authors put ’in the margin’; – deconstruction disassem-
bles textuality to show how, despite careful control of textual representations, language al-
ways eludes the writer's control; and last but not least: – deconstruction follows certain gener-
al ’rules’^11.
9 The concept of ’gender subtext’ was introduced by Smith (1988, 1990) and according to her ”the objectified forms, the rational procedures and the abstracted conceptual organization create an appearance of neutrality and impersonality that conceals class, racial and gender – subtexts” (Smith, 1990, 65). Smith (1988) also argues that it is a deliberate and integral part of the male subtext to lie concealed beneath apparently impersonal forms. To decode the gender subtext in organizational theories one needs ”to focus on the construction of the ’texts’ with its mediated power bases, organizational and individual arrangements constituting gender inequality and the notion of the abstract ’ideal worker’” (Benschop & Doorewaard, 1998b, 5). 10 ’Deconstruction’ as a term goes back to Derrida (1976) and implies that meaning is not natural or intrinsic to the world, but is always constructed. As a form of textual analysis deconstruction reverses the process of con- struction: it shows precisely how artificial the ordinary structures of our social world that we take for granted are; it demonstrates that meanings are not embedded within a text but rather that they are constructed through the interplay of binary oppositions, which are constantly shifting. According to Flax (1990, 37) ”Deconstructive readers are disrespectful of authority, attentive to suppressed tensions or conflicts within the text and suspicious of all ’natural’ categories, essentialist oppositions, and representational claims. They are willing to play with the text, to disrupt its apparent unity, to rescue its heterogeneous and disorderly aspects and its plurality of mean- ings and voices. They are not to think of themselves as author(ities) or as un- or dis-coverers of Truth, but rather as potentially interesting members of an ongoing conversation. Their responsibility is to offer listeners a variety of moves from and against which further movements becomes possible”. A deconstructive reading opens up the text to a renewed debate concerning the limits of the text and the relationship between explicit and hidden textual levels. ”Deconstruction cannot be summarized as a mechanical series of operations to be applied to any piece of language. The deconstruction of a text involves a very close reading of the specific words of that text in the context of taken for granted assumptions. A deconstructive reading must follow the contours of the text it- self” (Kilduff, 1993, 16). As Derrida (1988, 141) himself puts it: ”Deconstruction does not exist somewhere, pure, proper, selfidentical, outside of its inscription in conflictual and differentiated contexts: it ’is’ only what it does and what is done with it, there where it takes place”. 11 ’Rules’, in this context, describe strategies aimed at identifying areas of the text where a particular word or phrase is privileged and central to the meaning of the text (Calás/Smircich 1999b, 857). The analyst looks for another term – an opposite – the privileged term may have concealed and brings that term into the open (‚over- turning’). Eventually, the analyst demonstrates the impossibility of choosing one term over the other (’indecida- bility’) and shows how meanings can be found within the texts (’metaphorization’).
G E N D E R I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N S T U D I E S : A G U I D E F O R R E A D I N G …
The gendered organizational discourse that attempts to shatter this false picture highlights
different subjects depending on the underlying feminist epistemology it employs, as table 1
shows. Even though the evolution of gender research within the field could be described in
terms of a chronological sequence of phases (first the ’gender as variable’ approach, then the
’feminist standpoint’ approach, and most recently the ’postmodernist/poststructuralist’ approach)
this does not imply that the development is one-dimensional or that one phase follows the
other with strict logical necessity. In a certain sense all phases are present at the same time
and different subject matters are rooted more or less firmly in different phases. 13 In essence
the three epistemologies are connected dialogically and reflect the conflict between liberal,
Marxist and postmodernist theories within the discourse of gender in organization theory.
As we can see in table 1 each feminist theoretical strand highlights particular organiza-
tional issues while ignoring others. The addressed issues and the conceptual vocabulary shift
from concerns about women (their access to and their performance in organizations ) , to con-
cerns about gender and organization (the notion of gendered organizational practices) and
finally to concerns about the very stability of such categories as ’gender’, ’masculinity’, ’femi-
ninity’ and ’organization’. Each approach gives alternative accounts for gender inequality,
frames the ’problem’ differently and proposes different courses of action as ’solutions’.
While the ’gender as variable’ approach focuses on the so called ’Women in Manage-
ment’ research 14 (access to organizations, leadership, sex stereotypes, job satisfaction, promo-
tion) and the ’feminist standpoint’ approach highlights gender as a structural category of or-
ganizations 15 (e.g. the sexual division of labor, the gendered processes of organizations), the
’postmodernist/poststructuralist’ approach concentrates mainly on the organizational discourse
itself 16. In fact researchers within the ’postmodernist/poststructuralist – perspective’ have start-
ed to analyze (re-analyze/re-write/re-read and deconstruct) organizational theories and organ-
izational studies 17 , to question the dynamics of gendering and racializing within different or-
ganizational theoretical frameworks and have tried to unveil the gender subtexts within organ-
izational theorizing.
Each of the underlying epistemological approaches is associated with different methodol-
ogies and methods:
13 See Alvesson & Billing, 1997, 24. 14 For literature see Calás & Smircich 1999a. 15 For literature see Calás & Smircich 1999a. 16 Publications with regard to the feminist postmodernist/poststructuralist approach: Pringle, 1988; Calás & Smir- cich, 1990; Kondo, 1990; Martin, 1990; Calás & Smircich, 1991; Acker & Van Houten, 1992; Calás & Smircich, 1992; Capper, 1992; Mumby & Putnam, 1992; Nkomo, 1992; Bristor & Fischer, 1993; Calás, 1993; Mills, 1993; Shearer & Arrington, 1993; Cullen, 1994; Fletcher, 1994; Gray, 1994; Holvino, 1994; Harlow & Hearn, 1995; Wilson, 1996; Fondas, 1997; Benschop & Doorewaard, 1998a; Benschop & Doorewaard, 1998b; Hearn, 1998. 17 See table 2 of this article.
L T A 3 / 0 0 • R. B E N D L
Epistemological Approaches
Gender as variable
Feminist standpoint
Feminist Postmodern/Poststructuralist
TABLE 1. Feminist approaches and subject matters within organization studies (according to Cal
á
s & Smircich, 1999a) related to feminist
epistemologies
sex differences within traditionalorganizational concepts: –^
leadership
-^
uses of power
-^
job stress
-^
job satisfaction
-^
organizational commitment
-^
sex stereotypes
-^
human resource management(recruitment, selection, performanceappraisal) Sociological and structural research: –^
glass ceiling phenomenon
-^
organizational demography
-^
careers and social networks Organization and the broader socialsystem: –^
equal opportunity
-^
affirmative action and discrimination
-^
sexual harassment
-^
work/family
-^
developmental personality theories
-^
different psychosexual development forthe roles in organization andmanagement
-^
”Managerial Women
–^
analysis of the ongoing productive andreproductive gender dynamics ofpatriarchal, capitalist society or of theorganization of the economy and society
-^
workplace-household relations
-^
’gender
’^
is, similar to
class
’, a social
category, characterized by relations ofdomination and oppression, functioning as adeterminant of structural patterns in society
-^
women
’s double oppression of class and sex
–^
addition of gender to analytical concerns ofthe Marxist perspective to compensate forits previous inattention to gender dynamics
-^
female organizations, e.g.
Womenspace
–^
feminist organizational practices
-^
feminist organizational theorizing
-^
sexual division of labor
-^
sex structuring of organizations
-^
occupational sex segregation, visible andinvisible processes of segregation withinorganizations
-^
wage setting and job evaluations schemes
-^
gendering and racializing through symbols,images and ideologies
-^
gendered processes within organizations andgendered substructure of organizations
-^
social gender interactions withinorganizational processes
-^
analysis of organizational conversations andgendered communication acts
-^
men as a social category within anexamination of the intersections ofmasculinities, management and organization
–^
deconstruction of leadership
-^
re-writing organizational studies,organizational globalization andbusiness ethics
-^
questioning/analyzing the
racializing
and
gendering
’^
of organizational
discourse
-^
deconstruction of organizationaltaboos
-^
re-analysis of organizational theories
-^
deconstruction of accounting,marketing and educationaladministration
-^
women-in development research
-^
feminist correction of
development
studies
’^
and economic modernization
interventions
-^
women
’s access to development
resources and technology
-^
textualization of women-in-development
-^
representational space available forThird World women
’s subjectivities
L T A 3 / 0 0 • R. B E N D L
Authors (Year)Title Aim Theory/PracticeEpistemologicalApproachMethod Results
Acker & Van HoutenDifferent Recruitmentand Control: The SexStructuring of Organiza-tionsExamination of possibleinteraction between sexand organizational fac-tors Hawthorne Studies andCrozier
’s Study of two
French BureaucraciesPostmodernismRe-examinationSex differences inorganizational participa-tion are related to (1)different practices ofrecruitment of womeninto jobs requiring de-pendence and passivity,(2) selective recruitmentof particularly compliantwomen into these jobs,(3) control mechanismsused in organizations forwomen, which reinforcemechanisms to whichthey are subjected inother areas of the soci-ety. Sex-power diffe-rentials have a moreprofound effect in somecases than the organiza-tional variables.
Cal
ás & Smircich (1992) Using the
”
F”
Word:
Feminist Theories andthe Social Consequencesof Organizational Re-searchContribution of feministscholarship to re-writingorganization and man-agement theoryInstitutional TheoryConcept of CommitmentPostmodernism (Post-structuralist Approach)Re-writing the two ex-amples under the theo-retical premise of ”women
’s voices
”
Strategy for making adifference by doing itdifferently. Recognizingthat the way scholars doorganizational scienceoften defines the waysociety does organiza-tional practice. Having asocially conscious or-ganizational practicemay depend on having amore socially consciousorganizational scholar-ship.
Mumby & Putnam (1992)The Politics of Emotion:A Feminist Reading ofBounded RationalityPoststructuralist, femi-nist reading of the con-struct of
”
Bounded Ra-
tionality
”
Concept of BoundedRationalityPostmodernism(Poststructuralism)Deconstruction focuseson: centrality of thecognitive metaphor,mind-body dualism,treatment of emotion asa form of laborComponents of BoundedRationality do not al-ways facilitate decision-making that serves thebest interests of variousgroups; the concept isnot powerful because itmirrors objective organi-zational reality, but itarticulates knowledgeabout organizations thatreflects certain domi-nant practices.
Mills (1993)Organizational Dis-course and theGendering of IdentityTo explore the relation-ship of the gendered selfand organizationaldiscourseOrganizational discoursein generalPostmodernism(especially Foucault)Organizations are notsimply spaces into whichpeople enter, but rathernetworks of relation-ships which are deeplygendered. The potentialfor mixed messages orcontradictory discoursescontribute to the forceand continuity of sexistideology.
TABLE 2. Selected publications on gender subtext in organizational theories
Harlow & Hearn (1995)Cultural Constructions:Contrasting Theories ofOrganizational Cultureand Gender ConstructionTo address the relation-ship of the theorizing oforganizational cultureand of gender construc-tions in organizationalanalysis.Theories of (organiza-tional) culture in generalBased on PostmodernistperspectivesLiterature SurveyDifferent theories oforganizational culturecarry with them quitedifferent messages andmeanings in relation togender construction. Thefuture development oftheories of organiza-tional culture need totake much more explicitcognizance of thetheorizing of genderconstruction, rather thanleaving this implicit ashas often been the caseto date.
G E N D E R I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N S T U D I E S : A G U I D E F O R R E A D I N G …
Benschop & Doorewaard(1998b)Six of One and a Half Dozenof the Other: The GenderSubtext of Taylorism andTeam-based WorkComparative empirical studies(Case Studies) to explore thedynamic gender subtext byexamining manifestations andmeanings of gender distinc-tions in different workorganizationsThe focus lies on two differentmodels of work organization:Taylorism (hierarchicalorganizations) and Team-basedwork PostmodernismSubtext Analysis (derived fromDiscourse Analysis)Organizational and job designmay be crucial for thedistinction between Tayloristicorganizations and team-based-work, but not for the(re)production of gendersubtexts. The characteristicsof the abstract worker in bothapproaches seem to be linkedwith masculinity, although indifferent ways. In both casesthe gendering effects ofmasculine connotations aresupported by gendered notionswith regard to two factors:care responsibilities andqualifications.
AuthorsTitle Aim Theory/PracticeEpistemologicalApproachMethodResults
Wilson (1996)Research Note: Organiza-tional Theory: Blind andDeaf to GenderTo show that
”
Organiza-
tional Theory andBehavior
”^
in general are
gender-blindNot one specific theory,gives examples e.g.Taylor
’s Studies,
Hawthorne Studies,Maslow
’s Motivation
Theory Literature Survey –^
Organizational theoriesare constructed as beinggender-blind,
-^
to make gender a centralaspect of organizationalresearch rather than amere addition,
-^
to pose new questionsand to render suspectthe pre-existing knowl-edge on the subject,
-^
to re-evaluate and re-write organizationaltheories on behalf ofmen and women.
Fondas (1997)Feminization unveiled:Management Qualities inContemporary WritingsTo unveil
”
feminization
”
by reviewing accounts ofmanagerial work in threemanagement books and toexamine why thisfeminization inherent tomanagerial writing is notacknowledgedManagement theorizing ingeneral and especially re-engineeringPostmodernism(Poststructuralist Position)Textual AnalysisThe three themes in theinvestigated texts (
’surren-
der control and shareresponsibility
’,
’
help and
develop others
’,^
’build a
connected network ofrelationships
’) closely
parallel qualities culturallyascribed to females. Thefailure to namefeminization is tantamountto acknowledging thatmanagement ideas andpractices are gendered.
Benschop & Doorewaard(1998a)Covered by Equality: TheGender Subtext of Organi-zationsComparative empiricalstudies (Case Studies) thatexamine the genderingprocesses in the Dutchbanking sectorThe subject matter arethree organizationalsettings: token positions,side tracks for youngwomen with children andgendered practices ofcareer-planning.PostmodernismSubtext Analysis (derivedfrom Discourse Analysis)Gender inequality stillpersists at different levelsin the organizations underinvestigation, its concealednature prevents it formbeing perceived as such.Gendering takes place inthe way people deal withgender inequality-that-cannot-be: they preferagreeable interpretationsof relations between menand women that firmlystress equality, coveringunappealing accounts ofinequality.
TABLE 3. Selected publications on gender subtext in organizational theories
G E N D E R I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N S T U D I E S : A G U I D E F O R R E A D I N G …
3. SUGGESTIONS FOR AN ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL
THEORIES IN TERMS OF GENDER – A DECONSTRUCTIVE
APPROACH
The adoption of deconstruction by organizational theorists, 19 and the encounter of organiza-
tion studies with deconstruction opened up a new space for questioning the production of
organizational theorizing. With the aim of writing ’another reality’, or of producing an addi-
tional insight into organizational theorizing, this chapter intends to add to the postmodernist
and deconstructive approach to organization theory offered by the publications mentioned in
footnote 19, and to do so specifically with an eye to the role of gender. It attempts to establish
an analytical framework for exploring organizational theorizing in terms of gender and to un-
veil its gender subtext according to deconstructive ’rules’, such as ’overturning’ and ’meta-
phorization’. 20 With the help of this general analytical framework the chapter wishes to an-
swer the following key questions: ’How is gender represented in the text of organizational
theories?’, ’What role does gender play within specific organizational theories?’, ’In which way
was gender excluded/included in the establishment of the theoretical framework?’, ’In which
way do assumptions about gender influence basic assumptions of organizational theorizing?’,
and perhaps , ”Through which notions can gender be replaced?’. Even though I concentrate on
different research questions than the authors mentioned in footnote 19, our work has some-
thing in common: a postmodernist/poststructuralist approach to organization theory and de-
construction as means of analysis of organizational theorizing.
I will now introduce the five key epistemological notions of deconstruction 21 – Represen-
tation, Reflexivity, Writing, Differance and De-Centering the subject – which can be regarded
as deconstruction’s corner stones. Deconstruction always aims at exploring that which is ex-
19 At the end of the eighties and in the beginning of the nineties postmodernism as an epistemology as well as an era was introduced to Organization Theory. The article of Cooper & Burrell (1988) ”Modernism, Postmodern- ism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction” can be regarded as starting point of a lot of publications, that deal with postmodernism and organizations from various perspectives (e.g. Alvesson, 1993; Alvesson, 1995; Burrell, 1993a; Chia, 1994; Chia, 1995; Chia, 1996; Cooper, 1989; Hassard, 1993; Hassard & Parker, 1993; Hearn & Parkin, 1993; Jeffcut, 1993; Jeffcut, 1994; Kilduff, 1993; Linstead, 1993; Newton, 1998; Parker, 1992a; Parker, 1992b; Parker, 1993; Parker, 1995; Parker, 1998; Power, 1992; Pym, 1992; Reed, 1993; Weik, 1996; Schreyögg, 1999). Basic insights of leading postmodernist and poststructuralist thinkers, such as Foucault (1994; 1997a; 1997b; 1997c; 1997d and 1998), Derrida (1973; 1997; 1998), Lyotard (1984; 1988) were adopted with- in organization theory and a conceptual framework for postmodern organizational analysis was developed. Con- sidering the implications of postmodernism as an era, organizations were reexamined with reference to their structural characteristics, their flexible specialization and participation as distinguished from the classical terms of bureaucracy. As far as postmodernism as an epistemology is concerned, it became clear that the analysis as such created a specific discourse. ”The production of organization rather than the organization of production” (Cooper & Burrell, 1988, 106) was emphasized. This shift of emphasis explicitly challenged the supposedly neu- tral status of former organizational analysts, researchers and authors. 20 For ’overturning’ and ’metaphorization’ see footnote 11 21 See Weik, 1996.
L T A 3 / 0 0 • R. B E N D L
cluded or neglected within a text; in our case we are on the lookout for neglected notions of
gender. After a brief summary of each of these deconstructive strategies, I will use them to
formulate general questions designed to render visible the role of gender within organizational
theories. This article will not, however, provide the answers to these questions. Rather these
questions should be understood as examples of how the gender subtext of organizational the-
ories could be analyzed and dismantled within a deconstructive framework. To provide an-
swers for these questions will have to wait for a later paper focusing on one specific organiza-
tional theory or comparing individual texts of different theories. The five key epistemological
can be described as follows:
Representation
The starting point of a deconstructive approach is the demand that the notion of facts should
be replaced by that of representation s. This suggests that attempts to discover the genuine or-
der of a thing or of a discourse are both naive and mistaken (see Hassard, 1993, 12). Therefore
the following questions can be suggested to analyze the representation of gender within or-
ganizational theories:
- Who is represented in the texts of organizational theories? Men? Women? Other gen-
dered categories?
- How, with which examples, and when is gender represented in the texts of organiza-
tional theorizing?
Reflexivity
The notion of reflexivity refers to the necessity to be critical and suspicious of one’s own intel-
lectual assumptions and procedures. This requires permanent (self-)reflection on one’s own
premises and the acknowledgement that scientific research is but one linguistic game among
others (see Weik, 1996, 387). ”(...) propositions, which remove representation from the grasp
of the factual, are themselves representations. In other words they treat as real both language
and a universe divorced from language. The result is that they beget their own critical analy-
ses” (Hassard, 1993, 12) which should also be subject to reflexivity. The two following ques-
tions are therefore suggested with regards to gender:
- Do the authors of organizational theories reflect on their own theoretical proposi-
tions/assumptions in terms of gender?
- Do the authors of the texts question their manifestations and distinctions of gender?
L T A 3 / 0 0 • R. B E N D L
- What does the partial presence of women mean for the contents of organizational
theorizing?
De-centering the subject
’Subjectivity’ is a process of locating identity in the language of the ’other’, and ’agency’ is an
artefact: therefore agents are constituted through a system of symbols, which locates them while
remaining outside of their awareness. Establishing agency is a process, which takes recourse
to the concept of the "other" (see Hassard, 1993, 15) and which is the result of an interpreta-
tion. The subject is de-centered, no longer self-directing and a convenient location for the
throughput of discourses (see Hassard, 1993, 15). Since the subject him/herself is located in
discourse the following two questions can be raised:
- What kind of agency do men and women have in organizational theorizing?
- Through which system of symbols is their agency constituted within specific organi-
zational theories?
All these questions, derived from the five epistemological notions, can serve as propositions
and examples for exploring the gender subtext of organizational theories. There is no doubt
that readers of this article could have raised other questions which could also be applied and
which could be equally ’right’ (or ’wrong’). Precisely this indefiniteness shows that the scien-
tific discourse we inhabit is constructed as well, and that it depends on the scholars who are
involved in its production.
Having briefly presented these questions some additional remarks should be made: I
regard the analytical framework presented above as a starting point for deconstructing or-
ganizational theories in terms of gender. The questions should not however lead to a purely
binary perspective, dividing the world into polar opposites such as male and female. These
opposites should be invoked and worked with only as a first step, in order to show how one
term dominates the other, and to ’overturn’ the existing hierarchy between the two terms.
The second step has to go beyond this binary code of male and female as well as beyond the
concept of domination. Otherwise all that would have been achieved is to put the subordi-
nate term into the place of the superordinate term and the new superordinate term would
then, in turn, be ready for ’overturning’. This would start an infinite process of overturning
leading to the exhaustion of the terms (as well as of the researcher). To avoid this problem,
the concept of ’metaphorization’ should be applied to demonstrate that there is an essential
double dynamic within the opposition of male and female and that the superordinate term is
defined only in contrast to the subordinate term, which itself serves to constantly threaten
the former’s hegemony.
G E N D E R I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N S T U D I E S : A G U I D E F O R R E A D I N G …
3. NOT THE END – FINAL REMARKS AS A STARTING SIGNAL
As this article shows organization theory and gender research are linked through different fem-
inist approaches, which highlight different subject matters and provide different results. A ’fem-
inist postmodernist/poststructuralist’ approach offers the possibility to dismantle the role and
the power of gender as well as that of the female and male scientists within the production of
organizational knowledge. But even within the ’postmodernist/poststructuralist’ approach we
have to deal with different points of departure (in space and time) as well as with a variety of
research questions and different means of analysis. Even though a lot of research has been
conducted, new research questions can still be raised based on a deconstructive framework.
As Putnam (1996, 386) observes: ”Organizational researchers need ways to open up text for
multiple readings; to decenter authors as authority figures; and to involve participants, readers,
and audiences in the production of research. One venue for achieving these goals is to seek
alternative ways of presenting research reports – ones that challenge conventional modalities,
ground research in historical processes, promote reflexivity, and open out texts to an infini-
tude of meanings”. This article takes up the challenges formulated by Putnam (1996) through
its presentation of a series of questions designed to analyze organizational theories. With the
help of these questions it attempts to open up a new space for further organizational research
aimed at unveiling gender subtexts via the ’postmodernist/poststructuralist’ approach.
According to Calás & Smircich (1999b, 665) ”one more general point, however, is that
postmodernist (...) perspectives havealready touched many of us in organization studies. Per-
haps some of us have been tourists in the land of postmodernism and may not wish to settle
there permanently, but ’we’ have been ’effected’ – changed – by the meeting. We cannot erase
the unsettling that has occurred because of this encounters. They have left traces in how we
consider theory and ourselves”. In this sense – from an effected point of view – this article is
not quite the end but represents a starting signal for continuing to deconstruct organizational
theories, for ’thinking the unthinkable’ and re-considering uncritically accepted knowledge –
knowledge that is taken for granted, fixed and true – through a set of very different lenses: the
lenses of gender.
LITERATURE
ACKER, J. (1992). ”Gendering Organizational Theory”. Mills, A. & P. Tancred (Eds.).Gendering Organizational Analysis. Newbury Park-London-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 248–260.
ACKER, J. & D. VAN HOUTEN (1992). ”Differential Recruitment and Control: The Sex Structuring of Organizations”. Mills, A. & P. Tancred (Eds.). Gendering Organizational Analysis. Newbury Park- London-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 15–30.
ALVESSON, M. (1993). ”The Play of Metaphors”. Hassard, J. & M. Parker (Eds.).Postmodernism and Organizations. London-Newbury Park-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 114–131.
G E N D E R I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N S T U D I E S : A G U I D E F O R R E A D I N G …
CODE, L. (1992).What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
CODE, L. (1995).Theoretical Essays on Gendered Spaces Locations. New York-London: Routledge.
CODE, L. (2000). ”Epistemology”. Jaggar, A. & I. Young (Eds.):A Companion to Feminist Philosophy. Malden-Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 173–184.
COLLINSON, D. & J. HEARN (1996, Eds.).Men as Managers. Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Management. London: Sage Publications.
CONNELL, R.W. (1995). ”Neue Richtlinien für Geschlechtertheorie, Männlichkeitsforschung und Geschlechterpolitik”. Armbruster, C., U. Müller & M. Hilbers (Hrsg.). Neue Horizonte? Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung über Geschlechter und Geschlechterverhältnisse. Opladen: Leske+Budrich, 61–84.
COOPER, R. (1989). ”Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis 3: The Contribution of Jacques Derrida”. Organization Studies, 4, 479–502.
COOPER, R. & G. BURRELL (1988). ”Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction”.Organization Studies, 1, 91–112.
CULLEN, D. (1994). ”Feminism, Management and Self-actualization ”. Gender, Work and Organization, 5, 127–137.
DELHEZ, E., BRAIDOTTI, R. & C. RAMMRATH (1998).Institutionalisation of Gender Studies/Women’s Studies in Europe. Berne: Swiss Science Council.
DERRIDA, J. (1973).Speech and Phenomena. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
DERRIDA, J. (1976).Grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
DERRIDA, J. (1988).Limited Inc. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
DERRIDA, J. (1997).Die Schrift und die Differenz. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 7. Aufl.
DERRIDA, J. (1998).Grammatologie. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 7.Aufl.
DIETZEN, A. (1993).Soziales Geschlecht: Soziale, kulturelle und symbolische Dimensionen des Gender Konzepts. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
ELSBACH, K., SUTTON, R. & D. WHETTEN (1999). ”’Perspectives on Developing Management Theory, Circa 1999: Moving from Shrill Monologues to (Relatively) Tame Dialogues”.Academy of Management Review, 4, 627–633.
FAGENSON, E. (1993, Ed.).Women in Management. Trend, Issues and Challenges in Managerial Diversity. Newbury Park-London-New Delhi: Sage Publications.
FLAX, J. (1987). ”Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory ”. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12, 621–643.
FLAX, J. (1990).Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West. Berkeley: University of California Press.
FLETCHER, J. (1994).Toward a Theory of Relational Practice in Organizations: A Feminist Reconstruction of ”Real” Work. Boston University, Doctoral Dissertation.
FONDAS, N. (1997). ”Feminization unveiled: Management Qualities in Contemporary Writings”.Academy of Management Review, 1, 257–282.
FOUCAULT, M. (1994).Ueberwachen und Strafen. Die Geburt des Gefängnisses. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
FOUCAULT, M. (1997a). Der Wille zum Wissen. Sexualität und Wahrheit: Band 1. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp,
- Aufl.
FOUCAULT, M. (1997b).Die Sorge um sich. Sexualität und Wahrheit: Band 2. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp,
- Aufl.
FOUCAULT, M. (1997c).Der Gebrauch der Lüste. Sexualität und Wahrheit: Band 3. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 5. Aufl.
FOUCAULT, M. (1997d).Die Ordnung der Dinge. Eine Archaeologie der Humanwissenschaften. Frankfurt/ M.: Suhrkamp, 14. Aufl.
FOUCAULT, M. (1998).Die Ordnung des Diskurses. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, limitierte Sonderauflage.
GRAY, B. (1994). ”A Feminist Critique of Collaborating”.Journal of Management Inquiry, 3, 286–293.
L T A 3 / 0 0 • R. B E N D L
GUTEK, B. (1990). ”Sexuality in the Workplace: Key Issues in Social Research and Organizational Practice”. Hearn, J., D. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff & G. Burrell (Eds.).The Sexuality of Organization. Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 56–70. HARDING, S. (1987).Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington-Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. HARDING, S. (1998).Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialsms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington-Indianapolis: Indiana University Press HARLOW, E. & J. HEARN (1995). ”Cultural Constructions: Contrasting Theories of Organizational Culture and Gender Construction”.Gender, Work and Organization, 4, 180–191. HASSARD, J. (1993). ”Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis”. Hassard, J. & M. Parker (Eds.). Postmodernism and Organizations. London-Newbury Park-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1–23. HASSARD, J. & M. PARKER (1993, Eds.).Postmodernism and Organizations. London-Newbury Park-New Delhi: Sage Publications. HEARN, J. (1998). ”On Ambiguity, Contradiction and Paradox in Gendered Organizations”.Gender, Work and Organization, 1, 1–4. HEARN, J. & W. PARKIN (1992). ”Gender and Organizations: A Selective Review an an Critique of a Neglected Area”. Mills, A. & P. Tancred (Eds.).Gendering Organizational Analysis. Newbury Park- London-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 46–66. HEARN, J. & W. PARKIN (1993). ”Organizations, Multiple Oppressions and Postmodernism”. Hassard, J. & M. Parker (Eds.).Postmodernism and Organizations. London-Newbury Park-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 148–162. HEARN, J., D. SHEPPARD, P. TANCRED-SHERIFF & G. BURRELL (1990). ”The Sexuality of Organization: A Postscript”. Hearn, J., D. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff & G. Burrell (Eds.).The Sexuality of Organization. Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 178–181. HOLVINO, E. (1994). ”Women of Color in Organizations: Revising our Models of Gender at work”. Cross, E., Katz, J., Miller, F. & E. Seashore (Eds.).The Promise of Diversity. New York: Irwin, 52–59. HONDERICH, T. (1995).The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. JEFFCUT, P. (1993). ”From Interpretation to Representation”. Hassard, J. & M. Parker (Eds.).Postmodernism and Organizations. London-Newbury Park-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 25–48. JEFFCUT, P. (1994). ”From Interpretation to Representation on Organizational Analysis: Postmodernism, Ethnography and Organizational Symbolism”.Organization Studies, 2, 241–274. KIESER, A. (1995, Hrsg.).Organisationstheorien. Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln: Kohlhammer, 2. Aufl. KILDUFF, M. (1993). ”Deconstructing Organizations”.Academy of Management Review, 1, 13–31. KONDO, D. (1990).Crafting Selves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LANGE, R. (1997).Geschlechterverhältnisse im Management von Organisationen. München-Mering: Hampp Verlag. LINSTEAD, S. (1993). ”Deconstruction in the Study of Organizations”. Hassard, J. & M. Parker (Eds.). Postmodernism and Organizations. London-Newbury Park-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 49–70. LORBER, J. (1994).Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven-London: Yale University Press. LYOTARD, J.F. (1894).The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press. LYOTARD, J.F. (1988).The Differend: Phrases in Dispute. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. MARTIN, J. (1990): ”Deconstructing Organizational Taboos: The Suppression of Gender Conflict in Organizations”.Organization Science, 4, 339–359. MILLS, A. (1990). ”Gender, Sexuality and Organization Theory”. Hearn, J., D. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff & G. Burrell (Eds.).The Sexuality of Organization. Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 29–44. MILLS, A. (1993). ”Organizational Discourse and the Gendering of Identity”. Hassard, J. & M. Parker (Eds.). Postmodernism and Organizations. London-Newbury Park-New Delhi: Sage Publications, 132–147. MUMBY, D. & L. PUTNAM (1992). ”The Politics of Emotion: A Feminist Reading of Bounded Rationality”. Academy of Management Review, 3, 465–486. NEWTON, T. (1998). ”Theorizing Subjectivity in Organizations: The Failure of Foucauldian Studies?”. Organization Studies, 3, 415–447.
