A second approach – examining career development

Whilst the initial research focus emphasised the individual and gender differences, by the late 1970s and through the next decade the research focus broadened to consider how organisations and structures impact on women’s career development.

This research focus can be classified as the situation-centred approach and argues that the organisational work environment, rather than individual characteristics, is the cause of women’s low representation. Kanter (1977) was one of the first researchers to

Chapter 2 – Literature Review consider organisational structures and processes that may hinder career advancement for women. Kanter’s structural theory suggests that the gender ratios at upper levels affect interactions between the dominant group (men) and the token group (women). The dominant group amplifies the differences between its members and the token group, resulting in negative outcomes for women including performance pressures, exclusion from interaction with male peers, and being viewed stereotypically as women rather than as managers. In turn, women may alter their management style to reduce their visibility or to lessen perceived differences and stereotyping by men. In male-dominated industries women are more likely to display a more stereotypical masculine style of leadership (Eagly and Johnson 1990; Ferrario and Davidson 1991). Kanter argues that women’s positions in organisations can be understood in terms of organisational structures and the clustering of women in lower power roles rather than simply a function of individual gender difference. Kanter suggests that if there were a greater sharing of power within organisations, women would not have as much difficulty accessing management roles. Kanter’s (1977) tokenism theory suggests that female executives will experience negative reactions to their position, which may include barriers to networks, which in turn will be detrimental to their career success.

There is also a suggestion that women may not necessarily help each other in breaking through the glass ceiling. The ‘queen bee syndrome’ is used to identify those women who have reached the top, usually in a male environment, and who then adopt a counter militancy approach that is based on their own professional and social success (Rindfleish 2000). Mavin (2006a; 2006b) suggests that competitive behaviour between women may extend beyond professional rivalry to include subconscious elements relating to a number of different factors such as age, weight and dress sense. Schein and Davidson (1993) argue that it is the established gender system, which assumes management to be male, that contributes to women’s behaviour towards other women in senior management.

Wajcman (2000) asserts that women’s behaviour in senior positions is conditional on their capacity to mould their behaviour to suit the dominant culture and therefore modify their behaviour to be like men. Being a minority group, women adapt their behaviour to present more like the dominant group and in this way minimise the visibility due to their gender difference. In so doing they do not challenge the status quo.

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

Kanter (1977) argues that the token group experiences pressures that are different to the dominant group, particularly around feelings of isolation, visibility and difficulty accessing usual networks. She suggests that there are three structural effects for women as the minority grouping in organisations. First, female leaders become visible in terms of divergence, resulting in them becoming invisible as individuals, and those women who are successful are regarded as the exception but simultaneously representative of women. Women may also feel the need to assimilate into the dominant male culture, which may lead to the development of specific expectations on women operating in this culture. Kanter (1977) suggests that when a woman enters management the contrast effect suggests that the male majority may seek to strengthen the male culture.

Kanter’s tokenism theory and subsequent reviews (Yoder 1991; Zimmer 1988) posit that there are at least six negative outcomes for women that will act as career barriers. Firstly, women may feel that they do not fit in with the dominant male culture at senior levels or believe that they may need to change to fit in. Davidson and Cooper (1986) report that women experience far greater stress than their male counterparts because of factors associated with their token status, gender stereotyping and male colleagues appearing to be uncomfortable working with them. Davidson and Cooper (1986) and Harlan and Weiss (1982) also note that female managers report that they have to perform better than their male colleagues to prove themselves. Similarly Ragins et al. (1998) report that women believe that they have to exceed performance targets and need to over-perform to counter negativity based on gender. As women are promoted and achieve senior executive roles, their visibility and profile increases and there is a perception of a greater requirement for them to perform better than their male counterparts (Klenke 1996).

The second negative outcome identified by Kanter (1977) is reflected in work groups with skewed gender ratios. The dominant group (men) tend to strengthen cultural boundaries by exaggerating their camaraderie and in so doing, emphasising their differences from the token women. Kanter (1977) argues that this leads to exclusion of women from informal interaction and networks. Similarly, Davies-Netzley (1998) and Moore (1988) also found that senior women were excluded from informal networks with male colleagues. The ‘old boys’ network perpetuates gender biases against women (Swiss 1996).

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

A third consequence of women’s token status is that they receive less opportunity for mentoring than their male colleagues. Dreher and Cox (1996) found that women with Masters of Business Administration degrees were less likely than their male counterparts to have male mentors. Ragins and Cotton (1991) found that women suggested it was more difficult for them to build mentoring relationships, and particular concerns relating to the nature of the relationship were raised in terms of potential for misinterpreting the purpose.

A fourth consequence relates to female executives’ social isolation and their need to rely more heavily on formalised relationships than do male colleagues. Female managers rely on qualifications in pursuing promotion whereas males use informal networks for promotional purposes (Cannings and Montmarquette 1991; Powell and Butterfield 1994).

A fifth consequence is that women may be viewed stereotypically. Traditional gender stereotypes depict women as deficient in attributes deemed necessary for management success (Eagley and Carli 2003; Vecchio 2002). Morrison, Greene and Tischler (1985) suggest that staff may view female leaders more negatively than males. This is based on role incongruity, in that women are not expected to show leadership traits and therefore when they do, they are viewed more negatively than men exhibiting the same behaviours (Carli and Eagley 2001). Furthermore, roles may be segregated by gender (Bielby and Baron 1986) and there is a tendency to favour staffing decisions towards the dominant group (Kanter 1977). Jobs may also become gender-typed based on the gender of the previous job holder (Kiesler 1975). Where roles are seen as male- gendered type, women may not be considered for the position.

A sixth consequence is that women may have difficulty with geographical mobility. Adler (1984a; 1984b) noted that management may consider that women are unwilling to move or lack the fortitude to take up international assignments.

Wajcman (2000) argues that Kanter fails to recognise the power inequalities inherent in gender relations. Similarly, Calas and Smircich (1992), Connell (1987; 1995) and Collinson and Hearn (1996) challenge the notion of gender-neutral organisations and, instead argue that the gendered nature of the work environment is continually reinforced

Chapter 2 – Literature Review through a variety of mechanisms including pay differentials between men and women, how organisational matters are communicated and communication across the organisation.

Wilson (2003) suggests that mainstream management theory has supported this notion of gender blindness in that it has not always recognised the relationship between management and gender. She argues that management theory has promoted gender blindness as it rarely considers the individuals who occupy the management role, treating management as an abstract set of functions, processes and operations and furthermore failing to recognise the influence of gender in organisations. Wahl (2001) argues that this gender blindness is evident not only in management literature but in the workplace as well. Wahl suggests that women in minority situations are likely to take on a gender-neutral adaptive strategy, that is, being more likely to attach greater importance to individual skills and competencies than to gender. The gender-neutral strategy is seen as a way for women to cope with their token position (Wahl 2001). In contrast, some women may also adopt a positive strategy where they amplify their gender through behaviour or dress and in this way believe being a woman may be an advantage (Wahl 1998).

The work environment includes group dynamics directed towards the token female members (Kanter 1977), attitudes towards female managers (O’Leary and Johnson 1991), and differential reward structures. Tharenou (1999), in support of Kanter, argues that women are prevented from advancing to the top by lack of support and exclusion from networks that men easily access.

Klenke (1996) suggests that in organisations that are male-dominated the ‘old boys’ network exists and it often excludes women. As women have difficulty accessing the male networks they may create their own (Cooper Jackson 2001). Access to networks is regarded as significant in achieving upward mobility as well as in accessing information and creating organisational nous (Ragins and Cotton 1996).

Riger and Galligan (1980) call for greater attention to the interaction between the person-centred approach and the situation-centred variables impacting on women’s representation. The next section highlights the work that examines the relationship between the person and the situation.

Chapter 2 – Literature Review