Procedure

The Managing Directors of each participating organisation were approached first, to a) secure their endorsement of the study and allow the researcher to access organisational charts comprising employee names and their positions in the

organisational hierarchy, and b) to inform all eligible staff of the project and introduce the researcher to staff members. All participants were informed that their participation was voluntary, and that they may withdraw at any time. They were informed that they were not compelled in any way to volunteer, and that their non-participation or withdrawal from the study would be confidential.

Participants were contacted personally to designate their preferred time and venue for the interview. A confidential meeting room in their work premises was made available. An interview room at a location on the Victoria University campus was also available. However, all participants chose to be interviewed in their workplaces. All participants signed a consent form before and after the interview. To ensure confidentiality of participants, transcripts derived from taped interviews were coded with an identification number for the participant and their department and organisation. No names or identifying characteristics were

included in the transcripts. Names of individuals offered by the participant during the course of the interview were also coded on the transcript.

Each of the organisations gave the researcher access to human resource information that included organisational chart details and employee names and contact details. The researcher was also given access to strategic planning

documentation, annual reports, and promotional materials. The interviews ranged from 40 to 90 minutes. All interviews were tape recorded and transcribed by the researcher.

It was intended to present each participant with a detailed account of the interview to check the validity of interpretations made. This was not achieved with some participants due to time constraints on the part of the participants in some instances, particularly management in MetalOrg. However, a summary report of themes elicited from all the interviews and analysis according to sex of the respondents in each organisation was published and distributed to all

participants. Participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback and validation of themes in the report, through direct contact with the researcher individually, and at numerous in-house seminars held to present research findings. A sample report is provided in Appendix A.

6.1.2.1 Interview content

A story telling approach was adopted initially with participants being

encouraged to tell the researcher how they got ‘here’ (eliciting their perceptions of their current position in the context of their career history). This initial stage of the interview process was used to build rapport, and also elicited useful information about the participant’s own sense of career success and the major factors that had contributed to their career development.

The next phase of the interview was conducted in a semi-structured style around set topics. These topics were developed with an emphasis on exploring the effects of gender on participants' experiences at work and on their career

development. Of interest was the extent of values and behaviour congruence between personal identities and organisational culture. Questions were also designed to elicit any consequences of marginality that may be related to stress, well-being and barriers to career development. Further topics were chosen to explore factors that may buffer the effects of occupational stress, or alleviate

barriers to career success, such as knowledge of, or participation in, informal organisational networks and mentoring relationships.

As discussed earlier, in order to experience gender-related marginality, an individual needs to have conscious awareness that their gender identity is

incongruent with the perceived gender identity of the organisational culture. I felt that this awareness, internalised conflict, could not be elicited through direct questioning. It would more likely present itself in discussions about the values perceived in the organisation juxtaposed with discussions about personal values. Therefore, during interviews, participants:

• described their organisational culture;

• discussed their perceptions of what values the organisation espoused and prioritised;

• described their perceptions of the ‘good manager’ (using methodology adopted from studies by Schein, 1973) and extrapolated on their perceptions of women in management; and

• described their experiences of occupational stress, role conflict and their accessibility to mediating factors that alleviated these outcomes.

The following is a breakdown of the seven sections of the interview, including the rationale used in designing each topic area.

Characteristics of management: This stage provided an opportunity to elicit historical information that led to an understanding of what the participant

perceived as being important for success in career development and how their experiences shaped their perceptions.

Values and organisational culture: Participants were asked to describe their organisational culture, by focussing on cultural prescriptions such as appropriate behaviours (‘how things are done here’); behaviours and traits valued by the organisation in individuals and organisational units; and how valued behaviours and traits were explicitly recognised through bestowing rewards.

Experiences and views of women in management: This stage was designed to elicit descriptions of marginality and the consequences of difference.

Participants had the opportunity to discuss the salience of gender in their everyday work lives and how they felt about being ‘male’ or ‘female’ in relation to their career success and job roles.

Mentoring: The discussion provided descriptions of mentoring in their organisation and the types of traits and behaviours seen to be important to be eligible for, and a recipient of, mentoring.

Stress and Sex Role conflict: Participants were asked about both major sources of stress for themselves and others, as well as about their coping

strategies. The discussion elicited issues of conflict between home and work roles as possible sources of stress. Participants’ perceptions of others’ sources of stress were discussed to understand the cognitive processes by which managers seek to understand the issues of their staff, and whether they were conscious of issues of role conflict for others. To make a distinction between the social context at work and at home participants were asked to elaborate on their at-home experiences.

Influence in the organisation: Participants were asked to define influence. To aid them in this task, they were asked to imagine individuals in the

organisation whom they considered to be influential as a group. Questions related to this group, therefore invoking discussions that incorporated the relational aspects of influence. Rather than attempting to provide a definition of influence that could be used by participants in this study, I chose to provide an object of power (that is, influential people) to provide mutual meaning for participants and the researcher during the interview. This technique was adapted from work conducted by network theorists (see Brass, 1985; Krackhardt, 1990) where participants are asked to indicate individuals they consider to be influential in their organisations. Their network research reports a high degree of consensus in the individuals chosen within organisations, so while it is difficult to agree on a definition of influence, ‘we know an influential person when we see one’ (Krackhardt, 1990).

Information: This point of the interview was designed to elicit processes of formal and informal or subversive processes of power and communication within organisations. The discussion focussed on information about informal networks

operating in the organisation and their relative importance to organisational members.