Blog 6 and 7

“Discuss some ways in which gender is acted out within organizations. You can use our readings for examples of how gender appears in everyday organizational performances, such as costuming, forms of talk, as well as other practices. Close by discussing to what extent you think organizations are gendered – is there any part of an organization that isn’t shaped by assumptions about gender? Use Chapter 7 and our readings by Deborah Tannen and Rosabeth Moss Kanter to answer this question.”

“Use your work experiences, or examples of others to discuss masculine and feminine managerial styles. Do you think they are different, or fairly the same? Specifically, discuss whether in your view men experience different pressures or expectations to manage in certain ways, and what affect/how informal roles are displayed between men and women”

Every day gender affects how individuals position themselves in the world as a proportion of our identity. The formation of identity through different types of discourses builds expectations and norms through social training and subconsciously holding one another to these predefined and longstanding roles. Gender in organizations is reflected in the language, practices, roles, and policies of interpersonal relations. Often, these gender practices are thought to be so normal, they go unnoticed and are taken as natural. Fraser’s article on the White Collar Sweatshop reflects this theory of naturalism, when activities that go on in organizations are thought to be completely natural with no alternative, yet in reality they are man-made practices.

Historically, classical management theories regarded the individual as a complex machine, and sought to obtain complete control over their public self. Individuals identified their “real selves as existing mainly outside of the work setting and appearing only when the artificial rules and roles of work life were loosened” (pg 200, Organizational Communication). However, modern times have called for a trend in authenticity of identity across both public and private contexts or being honest and about how we work and live with others. The development of Human Relations and Human Resources theories reflect this trend, by encouraging and increasing employee’s interpersonal relations, personal well-being with those of the organization. This trend merges the previous divisions between private and personal life. However, gender differences among individuals have caused gendered practices in organizations, based on the natural differences in the way males and females express themselves, and society’s historically different expectations for each gender.

Organizations use specific practices to mold member’s identities through examples such as, “Defining a person by defining others, providing a specific vocabulary of motives, and explicating morals and values” (pg 201). However, organizations also contain an informal system of practices and expectations that mold member’s identity, specifically through gender distinctions. Historically, women have experienced salary, access, and mobility inequalities in the workplace. Liberal feminist have worked to gain equality for women in the workplace regarding company and government policies, and equal opportunity access. Radical feminist differ in that they claim women in equal employment positions are still simply acting out the expectations and roles of the patriarchal society, and that this system must be completely dismantled and replaced with feminist-inspired, non-hierarchical structures. Yet, both liberal and radical feminist scholars are, “united by the assumption that the socially constructed (and ideological) split between the public sphere of work and the private sphere of home had led to significant symbolic and material consequences for both men and women. Historically, men and men’s work have been linked to the public sphere and public organizational life, while women and women’s work have been associated with the private or domestic realm” (pg 202,203). This has resulted in the dominance of a patriarchal organizational system. This system has led to gendered practices within organizations, mostly to the disadvantage of women.

Over time, a very strong social, historical, storyline and discourse have evolved to establish the differences in men and women’s roles. Females have been made less marginal, due to the cult of domesticity where women are regarded as being ruled by emotion and associated with the home. Men have been associated with the public, work life, due to the assumption they are ruled by reason. Today, this has resulted in the establishment of numerous assumed differences in men and women’s practices as organizational norms. Often, not adhering to these expectations can cause conflict in the organization, worse though, is the fact that many times these gendered norms and inequalities go unnoticed, and are accepted as natural.

“The public/private split has resulted in several implications for men and women in contemporary organizational life” (pg 203). Gendered practices are acted out in organizations through daily interactions, as basic as the forms of talk and conversation differences between men and women. According to Deborah Tannen’s studies from her book, Talking From 9 to 5: Women and Men in the Workplace: Language Sex & Power, women and men speak in different genderlect styles, or gendered variations of the same language. Tannen explains her theory through the existence of conversational rituals, claiming that what is being said is not actually important, but the pattern or ritual of the behavior, or real actions being performed, create the division in men and women’s communication manners. Concerning the organization, Tannen claims that problems arise because of men and women’s different understanding of how language is used. Men, utilize a method of report talk, using language to get things done, and exchange information. However, women practice rapport talk, using language to establish commonality, relationships, and unity with others. Organizations, being patriarchal in nature, are prone to report talk communication styles, as in managers dictating tasks. Problems can arise when conversational misunderstandings of the male or female intentions. For example, a male coworker may experience a problem on the job, and disclose this information to a female counterpart. The female may respond by displaying empathy for his situation, and explain a similar situation that happened to her. However, the male is not looking for a connection; he is looking for a solution to the problem, and may feel the female is not adequate in her position for not helping find a solution. The female may become upset when the male seems vacant, not appreciating her reaction. Another example may occur when a female needs time off from work, and explains her situation to her male manager. The manager may appear uncaring to the female by telling her she can only have the time off if she finds a replacement, with the male manager. However, the female may feel the manager doesn’t like her, is not respectful to her contributions to the workplace, and is insensitive, causing a riff in the work environment.

Studies have shown organizational practices, and institutions favor male communicative styles over women’s. “In such studies, women’s seemingly tentative, self-deprecating, and inclusive speech was initially assumed to be ill-suited to the hard-driving demands of organizational life, and management in particular. Women’s communication style was perceived as preventing them from forming networks and moving up the career ladder” (pg 205). Even when men and women perform similar behaviors, they are often interpreted in different ways, continuing the traditional ideology of “gender differences”. “As a result, even when men and women engage in the same behaviors, those behaviors are interpreted differently in organizations that often privilege masculinity over femininity".

Studies have shown that, women lack a nature as forceful as their male-counterparts, and do not negotiate for raises or promotions as often as males. Organizations can unknowingly discourage females from speaking their mind; due to negative feedback they receive from males who interpret the female as being too emotional in the work setting, concluding they must be less adequate to perform the job. This gendered practice within the organization sets the expectation for communication as being not emotional, status centered, direct, assertive, and impersonal; a direct contrast to women’s concentration on relationships in conversation. This can result in women feeling isolated, and inadequate within the organization. Consequentially, females will often adapt a submissive role.

These simple everyday interactions between males and females can cause conflict both in the organizational setting, and in the private setting. After contemplating examples of male to female communication outside of the public organizational realm, I noticed a similarity in home life interpersonal relations. In the home, I find women have been historically encouraged and expected to feel inadequacy, submissiveness, and guilt towards male counterparts, if they express emotional and irrational behaviors, feelings, and actions. Organizational life encourages forms of talk that don’t emphasize personal relationships, and interpersonal connections in the methods used to speak. This brought my attention to where, report style, the norm of communicating within the organization, originated. Did the home influence the establishment of organizational communication practices, or vice versa? Clearly there are distinct gendered preferences of communication on multiple levels that result in inequalities within the organization. In order to dissolve the difference and conflicts that arise due to communication, I believe we must address communicative practices at multiple levels, both home and work, to achieve the necessary change for a dynamic, yet neutral organization.

In the second frame concerning gender identity and organizational performance, “gender is not an essential or “natural” or fixed aspect of our identities, but practices learned and enacted in appropriate occasions…how a person performs masculinity or femininity will change depending on the context” (pg 208). This is because appropriate gendered practices are rewarded in the proper context. One example is of exotic dancers or cocktail servers, acting overtly feminine when performing for customers to gain monetary rewards. Costuming of little or no clothing is required to gain the monetary rewards, but only in this organizational setting. Exhibiting this type of identity and costuming in corporate settings would have severely negative consequences. This is because gendered identities are performed in many different ways. The key to this concept is that they are performed, not naturally innate in us as individuals. We evolve to fit the appropriate, socially constructed ideals that often we think of as natural. In reality, these are man-made expectations for behavior, and not true identity. Gender is often played out as one of these social constructions of appropriate behavior. In organizations, “there are sever penalties for failing to enact or perform an appropriate organizational gender, including lack of upward mobility and less access to employment” (pg 208). For women managers, the assumptions are often conflicting as to what the appropriate role for a woman is. If she acts in harsh, strict manners, she is considered “a bitch” in common slang. However, if she acts caringly and understand, she is classified as a pushover. In certain types of management positions, women face strong obstacle to overcome. This is even true about appearance, especially its increased importance in our society. In the organization, there is an increased emphasis on physical fitness factors when considering candidates for positions. The candidates that adhere to the preferred body type are more likely to receive the positions than others.

Construction workers are another example of gender being acted out in the organization. Construction positions are usually held by males, with the traditional gender expectations of workers to be strongly masculine, rough, and with an in-your-face attitude. Workers, especially females, who don’t reflect this identity often face ridicule, and are outcasts in the organization. Due to this, many female construction workers will take on a very masculine persona, acting in ways that completely contradict traditional feminine identity. They will use costuming that reflects rugged masculine clothing to try and fit the identity, yet in most other situations, this would be considered inappropriate for their gender, and can even bring into question the sexual preference of the women. These examples demonstrate how strongly costuming, and behavior affect the identity of the person, allowing stereotypical assumptions to be attached to each display or performance of an identify.

In many organizations, gender can be acted out in emotional ways. Emotional labor is, “a type of work wherein employees are paid to create a ‘package’ of emotions” (pg 209). From my experience in the ice cream business, we were specifically told to greet the customers with a smile, upbeat tone, and song. Even if an employee was having a terrible day, the job required you to act out an identity, even if you didn't personal identify with it. An obvious example of this is in clowns, who are expected to be happy and funny at all times. This has become such a strong identity associated to clowns, that people actually can experience fear when clowns do not act out in their appropriate emotional roles and identity. Numerous horror movies have been produced on this concept alone, and to think, they are only scary because of the intense identity assumptions and expectations we have for clowns to act these out appropriately! This example displays the power of socially constructed norms for identities.

The presence of gendered practices is often clearly displayed in an organizations policy, procedure, and attitude concerning maternity leave. Most policies treat maternity leave as a women’s issue, and concentrate on only her dual role as a mother and employee. As stated in Organizational Communication, “rather than being ‘benign’ documents, policies are a ‘discursive site where gendered identities are produced and reproduced such that pregnancy is associated with organizational abnormalities, parenting is treated as a “women’s issue” and domestic life is rendered less central than organizational life” (pg 213). Maternity leave policies could be the single strongest indicator of the predominantly patriarchal structure of organizations. In reality, women who act in the masculine gender, not having children, are rewarded within the organization. Conversely, the organization punishes women who act out their rightful role of femininity and reproduction when they take maternity leave. Yet, even those women who choose to conform to male expectations of work responsibility as their main priority, they are still expected to act in the gendered role as submissive and compliant to their male counterparts in organizational practices. This evidence supports feminist theory that women entering the workforce are now just functioning in a different realm, that of a patriarchal society.

Women often face an intersecting identities when faced with the colliding discourses of motherhood and employee, resulting in feelings of inadequacies in each. This is especially true when they are the manager of an organization, or in a management position. Management almost gives women a third intersecting discourse to overcome conflicts with. Organizational Communication brings up an interesting solution to combating this problem, by suggesting the increased assistance of human relations. To me, although this solution appears to help the situation, it continues to reflect gender roles and practices subconsciously. This is because human relations departments are usually predominantly female, still assuming women should get the console of other women when this “problem” arises. However, pregnancy is not a single-sex responsibility, as it is reflected in organizational policies. Unless the concept of “getting pregnant” is replaced with that of “starting a family”, maternity leave will continue to be reflected in gendered practices within organizations. In order for there to be change, organizations must be restructured, as in Organizational Communications, “implication of Frame 3 is that it demonstrates that identities can usually not be changed simply through individual choices or performances; rather, the organizational systems, structures, and policies that reflect and reproduce gendered inequities must change” (pg 214).

Gender practices are also played out in the duality of intersecting discourses concerning family life and work life. Existing social expectations of women’s behavior and responsibilities outside of the workplace have caused the phenomenon of “second shift”. This term refers to the work/life conflict many women face regarding the unpaid, untimed labor/responsibilities that take place in the home. Society has expectations for women’s responsibilities in the home that far exceed male counterparts. Although many men now take on a dominant role in household responsibilities, the social biases and longstanding view of the women in the household continues to remain. “Work/life conflict has been of interest to feminist scholars because women’s ability to successfully negotiate work/life balance and to craft satisfying identities is hampered by social constructions of gender that encourage women to take on significant duties in the private sphere, such as child care and domestic labor, once they get home from work” (pg 203). This socially constructed norm has forced women to create a tedious balance between work and home life, and is reflected in organizational practices.

This informal communication network of organizations is another sector where gender practices are acted out. It is common knowledge that much of the business world activities occur outside of the office. Golf outings and upscale cigar clubs are just two of the places where business negotiations regularly occur. The existence of, “the boys club” is certainly not dead in modern business relations. Women are rarely brought into the male dominated “bonding” activities men take part of, and have been closed off from this sector of organizational life. This is even true for women managers, where documented cases of inequality between peers has been identified. For example, many business deals are made between partners on the golf green, or through informal social communication networks. The actuality of a women being invited into this informal network is almost nonexistent. Clearly, these types of gendered practices occur on many forms of the organization, and often with informal networks, go undetected.

One organizational trend that doesn’t appear to be shaped by gender is the increasing factor of job spill. Regardless of gender, both men and women alike are experiencing increased workloads affecting their personal lives. Higher expectations from managers and the increasing competition in the job market are causing men and women to make sacrifices for their jobs. Although not a positive organizational practice, job spill is one area that is not dictated by gender and is affecting everyone equally.

Finally, the general antagonism between employees and managers occurs in organizations regardless of gender. The presence of this relationship affects all employees, although could affect individuals of different genders differently in its effects. However, the underline disconnection and struggle between the two groups remains universally.

Clearly, modern organizational practices are dictated by gender, many times in undetected ways. Socially constructed norms have enabled us to overlook this inequality in organizational practices. Change is possible, but only through the direct recognition of this issue, and strategic modification of current policies.