Sameness Difference in Male and Female Management Styles - Book Report/Review Example

One of the prominent developments of the twentieth century in the Western world was the rise and wide expansion of feminist world views. As a consequence of that process, many of the existing inequalities that negatively influenced women in social, economic, and cultural spheres were removed or significantly reduced. Still, among the issues that in our society preoccupy todays agenda the problem of a just treatment of women continues to be present as it is constantly kept visible by for example frequent legal processes that concern alleged cases of sexist and unjust attitudes to women in the workplace. Aside from such court cases, there is also an ongoing public discussion of the possible limits for the equality between men and women (Halford and Leonard, 2001; Karsten, 1993). Indeed, as when placed in similar circumstances men and women may tend to behave in different ways, it is necessary to have a better knowledge of existing difference and, also importantly, of sameness between general effectiveness of men and women within the same fields of activity. In this regard, Sarah Rutherford, a consultant specialising in organisational culture and diversity, in her article "Any Difference An Analysis of Gender and Divisional management Styles in a Large Airline" provides results of a very insightful research that explores a specific aspect of the sameness/difference between women and men, namely their managerial approaches, and does so in a specific and at the same time quite representative environment, namely in a large airline. Let us take a closer look at the research of Rutherford, single out important conclusions that she reaches, and try link her contribution with wider debates on management and gender. Sarah Rutherford opens her article with the general observations about the ongoing debate "as to whether woman manage differently from men and whether this may constitute a reason for womens lack of progress to the top echelons of organizations" (Rutherford, 2001, p.326). In this way, by presupposing the possibility of existence of real barriers for the career progress of women in business on par with men she immediately suggests that the topic of her research may be placed into the wider social context of what she calls "a feminist theoretical framework" (Rutherford, 2001, p.326) that recognises that inequalities exist. At the same time, Rutherford quickly moves on to an assumption that in reality things may be more complex and that it may prove to be quite difficult to clearly separate management peculiarities dictated by individual traits, including the gender of a manager, from those dictated by business function and specifics of an organisation. Also, before detailing the findings of her research the author expands the relevant underlying theoretical base by discussing the very notions of masculinity and femininity as not determinants based purely on biological differences between genders but as socially constructed behavioural patterns. For example, she points out that display of a certain range of emotions that both genders experience is traditionally considered to be a feminine way of reaction, an observation which will be very useful later in the article. So, already in this part of the article we encounter one of the very important points of the author that as far as masculine and feminine social roles have corresponding modes of behaviour, it is possible for men to mimic feminine roles, and vice versa. As will be evident from the authors report of the results of the research, this phenomenon indeed takes place, and, moreover, its usage by both genders is perhaps the most influential factor in the part of management discourse which deals with differences between managerial peculiarities of men and women. In fact, this early observation is very important for wider debates on management and gender as it rightfully broadens the scope of traditional feminist criticism of existing inequalities in treatment of men and women. It does so by pointing out that such strategies as the adoption by woman managers of the masculine behavioural modes may be an acceptable way for them to bypass the problem of non-recognition by men endowed with power of what may be viewed as the stereotypical image of female range of professional skills that are valuable but not sufficient for senior managerial positions. In the part of the article that details the findings of the research, Rutherford in a structured way demonstrates how much views on sameness/difference question may vary between different departments of a single large company such as Airco. In fact, it seems that different company divisions represent alternative attitudes to feminine and masculine style of management, and in one service-oriented division, the Cabin Services, where emotional connection with customers is demanded, the line between the two is intentionally blurred. In general, one of the most important findings of Rutherford is that even if in some circumstances feminine approaches to management, and to work in general, are valued and even are consciously adopted by males, such cases are rather ad hoc, and actually confirm the larger tendency that management strategies are adopted by both women and men in accordance with their business function. But, importantly, the access of women to the higher echelons of management to a large degree may depend on their ability to adopt masculine management style, and not on skills inherent to women. On the other hand, a too aggressive management style of a woman manager can create a negative attitude towards her from the side of male colleagues who may label her as unwomanly. All this suggests that despite an increased number of women managers in modern companies, and despite the possibility of their usage of masculine approaches to management to achieve a greater equality, the association of management with men is still strongly influencing, often in implicit ways, the position and equality of women in business organisations, and as men in most cases still retain positions of power Rutherford concludes that "power inequalities are not changed through discourses of masculinity and femininity" (Rutherford, 2001, p.343). Such conclusions of Rutherford are also important for wider debates on management and gender. For one, as far as for a meaningful discussion of gender issues in management it is at least necessary to be able to adequately estimate a real difference between male and female management styles, Rutherford, by showing how both styles can be intentionally intermixed, helps us achieve a better comprehension of the real complexity of this task. This investment of the author of the article will hopefully enrich with useful statistical data the debates centred on the question of what is the exact process of associating of males with certain occupations, and females with others. After all, as Lee Chalmers, a sociologist whose research interests cover gendering processes in organisations, observed "people gender jobs, jobs gender people" (Chalmers, 2001, p.13). Finally, the observation of Rutherford about the tendency of women managers to adopt masculine managerial approaches would surely be relevant for defenders of feminism as an ideology that, in apparent contrast to Rutherfords findings, proclaims that "women are to be valued simply because they exist, not because of status derived through associations with men" (Karsten, 1999, p.4). Besides, such a tendency would disrupt the prospect of creation of what Margaret Karsten, the researcher of gender issues and their impact on management, terms "a hypothetical "feminist" organization", in which interaction precedes decision making and power rests on expertise and is not concentrated at the top (Karsten, 1999, pp.5-8) so that leaders are removed from the top perch positions and are placed in the middle of communicative network. Sources Chalmers, L., (2001), Marketing Masculinities : Gender and Management Politics in Marketing Work, Greenwood Press Halford, S., and Leonard, P., (2001), Gender, Power and Organisations, Palgrave Karsten, M., F., (1993), Management and Gender, Praeger Paperback Rutherford, S., (2001), "Any Difference An Analysis of Gender and Divisional management Styles in a Large Airline", Gender, Work, and Organization, vol.8, No.3, 2001. Read More