Feminist Organizational Theory: Applications to Public Organizations

Feminist Organizational Theory:  Applications to Public Organizations

Introduction

            Feminist critique of organizational theory has evolved over the last quarter of a century from focusing primarily on individuals and sex-discrimination to examining organizations and the ways they represent and reproduce gender stereotypes.  There are numerous schools of feminist thought that have contributed critiques of organizational theory expanding the understanding of organizations and the impact gender has on organizational behavior.  In examining this literature, there has not been much attention paid to gender in public organizations.  There is substantial literature in the public administration literature that addresses gender as a variable, but, with few exceptions, many of the other feminist critiques have not seemed to cross over into the public administration literature.  

            There are several reasons that I wish to pursue this line of inquiry.  First, as a student of public administration, I am interested in the ways that feminist theory has been applied in my field.  I am also curious about the ways in which feminist theory of organizations might be applied differently to public and private institutions with their different missions and goals.  Finally, many disadvantaged women in this country depend on the government for assistance.  I am interested in understanding whether the institutions they turn to are any better than private institutions at understanding the implications of gender and whether these institutions might be more or less likely to be able to change their cultures to be more equitable.

            The major focus of this review is feminist organizational theory.  I will examine the theory representing several perspectives and attempt to locate literature on public organizations that reflects each perspective.  It is impossible to represent all schools of thought concerning feminist organization theory and impossible to represent all of the literature on women in public organizations.  However, I will attempt to draw connections where I see them.  

            At least two typologies of feminist organizational theory have been developed.  Ely and Meyerson (2000) have classified the work into four “frames” identifying the least complex methodologically to the most complex, ending with their own “fourth frame” methodology.  While this typology is useful, and I will return to it at the end of the paper, for my purposes, I will use Calas and Smircich’s (1996) typology to initially review the literature.  While there are many definitions of feminist theory, Calas and Smircich point out that a common thread is that there is a “recognition of male dominance in social arrangements, and a desire for changes from this form of domination” (p. 213).  They also note many differences particularly in the definition of sex and gender that exist among the approaches.  They identify seven types of feminism and discuss the impacts each has on organizational theory.  In the interest of space, I will not discuss psychoanalytic, Marxist, or Third World/ (Post) Colonial feminism.

Liberal Feminist Organizational Critique

            Early liberal theorists were concerned with women as individuals.  They tended to downplay any notion of sex-differences as harmful to women and instead focused on women’s unequal access to education and other advantages males enjoyed as the reasons for their inability to advance.  Liberal feminists did not question the existing structure, only women’s access to that structure (Calas & Smircich, 1996).  

This approach corresponds to Ely and Meyerson’s (2000) frame one women-as-variable approach.  Women and men are treated as variables in research.  Research is primarily quantitative and documents the difference between women and men along many organizational factors such as career attainment and pay scale.  

This approach to organizations has led to such interventions as increased training and education for women so that their experience more closely matches the education and experience of successful men.  This approach does not question the existing organizational structure, it assumes that if enough qualified women exist, they should advance appropriately.  When they don’t, researchers look at the organizations and ways to adjust them, not radical reform.  Calas and Smircich (1996) say that much of this research can be summed up as ‘glass ceiling’ research, the documentation of, and the search for the reasons for gender inequity in organizations.  This research is also represented in the literature on occupational sex segregation.

A great deal of the research on gender in the public sector has taken this approach.  Almost two-thirds of the references to some recent articles on gender in public organizations mention glass ceilings.  Manni (1997) examined gender differences in the experience of men and women in the senior executive service of the federal government.  She concludes that in general, because of the small differences between men and women in years of experience and pay, that the federal government is procedurally fair.  There are some problems with making any conclusions based on her survey because of the low return rates.  Kerr, Miller and Reid (2002) however, find that among executives in US state bureaucracies, women are underrepresented.  They argue for the concept of a glass ceiling and add the concept of glass walls, the notion that women are less able than men to transfer into certain sectors of public organizations.  This is also called occupational segregation.  This research is very important because it begins to distinguish among types of institutions and asks questions about institutional mission and culture which begin to cross over into socialist feminist perspectives.

While the research done from a liberal feminist framework has been valuable and has provided a foundation on which other areas have built, it does suffer from some serious shortcomings.  Calas and Smircich (1996) and others point out that liberal feminists accept the current structure of organizations without question.  Their aim is primarily to prepare women to get to the top, not change the organization.  Another serious problem is the acceptance of sex or gender as a concrete variable, without examining the way it is socially constructed both within organizations and in societies at large. 

Methodology

Radical-Cultural Feminism

            Radical feminists move away from assuming women are personally responsible for their fates and embrace the idea that women are routinely subordinated as a consequence of a society which privileges males and the masculine at the expense of women.  Radical feminists call for the transformation of formal organizations as well as social institutions such as the church and family (Calas & Smircich, 1996).  Radical feminists are separatists, creating spaces for women that are not hierarchical.  This corresponds to Ely and Meyerson’s second frame?

            Freedman (1979) is an example of this separatist tradition.  She traces the history of women-only institutions in the US such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and women’s colleges and argues that these spaces which started as private, contributed to the radical political campaign for women’s suffrage.  She also argues that separate organizations are needed, even within male-dominated institutions so that women are able to maintain their commitment to feminism and so that they are not coopted by those institutions.  

            Radical feminists celebrate gender differences and hold up women as ideal.  But there are many assumptions about women’s experiences that go into this celebration of womanhood.  Critics argue that radical feminists assume too many similarities among women and don’t do enough to examine the diversity of women’s experiences. They have designed organizations by and for women (Calas and Smircich, 1996).  However, these organizations often struggle to exist in a capitalist environment that represents much of what they are working against.

            Not surprisingly, there aren’t many radical feminists writing about public organizations.  While many argue that public organizations are not representative of women, it would certainly be unacceptable to propose an all women’s government agency.  This may happen by default because of occupational segregation, but it would certainly not be allowed if intentionally designed by a feminist.  I could see a radical feminist proposing to take an agency that primarily employs women and overturn the hierarchy and use it as a radical feminist experiment.  This is essentially what Ferguson (1994)proposes in her scathing critique of bureaucracy.  She argues that “feminism is not compatible with bureaucracy.  Bureacracy can be resisted but not on its own terms” (p. 969).  From this point of view, governments cannot be changed from within.  People interested in public administration generally seem to accept government bureaucracy, so they are not radical feminists.