Kelan - 2008 - The Discursive Construction of Gender in Contempor

Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 81:427–445 Ó Springer 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9505-2
The Discursive Construction of Gender

in Contemporary Management Literature Elisabeth K. Kelan
ABSTRACT. This article analyses how the new type of senior roles (e.g. Oakley, 2000; Peterson and Phil-
worker is constructed in respect to gender in current pot, 2007), gender differences in ethical decision
management literature. It contributes to the increasing making (e.g. Glover et al. 2002; McCabe and In-
body of work in organisational theory and business ethics gram and Dato-on, 2006) or how feminist ethics can
which interrogates management texts by analysing textual contribute to business ethics (e.g. Derry, 1997,
representations of gender. A discourse analysis of six texts
2002). Recent inquiries into business ethics have
reveals three inter-connected yet distinct ways in which
gender is talked about. First, the awareness discourse at-
stressed the importance of looking at discursive
tempts to be inclusive of gender yet reiterates stereotypes constructions of gender (Calás and Smircich, 1997;
in its portrayal of women. Second, within the individu- Lämsä and Sintonen, 2001; Martin and Knopoff,
alisation discourse, formerly discriminatory elements of 1997) and the critical reading of management texts is
gender lose their importance but a gender dimension a good example of this. As management texts often
reappears within the idea of ‘Brand You’. Third, in the exclude women from their representations of busi-
new ideal discourse, women are constructed as ideal ness practice, this should be a central issue for
workers of the future. The article argues that there is little business ethics.
space within this web of discourses for an awareness of the Management texts with such a marked masculine
continued inequalities experienced by women in relation bias might be failing to keep pace with changes in
to men to be voiced and that this rhetorical aporia con- the economy, however. Current academic and
tributes to a ‘post-feminist’ climate.
media writing suggest that the ‘new knowledge
KEY WORDS: gender, management, organisational
economy’ is changing the world of work in dramatic
theory, post-feminism, discourse analysis ways. Indeed, it appears that new forms and modes
of employment are emerging and traditional con-
cepts like hierarchical careers are put in question
(cf. Arthur and Rousseau, 1996; Beck, 2000;
Castells, 1996; Cohen and Mallon, 1999; Pongratz
and Voß, 2003). The new worker, the central figure
Introduction in this changing world, is expected to benefit from
new forms of flexibility and freedom but is also
The common assumption about management texts is accountable in new ways. Research on gender and
that they are written by men, about men and for organisations has suggested that the concepts of
men and that women are almost absent as protago- flexibility, freedom and accountability are them-
nists, writers or consumers of management literature selves – like management writing – gendered mas-
(Crainer, 2003). It has been argued that much re- culine (Alvesson and Billing, 1997; Kerfoot and
search on gender and organisations carries a mascu- Knights, 1993, 1996; Hearn and Parkin, 1992). If
line subtext (Bendl, 2006; Benschop and this is so, these concepts and texts need to be care-
Doorewaard, 1998a, b) and management writing is fully scrutinised if theories and texts are to be
no exception to this. Within the field of business developed that take gender seriously.
ethics, various writers have engaged with issues The aim of the article is to explore in how far
relating to gender such as the scarcity of women in management texts have changed to reflect the
428 Elisabeth K. Kelan
changing world of work. Specifically, the article arise in management, but research in this area re-
explores the ways in which the new worker is mains inconclusive at present (Glover et al., 2002;
portrayed in contemporary management literature. Jones and Gautschi, 1988; MacLellan and Dobson,
The article is organised as follows: first, it poses the 1997; McCabe et al., 2006). Another stream of re-
question of how far management writing can be search has tried to reconcile business ethics and
described as masculine and how this may be feminist ethics. Derry (1997, 2002), for instance,
changing to reflect the changing economy. The argues that one should listen to women instead of
second section sketches out methodology and fitting them into roles that were designed for men.
methods, defining the particular approach to dis- Solomon (1997) argues that caring and compassion
course analysis adopted here and setting out the are not a women’s or feminist theme but were also
principles behind the selection of texts and the present in the theories developed by Hume and
analysis itself. The third section explores the dis- Smith, a point rarely acknowledged in business
cursive boundaries of the three main discourses ethics. Whilst many theorists have pointed to Gilli-
identified as being central to the way gender is gan’s work (1982) to argue that women bring a
constructed within these texts. The fourth and final different voice to business and business ethics, Oriz
section investigates the possible consequences of (1997) warns that women’s voices often continue to
these discourses and draws some conclusions. be defined within a patriarchal framework. Others
have pointed out that often only certain women are
deemed important in writing on business ethics,
Reflecting management? Management with senior women given prominence in spite of
literature as masculine and its potential their relatively privileged position, while Third
to change World women are excluded from theories altogether
(Brenkert, 1997; Calás, 1992). Others argue that
Many writers on business ethics have been centrally business ethics needs to explore how management
concerned with the number of women in senior texts are written and how their particular construc-
managerial positions (e.g. Burgess and Tharenou, tions validate certain realities (Calás and Smircich,
2002; Burke, 1997; Oakley, 2000; Peterson and 1997; Martin and Knopoff, 1997; Lämsä and Sin-
Philpot, 2007). Women’s representation in the tonen, 2001). This stream of research assumes that
higher organisational echelons is still very low and management literature not only reflects practice, but
figures seem to have stagnated or even decreased is also fundamental in shaping that practice.
slightly in recent years (Catalyst, 2006; Singh and Given the persistent dominance of men in busi-
Vinnicombe, 2006; Treanor, 2007). When it comes ness, it is not surprising that most literature in the
to discussing why women should be represented at a field of management is about men and written for
senior level within organisations, two main argu- men (cf. Wilson, 2001). In reviewing what he
ments are mobilised. First, most agree that organi- considers to be the principal texts on management,
sations lose out if they fail to tap the ‘resource Crainer notes that ‘[t]he lack of women writers is a
women’ (Calás and Smircich, 1993; Economist, reflection of traditional prejudices. Even now,
2006; Vinnicombe and Colwill, 1995). Second, it is books on management and business are largely
generally accepted that offering opportunities to written by – and for – men.’ (Crainer, 2003, p. xxi).
women is an issue of social justice and corporate The masculine subtext (Bendl, 2006; Benschop and
social responsibility.1 For example, many companies Doorewaard, 1998a, b) is particularly visible in
cite measures of gender diversity and women in women’s absence from classical management texts,
leadership positions as part of their annual social in which gender was generally not deemed signifi-
responsibility reports (for instance Cadbury cant enough to have any bearing on the validity of
Schweppes, 2006; for an analysis of this phenome- the theories being forward. Acker and Houtem
non see Grosser and Moon, 2005). (1992) reviewed the sex bias in classical management
Writers on gender and business ethics have also studies, for instance, and found that in one promi-
tried to establish whether men and women make nent example, the Hawthorne studies, the gender
different decisions about the ethical issues which composition of the workforce was simply ignored.
The Discursive Construction of Gender 429
Such texts implicitly and explicitly assume that the theory contains a strong gender subtext. Calás and
standard manager is male, white, and heterosexual Smircich point to how important it is for manage-
(for instance Ferguson, 1994; Gerhard et al., 1992). ment to produce texts that are gender aware (Calás
The explicit maleness of management literature also and Smircich, 1991a) and illustrate this through a
becomes evident in the systematic use of the male study of how the masculine image of the leader is
pronoun in – mainly earlier – texts (Alvesson and implicitly constructed (Calás and Smircich, 1991b).
Billing, 1997; Green et al., 2001). The implicit Leonard (2004) has argued that management litera-
masculinity, meanwhile, can be traced by paying ture draws on only a small range of metaphors – such
attention to the persistent use of sport metaphors or as space, time, and the sexual body – and that these
linguistic constructions like ‘penetrating markets’ structure how sense is made of gender. Ogbor (2000)
(Collinson and Hearn, 2000, p. 264). An analysis of unmasks the white, male, heroic standard in his
both together strongly suggests that even before analysis of ideology in entrepreneurial discourses,
women enter the picture, management discourses showing how discourses create myths about who can
are ‘already male gendered’ (Calás and Smircich, be an entrepreneur and what constitutes good
1992, p. 228, emphasis in original). behaviour for an entrepreneur. Ahl (2004) also
Research in this field has sought to challenge such studied how entrepreneurs are represented in man-
hegemonic assumptions and show how gender agement texts and found three ways in which wo-
matters in organisations. One of the earliest studies men entrepreneurs were talked about: small
in that respect was conducted by Kanter (1977), who differences were stressed and similarities with men
shed light on the difference it makes to be a woman were ignored, emphasis was continually placed on
in an organisation. Hearn and Parkin (1983) high- how unusual these women entrepreneurs were and
lighted the fact that sex and gender were at that time an alternative feminine model of the entrepreneur
all but absent from the standard textbooks and was created which left the masculine standard intact.
readers. In reviewing the field, they noted that Through these three discourses, women are con-
management scholars rarely looked at gender issues structed as the non-norm, the secondary and the
and that gender scholars rarely looked at manage- other but never as the standard entrepreneur, who
ment issues. However, since that time a plethora of continues to be masculine.
studies have emerged that theorise both gender and While research on gender and organisation has
organisations. Authors like Acker (1990), Gherardi been flourishing, one could ask how much main-
(1995; Gherardi et al., 2003), Alvesson and Billing stream management texts have changed. Although
(1997) and Harlow and Hearn (1995) among many many of the new managerial texts now mention
others (e.g. Brown, 1995; Calás and Smircich, gender, Wilson (2001, p. 5) argues that much of this
1991a; Meyerson and Kolb, 2000; Thomas and literature remains gender ‘‘myopic’’; although gender
Davies, 2005) argue that organisations are not gender is named, the fuller dimensions of what it means and
neutral but profoundly gendered. Martin and Coll- how it might alter dominant management paradigms
inson (2003) have particularly referred to the many remain unexplored. Charles Handy, for example,
synergies that are still to be gained from analysing poses questions about gender but does not attempt to
gender and organisations together. answer them (Green et al., 2001). It is also common
Various studies have explored the gendered nat- for gender to be treated as synonymous with sex and
ure of management writing. Fondas (1997) uses the equated with women (Calás and Smircich, 1991a;
‘feminine’ as a deconstructivist strategy to show how Green et al., 2001). Through these constructions,
a masculine image of the manager is sustained. She women are represented as the only gendered subjects,
argues that although many newer management disturbing the smooth running of otherwise gender-
themes, such as helping others, would allow for an free organisations; this discursive pattern is nicely
association with femininity, these associations do not summarised as ‘‘gender = sex = women = prob-
become apparent and the image of a masculine lem’’ (Calás and Smircich, 1991a, p. 229).
manager is thereby left intact (Fondas, 1997). Martin This representation is troublesome for two rea-
and Knopoff (1997) have shown through re-reading sons. On the one hand, it highlights the tendency to
Weber that apparently gender-neutral organisational biologise and essentialise women. Gender is treated
as a direct function of sex. In gender studies, the identified as one of the fundamental structuring
distinction between sex as biological construct and features (Alvesson, 1998; Collinson, 1992; Collinson
gender as social construct is widely accepted, par- and Hearn, 1994; Collinson and Hearn, 2005;
ticularly in second wave feminist texts (Oakley, Kerfoot and Knights, 1993, 1996; Wajcman, 1998).
1972). More recent interventions have shown that It may be, however, that a significant shift is
sex is also socially constructed (Butler, 1990, 1993; currently underway in this regard, and that the
Fausto-Sterling, 2000), moving gender theories even hegemonic, masculine model is longer accepted as
further away from a biologising views of gender. the ideal. This shift is related to a widespread
Instead of analysing sex, sexuality, and bodies in a acceptance that the mode of economic production
systematic way as some research on gender and or- in the West has changed from manufacturing goods
ganisations has started to do (Brewis, 2000; Brewis to providing services (for an analysis see for instance
and Linstead, 2000), mainstream management liter- Beck, 2000; Castells, 1996, 1997). These economic
ature continues to biologise gender and to ignore the transformations lead to a new concept of the em-
ways in which this is problematic. On the other ployee who becomes a ‘knowledge worker’, a
hand, this biologising strategy also positions woman concept theoretically developed by Drucker (1969)
as the other, who needs to adapt to systems and as early as 1969. According to Drucker’s conceptu-
structures. This clearly echoes de Beauvoir’s famous alisation, this worker is a ‘he’ who sells his skills and
assertion (1949/1993) that women are constituted as knowledge instead of his manual labour. By
the other in mainstream discourses and it also reflects becoming aware of his value,2 he assumes an active
in Ahl’s (2004) findings on women as entrepreneurs. and powerful position in relation to the organisation.
Instead of changing organisations themselves, wo- The newlyfound importance and independence
men are portrayed as having to adapt to fit into roles of the knowledge worker is enforced by a profound
that have been designed for men (Calvert and reorganisation of value-adding activities, which are
Ramsey, 1996; Calás and Smircich, 1996; Puwar, in themselves facilitated by the increasing use of
2004). Mainstream management is thus taking a information communication technologies (ICTs).
truncated view of gender; one way of overcoming We then see the development of a new class of well-
this shortsightedness is to show how management educated, technologically-versed, individualised
concepts, systems, and structures are themselves workers whom Castells (1996, 2000) calls ‘self-pro-
gendered. grammable labour’. The concept of the new
What makes a text masculine, then? Masculinity knowledge worker does not only apply to ICT or
studies is a field that has grown enormously in the new media professions but also assumed to be a
last decades (Connell et al., 2005). This is often wider phenomenon in working life (Pongratz and
linked to the fact that new social formations are said Voß, 2003). Instead of working for one company,
to be more beneficial for women than for men, since knowledge workers tend to have a portfolio of jobs,
women gain better results in education and often which allegedly leaves them with freedom and
excel in the skills that are needed in the new control over their lives (but see Blair, 2001; Fraser
economy (cf. Edley and Wetherell, 1999; Gill et al., and Gold, 2001). However, with increasing quasi-
2000, 2005; Hill, 1997; McDowell, 2000, 2001, entrepreneurial independence, the knowledge
2002, 2003). Masculinities are often defined as being worker becomes personally and individually
multiple, relational to femininities and detached responsible for constructing his/her own reflexive
from men’s biology but still somehow apply to what biography, which inevitably increases the personal
is associated with men in society (Connell, 2005). exposure to risk (Beck, 2000; Beck and Beck-
Although the focus on masculinity is intended to Gernsheim, 1996). Within the resulting ‘new
avoid essentialising men, most definitions still economy’, the worker is expected to be entrepre-
effectively equate maleness and masculinity. Whilst neurial, innovative, flexible and risk-taking, a situa-
MacInnes (1998) argues that masculinity should be tion which is presented as applying equally to all,
abandoned due to these definitional problems, the regardless of sex, race, class or sexuality.
concept has proved to be a useful tool when assessing One way of illustrating the potential for man-
gender in organisations, where masculinity has been agement literature to change to reflect these new
realities is with reference to careers. The changes in case, gender representations in management texts
the economy mean that old concepts such as the need to be treated as an important issue for business
classical ladder-type career appear to be increasingly ethics.
passé. The classical career is replaced by portfolio
careers in which workers undertake a succession of
projects rather than following a linear progression Methodology and method
(Arthur and Rousseau, 1996; Castells, 1996).
Although the extent to which this is likely to be- In asking how the knowledge worker is constructed
come a reality for most people is questionable, such a with respect to gender, I am interested in how our
re-conceptualisation of careers poses interesting knowledge is mediated by discourse. The notion of
questions with regard to gender. If the standard discourse is a contested one and many different
concept of career is gendered, reflecting a lifecycle versions of discourse analysis exist (Gill, 2000; Par-
that is more common for men and resulting from ker, 1990; Potter et al. 1990; Taylor, 2001). One of
organisational procedures which exclude women the major differences lies in the degree to which a
(Wajcman, 1998, p. 105f), a new formulation could Foucauldian frame of analysis is followed. In the
have positive repercussions from a gender perspec- Foucauldian use of the term, discourse denotes a
tive. Interestingly, some models of women’s careers, group of transformative statements which are con-
for instance O’Leary’s (1997) life-stream model, show stitutive of practices (cf. Potter, 1997; Potter et al.,
strong similarities with the widely promoted work- 1990). Those large discourses or ‘dispositives’ affect
life balance and indeed a portfolio career lifestyle. wider societal practices and such a view is indeed
This example suggests that a re-conceptualisation of relatively common in research on organisations and
old systems and structures could result in issues of discourse (e.g. Hardy et al., 2000; Phillips and
gender, understood in a much broader sense than Hardy, 1997). In contrast, Potter and Wetherell, on
hitherto, entering the management canon. whose work I am primarily relying in the current
The reasons for paying such close attention to the analysis, use discourse to mean ‘all forms of spoken
gender constructions in management is that they interaction, formal and informal, and written texts of
give an insight into the way in which a particular all kinds’ (1987:7). While a Foucauldian discourse
version of reality is constructed (Fairclough, 1992, analysis would focus on larger and wider discourses,
1995, 2005; Potter and Wetherell, 1987). Research the analytic approach developed by Potter and
on discourse and management has shown how much Wetherell is more, but not exclusively, concerned
management texts shape perceptions of reality (cf. with the fine grain analysis of language, its organi-
Ahl, 2004; Boltanski and Chiapello, 2006; Calás and sation and functions (for a discussion of different
Smircich, 1991b; Hardy et al. 2000; Phillips and versions of discourse analyses see Alvesson 2002).
Hardy, 1997). Gendered language is a powerful This version of discourse analysis is also interested in
transmittor of meaning about who is seen as the ideological practices that discourses create,
appropriate for a job; one could here think of a term commonly referred to as ‘practical ideologies’. Ide-
like ‘chairman’ and what it conveys (Harlow and ology is not used here in the Marxist sense of a false
Hearn, 1995). Language can also be more subtle, in consciousness but rather describes certain relation-
that certain linguistic tropes of winning and suc- ships and effects (Parker, 1990, p. 90). Ideologies are
ceeding as well as competitive sports metaphors may multiple and sometimes contradictory, functioning
exclude women, who can find such language to justify, maintain or challenge power relations in
alienating (Solomon, 1997). In this respect, discur- society (Billig et al., 1988; Wetherell et al., 1987).
sive research can be highly useful as it allows Discourse in Potter and Wetherell’s terms then refers
exploration of underlying gender subtexts to show if to both language in use as well as to the ideology this
the sustained gender inequality in the workplace is language in use supports and makes possible.
maintained, reversed or challenged by the particular A discourse analysis in the version formulated by
texts under consideration. Discursive theories assert Potter and Wetherell provides a useful tool to
that representations shape reality in powerful ways, identify which gender representations are mobilised
influencing how people interact. That being the in newer management literature. It also allows us to
study language in action, to explore how language frequently discussed in relation to changes at work.
achieves its rhetorical function and to identify the In a discourse analysis representativeness is less cru-
role of silences and preferred readings within par- cial a consideration in compiling a sample than in
ticular texts (Gill, 2000; Tonkiss, 1998). As discourse some other approaches; rather, what is key is to learn
analysis is concerned with how discourses create and as much as possible about variations in accounts
validate knowledge, the focus is usually on inter- (Marshall and Wetherell, 1989; Potter and Wethe-
pretative repertoires – that is, on those constructions rell, 1987; Wetherell and Potter, 1992).
which are encountered repeatedly and used in sense- This selection process meant that the following
making processes. An interpretative repertoire can books were included in the research. Since Charles
be described as a register or lexicon (Potter and Handy’s (1993) Understanding Organisations has al-
Wetherell, 1987:138) which is part of the common ready been critiqued in relation to gender by Green
sense knowledge used to make sense of the world. et al. (2001), I selected his subsequent book, The
Often the notions of discourse and interpretative Empty Raincoat (1994),3 which develops the idea of
repertoire are used interchangeably. Discourse the portfolio worker. His more recent book The
analysis has been applied to various research ques- Elephant and the Flea (2001) was also included in the
tions but most notable is the research which inves- sample. The strong autobiographical tendencies in
tigates how inequality is reproduced and justified the latter rendered it an unsuitable substitute for the
(for instance Gill, 1993; Speer and Potter, 2000; earlier, more theoretical book, so I decided to ana-
Wetherell and Potter, 1992; Wetherell et al., 1987). lyse both. Rosabeth Moss Kanter is a well-known
Treating discourse as a social practice, then, provides writer whose work often addresses gender (Kanter,
a useful framework to analyse how gendered 1977, 1989). Her book Evolve! (2001), which deals
meanings about the new worker are rhetorically explicitly with the internet age was selected, as was a
created and reinforced, revealing the ways in which text by Tom Peters, who is well-known for his book
they help to organise knowledge in society and on excellence (Peters and Waterman, 1982) analysed
shape reality. by Calás and Smircich (1991b). His newer book, The
Previous research on gender constructions in Brand You 50 (2001), was written for the new
management texts tended to use texts that are independent worker, who had rarely been addressed
deemed management classics. However, if one aims directly. This direct address shows that the inde-
to study contemporary management texts, it is pendent worker is becoming a manager of the self
obviously difficult to determine which text is going and worthy of engagement. As this change is central
to become a classic. In order to select texts, I have to the theoretical developments I aimed at studying,
opted for using an internet search to determine the book was included in the sample, although as a
which texts are regularly referred to. Various web- ‘self-help’ book it differs slightly from other texts.
based book searches were conducted in order to The final two books are both quoted frequently in
locate material and summaries, reviews, articles, and the field of management. Although Frances Cairn-
online material on different books were all reviewed. cross’ (1997) first book is more influential, I chose
I also aimed at including the work of certain authors her second book The Company of the Future (2002)
who hold a management guru status and whose since it was more relevant to the organisationally-
books are widely consumed. Although it would be focussed research topic. Finally, Daniel Pink’s
interesting to explore how work specifically on (2001)4 book on freelance workers, Free Agent
gender in management constructs gender, for the Nation, is widely seen as important and was therefore
current analysis I looked for texts that would classify included as the final text in the sample.
as mainstream management texts. I decided that the The process of discourse analysis involves reading
intended audience should span the whole range from and re-reading texts until a high degree of familiarity
MBA students to managers to the new workers is reached. Although the books were read several
themselves, in order to allow a varied overview of times, it was often difficult to see the discursive
the mainstream management field. The literature I pattern without coding. I found it useful to base the
selected is thus a very specific sample, mainly works analysis on thematical coding (Tonkiss, 1998) and I
written by management gurus or books that were coded for qualities new workers are supposed to
have, the new career structure and the general use of My first book on organisations was written 20 years
gender in the texts. Sections that discussed these is- ago. Quite unconsciously, I used the male pronoun
sues were coded and re-read. Through reading the exclusively throughout the book. It became a standard
texts in context as well as in coded form, I developed textbook. My book caused a great deal of offence to
a deeper understanding of which concepts the texts the many women who had to study it because it ap-
peared to imply that I, the supposed authority, thought
invoked. The main discourses or interpretative
there was no place for them in management (Handy,
repertoires identified are presented in the following 1994, p. 60).
section. I also explored what the texts leave out of
sight and gloss over. As I was interested in the larger Handy confirms the exclusionary effect writing can
picture, I opted to provide a general impression of have, but rationalised his women-blindness with ‘‘we
concepts by citing short quotes, only using longer all carry mental maps around with us’’ (1994, p. 60)
passages where I thought it useful. Although there is and ‘‘my unconscious mental maps (...) only mir-
no final interpretation of the texts and I offer one rored what many men felt then’’ (1994, p. 61). The
possible reading, the discourses I have identified do use of ‘us’ and ‘many men’ implies that his own
reflect the main approaches to dealing with gender stereotypes were not uncommon and that no-one
in this kind of management literature. What is could have been unaffected by such stereotypes.
central here is to uncover the underlying and often Another approach to inclusiveness can be seen in
unconscious gender assumptions that shape how strategies like the use of ‘‘her–his’’ constructions.
gender is made sense of. Such an exercise is useful in Peters uses these ‘‘her–his’’ constructions – such as
that it increases the self-reflexivity of management as ‘depending on her-his skills’ (Peters 2001, p. 5) to
a discipline, but it also shows why gender repre- include women in his writing. While we hardly find
sentations are an issue for business ethics. any gendered examples in Cairncross’ book, the
remaining books studied are literally full of examples
of women, which is unquestionably an improvement
Three ways to talk about gender from earlier texts. However, different strategies for
dealing with the distinction between sex and gender
The discourse analysis conducted on the texts led to can be seen. In Kanter’s book the sex of the person is
three related yet distinct ways in which gender is often only visible through pronouns – for instance in
talked about. The first interpretative repertoire re- an example of a ‘‘knowledge nomad’’ who is ‘‘the
lates to an awareness of gender issues, indicating that head of public relations, barely in her thirties’’ (2001,
women are no longer absent from management lit- p. 199, my emphasis). Elsewhere, the context in
erature. The second interpretative repertoire is the which women are invoked is systematically in rela-
individualisation discourse, which shows that factors tion to care and family e.g. Pink sees care issues as the
which previously hindered equality are losing their main reason for women to become free agents or
importance. The third interpretative repertoire is the ‘‘mompreneurs’’ (2001, p. 41). Gender awareness is
new ideal discourse, which represents women as the also expressed in relation to jobs involving long
new ideal workers. After discussing what each of hours, which are considered ‘‘difficult for women if
these interpretative repertoires reveals, I explore they want to raise a family’’ (Handy 1994, p. 9),
what they obscure from sight. implying that in general women are responsible
for ‘families’ and therefore have special needs.
Although he also reinforced his gender-aware cre-
Awareness discourse dentials by adding ‘‘or for men, for that matter, who
might want to do likewise’’ (ibid.), in Handy’s text
On the positive side, my analysis established that women with family responsibilities remain the norm,
management texts can no longer simply be described while men with family responsibilities appear as an
as women-blind. Various attempts are made to be add-on, abnormal, and extraordinary.
inclusive and to show awareness of gender diversity. In order to show gender awareness, arguments
The following passage is typical in this regard: which sound on the first hearing as though they might
be coming from a feminist perspective are also unchanged, however, all that happens is that it be-
deployed, as in the following section on domestic work: comes more difficult for women to argue for a more
equal distribution of work, since the common
Most of us, however, do it ourselves, for free. And rhetoric is that having a job and caring for children
most of the ‘us’ are still women. No wonder they want are not mutually exclusive and that professional
some financial recognition (...) it won’t happen (...)
success is equally possible whether or not a job is
but no one would want to deny that home work is an
immensely valuable and important aspect of work (...).
combined with caring responsibilities.
A balanced life should surely include a good chunk of These accounts are also problematic from another
home work, for both sexes. Portfolio working (...) perspective. The portrayal of women emerging from
gives us the chance if we choose to so arrange things these constructions is of a fairly homogeneous group.
(Handy, 2001, p. 172). As has often been pointed out, however, women are
not uniform but are divided by ‘race’, class, decisions
Thereby Handy uses the long-standing feminist in relation to children and many other elements. Two
argument for the recognition of domestic work. aspects of women’s experience in particular can be
Handy argues that ‘a good chunk of home work’ is singled out: first, giving birth to children and second,
part of a healthy work/life balance. The argument is being the primary carer for children. Giving birth is
used here to show that the portfolio lifestyle offers still in the realm of women, although some decide not
the chance for women and men to hold work/life to have children. Many senior women managers, for
balance. And indeed the new models of career do instance, do not have children (Wajcman, 1998). In
take caring responsibilities into consideration. The respect to the second point, women do not need to be
new careers are no longer-based on a male lifecycle the primary carer. These distinctions are ignored in
but on one which, theoretically at least, incorporates the texts, where the norm is of women having chil-
caring responsibilities by ‘‘adapting working hours to dren and taking primary responsibility for them.
family status and by mixing parenting and job’’ However, Alvesson and Billing (1997, p. 141) rightly
(Handy, 1994, p. 188). Pink even talks about a remark that it may not be women per se but women
‘‘parental pullback’’ (2001, p. 306) as a career with caring responsibilities who encounter multiple
development stage. In the past, general models problems at work. If women are treated as homoge-
regularly glossed over issues like family and caring neous group, a biological and social reductionism is
responsibilities and thus it appears that there is some introduced to the argument, defining women based
change in how these concepts are constructed in on reproductive and stereotyped social functions.
parts of the body of literature I studied. There is a long history of employers using the argu-
It is not my intention to dispute the importance of ment that women employees are a potential com-
care and it is a significant advancement that caring mercial risk and pointing to pregnancy and childcare
responsibilities are now debated in this context. In to justify not employing or promoting women. Fur-
discourses about the new portfolio career, women’s thermore, this line of argument does nothing to render
traditional role of juggling family and work is pre- systems more child-friendly, since children become a
sented as new lifestyle for all. However, it is not clear ‘women’s problem’ and thereby not very relevant for
whether the new work/life balance is indeed for all – men. The proclaimed diversity and the new career
that is, whether men are in fact taking greater models are discussed in such a way that the emerging
responsibilities for caring labour. In the past men constructions of women appear circular since they
were rather reluctant to give up their traditional reiterate old societal roles, thereby reinstating the
positions in order to take on caring responsibilities. If difference between men and women and negating
men do not alter their behaviour in this regard, then between women.
these arguments may backfire, so that the bulk of
care work is still done by women, in addition to
their professional responsibilities. It might in certain Individualisation discourse
ways be a sign of progress that it is no longer seen as
problematic to combine a job and caring labour. If The second interpretative repertoire mirrors the
the allocation of caring responsibilities remains individualisation paradigm. Individualisation refers
to the fact that traditional parameters which influ- side door’’ (Pink, 2001, p. 309) and to find jobs
enced biographies are eroding and individuals are elsewhere or become entrepreneurs. The discourses
now free (or forced) to make decisions about their do not stress the self-fulfilment which may derive
life course (Beck, 2000; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, from being one’s own boss for women but they
1996; Giddens, 1991; Pongratz and Voß, 2003). The present becoming a free agent as a viable way for
texts support such a mindset by stressing the control women to circumvent barriers in professional life.
the individual has in shaping his/her own life. This is The barriers themselves are thereby neither discussed
expressed in the following quotes: ‘‘They aren’t in nor reduced. These constructions render it unim-
charge of our careers – and by extensions our lives – portant to challenge unfair organisational proce-
anymore. We are. It is up to us to fashion ourselves’’ dures; it is now up to women to be successful as
(Peters, 2001, p. 12, emphasis in original); free individuals, regardless of structures. In this neo-lib-
agents are ‘‘agents of their own future’’ (Pink, 2001, eral, individualised choice discourse, no one is
p. 14); the ‘‘path of career will largely depend on the forced to remain within unequal structures since all
choice of the individual’’ (Pink, 2001, p. 306); the are portrayed as being free to leave.
‘‘power has shifted from the organization to indi- Although being a woman is constructed to be
viduals, talent has replaced capital as the economy’s mattering far less, gender still plays a crucial role.
most important resource’’ (Pink, 2001, p. 182); and One cannot escape one of the central ideas about the
‘‘(personnel) evaluation has passed (...) from the new worker: that she or he is a brand, ‘‘Brand You’’
organization to the individual. You are your own (Peters’ core idea; Handy, 2001, p. 180), or ‘‘Me,
judge’’ (Peters, p. 2001, p. 154). These quotes show Inc.’’ (Pink, 2001, p. 322), a marketable package
clearly that it is the individual who has the chance to (‘‘package yourself’’ in Peters, 2001, p. 46) urged to
be successful. Indeed, opportunities appear to be adopt a strategy of ‘‘selling yourself’’ (Pink, 2001, p.
open to all. What is not said is that individualisation 323). The knowledge worker is conceptualised as a
involves not only a chance but also a burden. Failure saleable product and Pink offers the sales strategy of
becomes personal and can no longer be easily linked ‘‘elevator speech. Be able to explain who you are,
to collectively experienced barriers. what you do, and why someone could benefit from
Through stressing choice and control, these texts your unique talents’’ (2001, p. 324). This mode of
make it seem as though discriminatory organisational self-presentation is portrayed as something everyone
procedures no longer hinder personal career devel- could be successful at.
opment: Selling yourself is an activity of self-marketing:
you have to make others believe that you are the
Women still earn less than men for similar work. And best person for the job. Praising one’s own abilities
women still face a stubborn glass ceiling. Those aren’t is, however, not an activity typically associated with
good things, but they might end up mattering far less
women, although many women do excel at mar-
than some think (Pink, 2001, p. 23).
keting themselves. At this point it is important to
This means that if the new career is no longer consider stereotypes to show how in some instances
dominated by discriminatory organisational proce- gender is glossed over. One could assume that tra-
dures, the individual is not only responsible for his or ditional expectations in relation to femininity would
her own career but that being a woman ‘matter[s] far mean that women tend to present their skills and
less’. It matters less because in individualised work- achievements more modestly while men phrase
ing environments, the individual can ‘manufacture’ them in a more self-confident fashion (Tannen,
his or her own life chances. This discourse suggests 1998). This behaviour can be interpreted as actively
that the new developments provide men and women performing a gender identity (Cameron, 1995). At
with equal chances for success, since they are able to the same time, perception seems to be crucial. In the
shape their own careers. How this is achieved in women in management literature, it is well accepted
practice is evident in the suggested strategy for that even if men and women display very similar
dealing with the glass ceiling: ‘‘for many, the best behaviour, it is interpreted differently (cf. Ayman,
response to the glass ceiling is to exit through the 1993; Singh et al., 2002; Wilson, 2001). This has
been referred to as the double-bind and the narrow terms’’ (Pink, 2001, p. 309). What is needed is
path of acceptable behaviour for women in positions connectivity (Pink, 2001, p. 310; Peters, 2001,
that are more associated with men (Jamieson, 1995). p. 99) and caring, helping, empathy and listening
Self-marketing could then be seen as a way of being (Peters, 2001, p. 99). Many of the characteristics of
gender inauthentic. While men may be more the new worker could be associated with masculinity
comfortable with selling ‘Me, Inc.’ and are perceived – having freedom, putting yourself on the line,
as more successful in doing so, selling oneself may concern for power, toughness, rationality. Others
conflict with what it means to be a woman in would more readily be associated with femininity –
society. In this instance gender certainly enters the such as multi-tasking, tenderness, connectivity, car-
picture. The texts under consideration, however, do ing and friendliness. But when it comes to deter-
not make reference gender issues for a specific rea- mining who possesses these skills, the authors erase
son: if one were to talk about how the practical any gender ambiguity by asserting that organisations
ideologies of gender potentially position men and ‘‘want, therefore, as many women as they can get’’
women differently from the outset, then the dis- (Handy, 1994, p. 179). ‘‘Combine this smattering
cursive construction of a fair and equal future of facts,’’ Pink claims, ‘‘with the four free agent
attainable by all who master the skills of self-mar- values (...) and the next one hundred years (...) just
keting would collapse. Such issues must remain might be the Feminine Century’’ (Pink, 2001, p.
unvoiced if the claim to having arrived at a position 309). In a similar vein, he declares that ‘[w]omen are
of gender equality is to be sustained. In glossing over a driving force behind free agency, and could pos-
these elements, gender is not taken seriously as its sible dominate the free agent economy’ (Pink, 2001,
full consequences remain obscured. These discourses p. 23).
about individualisation make it impossible to artic- Women’s particular suitability for the new life-
ulate the possibility that some individuals may not be style also becomes clear in Handy’s revelation:
successful because of their gender – or indeed be-
cause of factors associated with any other axis around It was exciting (...) to find that there was another
which inequality was previously distributed. This whole world out there that didn’t check into offices or
factories every morning, that set its own timetables and
means that issues which are collectively experienced
priorities, that mixed paid work and other work in all
can only be discussed when they are to the advantage sorts of combinations, (...) to whom multi-tasking
of women (or any other group), not when they wasn’t a new management buzzword but a fact of
disadvantage them. ordinary life (...) [His wife reminds him:] ‘Most wo-
men have always lived a multi-tasking life. You may
call it portfolio living, I call it getting on with things’
The new ideal discourse (Handy, 2001, p. 170).
The new ideal that organisations seek in a worker is In order to make this model of employment palat-
characterised by the following qualities: able for organisations, the new ideal is regularly
justified by reference to a ‘‘talent war’’ (Cairncross,
[T]hey also want people who can juggle with several 2002, p. 69; Kanter, 2001, p. 197ff). On the one
tasks and assignments at one time, who are more hand this reflects a meritocratic situation (Alvesson
interested in making things happen than in what title and Billing, 1997) in that a larger pool of people
or office they hold, more concerned with power and
means that the company can profit from the best
influence than status (...) who value instinct and
workers available. On the other hand, the underly-
intuition as well as analysis and rationality, who can be
tough but also tender, focused but friendly, and people ing rationale implies that there are negative reasons
who can cope with these necessary contradictions for employing women: there is a war for talent since
(Handy, 1994, p. 179). there is a skill shortage (in other words a shortage of
qualified male labour) and one has to ‘fight’ for
The knowledge worker has four ‘‘free agent values’’: talent.
‘‘having freedom, being authentic, putting yourself However, the aim is not only to find generally
on the line, and defining success on your own skilled people but people with the ‘right’ skills.
Many of such skills are strongly gendered feminine. Projansky, 2001), leaving men confused (see Bly,
In a classic statement Handy asserts: 1991; Thomas, 1993). This would mean that gender
equality has not only been achieved but has overshot
Organisations need talented women in their core jobs, its goal, since women are now supposed to be doing
therefore, not only for reasons of social fairness, better than men. If femininity is learned, however,
important though that is, but because many of those
then there is no reason why men should not be able
women will have the kinds of attitudes and attributes
that the new flat flexible organisation needs (Handy
to acquire the sought-after skills. As Handy stresses,
1994, p. 180). however, ‘‘few men have had that much practice’’
(1994, p. 180). Indeed, there is support for the
Women are hired not because of arguments for argument that men have many of the very qualities
gender equality but because of their assumed femi- which are so insistently attributed to women.
nine skills. Femininity renders them qualified to be Groups of men have a history of making important
employed in new organisations. skills their own (Cockburn, 1983; Phillips and
The strongest support for the new ideal con- Taylor, 1980; Wajcman, 1998) or rather of attrib-
struction is provided by Peters’ ‘‘Anti-Dilbert5’’ uting the highest value to the skills which are asso-
character the ‘‘Icon Woman (Man)’’ (2001, p. 38). ciated with men.
In referring to this icon he regularly uses the female This can be illustrated by looking at the important
pronoun e.g. ‘‘she is her own woman’’ (2001, p. 38), skill of connectivity. It might be argued, for instance,
and if not he uses ‘her–his’ instead of the more that men have typically managed to be far more
common ‘his–her’. This linguistic strategy is very successful than women in using connectivity to in-
interesting, since we are used to constructions which crease their job prospects, profiting from informal
employ the female forms as supplemental for the boys’ or lads’ networks to facilitate their rise through
male one and not vice-versa. In this usage, the fe- the ranks (see Oakley, 2000; Tierney, 1995). One
male form becomes standard, while the male form outcome of these networks has been so-called ho-
appears as supplemental. Finally, Peters sees Oprah mosocial reproduction, reflecting the tendency of
Winfrey and Martha Stewart as the ‘‘inventors’’ (the such men to socialise with others similar to them-
book is indeed dedicated to them) of the new ideal, selves (Ely, 1994; Kanter, 1977; Wharton and Bird,
the ‘‘Brand You’’. By choosing women as the ideal, 1996). The link between new economy connectivity
this discourse makes the claim that the future belongs and such social networks is spotted by Pink, who
to women because they are better suited for the new describes the functioning of the Home-based-
work paradigm. In contrast to the individualisation Working-Mum network as ‘‘like an old boys’ net-
discourse, where gender was constructed as unim- work – except that its (...) members aren’t boys and
portant, the new ideal discourse makes gender aren’t old’’ (2001, p. 192). In this way, Pink turns
matter again. old boys’ networks – a phenomenon which could
What happens to men in these constructions? As put his ideal construction of women into question –
the future is actively portrayed as belonging to wo- as a supporting example for his claim that an alter-
men, men seem to have no place in it. This becomes native paradigm now predominates. Although
particularly apparent in Pink’s advice to ‘‘watch for characterised as a feminine skill, however, his very
women, rather than men, to define and shape the choice of example demonstrates that connectivity
free agent future’’ (2001, p. 312). In a feminised can be and has been performed by men. This cannot
economy, men appear as no longer needed and their be made explicit, however, as it would counteract
position seems to be endangered (Kerfoot and the idealisation of women. If women are the ideal
Knights, 1996, p. 95f). This is in line with the often and men are in crisis, any arguments which could
assumed ‘‘crisis in men/masculinity’’ (Edley and point towards a sustained position of inequality for
Wetherell, 1999; McDowell, 2000, 2003). As well as women have to be displaced.
referring to the fact that women purportedly have There may be another way of explaining the
the skills required in the service society, this ‘‘crisis’’ position of men within this discourse, however.
is also said to follow from the fact that the goals of Calás and Smircich (1993) remind us that so-called
feminism have been achieved (Coppock et al., 1995; feminine skills are generally identified as such by a
patriarchal or oppressive construction of women. In discourses about inequality. I have shown that the
the past feminised attributes like ‘nimble fingers’, for only inequality which can be discussed within these
example, were used as a reason for employing discourses is that of men’s new position of supposed
women in poorly paid manufacturing jobs where lack. Any argument that women continue to be
they were exploited for economic profit (Calás and unequal is thus pre-emptively rendered ineffective
Smircich, 1993). The new ‘right skills’ reflect by means of a dual construction: First, being a
traditional stereotypes of women and those very woman does not matter under individualisation as all
skills seem to be suited for portfolio work. If women have equal chances and each worker is personally
are treated as predestined to become portfolio responsible for their own success; second, to disperse
workers, this may not allow them to occupy the any remaining perception of inequality, women are
best positions available. If we expect that traditional represented as the ideal workers in the new econ-
jobs which involve working long hours and do not omy. This can be best illustrated with the statement
allow for a work/life balance will continue to exist considered before:
and are more likely to be held by men, this could
potentially lead to a dual-labour market in which Women still earn less than men for similar work. And
riskier portfolio jobs are held by women. The new women still face a stubborn glass ceiling. Those aren’t
good things, but they might end up mattering far less
gender segregation would then be based on risk.
than some think. Women are a driving force behind
Instead of challenging gender, the constraining free agency, and could possibly dominate the free
relation between women and feminine skills would agent economy (Pink, 2001, p. 23).
thereby be perpetuated and naturalised. If dis-
courses are seen as disciplinary practices, influencing Pink uses the pay gap and the glass ceiling to show
the individual decisional framework, then those how women were disadvantaged before but argues
discourses channel women into riskier jobs. Instead that this now matters far less since the new forms of
of creating new chances for women, the new para- work favour women. As women are said to shape
digm may be positioning them in less favourable and dominate the free agent world, they have all the
positions. advantages. The discourses leave no room to argue
that a sustained inequality of women vis-à-vis men
might still operate. Therefore the discourses are
Discussing the constructions structured so as to make it rhetorically difficult to
voice the disadvantages women might face in the
Having discussed the three interpretative repertoires, new economy.
it is useful to look for an organising rhetoric and Although it may be a desirable scenario that wo-
examine positions which are unspeakable. The men are doing better in the new economy, I will cast
portrayal of awareness, equality and even the supe- some doubt on whether such portrayals are accurate.
riority of women makes it rhetorically difficult to These constructions may shape the future but they
voice the persistence of gendered inequality. These appear – at best – to be running ahead of reality.
three discourses can thus be understood as contrib- Although the work experience become more het-
uting to a post-feminist climate (Coppock et al., erogeneous (Hakim, 1996), women are still unequal
1995; Faludi, 1993; Projansky, 2001), in which the in many aspects of working life. Even in professions
ideas of feminism have been so successfully incor- that are usually hailed as excellent examples for the
porated into mainstream discourses that they are no new worker, such as new media or ICT work, old-
longer needed. Women are no longer absent from style gender problems like the pay gap continue to
management texts. Instead of simply ignoring gen- exist (Batt et al., 2001; CEPT Consult, 2002; Gill,
der, the individualisation discourse is used to argue 2002; Gill and Dodd, 2000; Henninger, 2001;
that ‘gender’ – or rather being a woman – matters Manske, 2003; Perrons, 2003). What has changed is
less, while at the same time the new ideal discourses how gender differences like the pay gap are ac-
portray women as the workers of the future. counted for. As freelancers, women may earn less
Although the discussion of gender remains superfi- because they combine work and care work and spend
cial, what concerns me here is what happens to less time in paid employment and work on fewer
projects (Gill, 2002). This indicates that gender roles texts but the area of how to write differently clearly
may not be fundamentally challenged for new needs further thought.
workers, with men continuing to take the role of
primary breadwinner while women take a caregiver
Conclusion
and additional breadwinner role. This could suggest
that the discourses about new ideals and gender
Even though the gender portrayals in management
equality through work/life balance in fact provide a
texts appear progressive, a deeper analysis has re-
new discursive framework to legitimise old gender
vealed that they could have unintended conse-
roles. Terms like ‘mompreneurs’ do indeed suggest
quences and that a further theorisation of
that women’s roles may have changed far less than
representations is therefore required. Instead of
expected.
being male-centred and male-dominated, the man-
The discursive effects of these representations are
agement literature suddenly appears to take account
interesting. In a post-feminist climate, women feel
of women and even construct them as the new ideal.
equal and may lose sight of continuing sources of
Although one might interpret this as progress, my
inequality (Coppock et al., 1995; Wetterer, 2003,
analysis has suggested that the new subjectivities
2004). The real-life effects such discourses have can
created for women remain problematic. This is be-
be illustrated by Gill’s (2002) study on new media
cause they are based on traditional notions of femi-
workers, which shows that although women are not
ninity prescribed by the existing gender ideology.
doing better, they believe their position has to do
Furthermore, as women appear as the new ideal, any
with ‘personal failure’. They are resistent to using
possible systemic inequality of women is rhetorically
notions of gender inequality to make sense of their
rendered difficult if not impossible to voice. In
situation, preferring instead to individualise their
consequence, it seems important to stress that au-
experience. This individualisation makes it impos-
thors writing about management have a moral
sible to point towards collectively experienced
responsibility for the personas they construct or re-
phenomena as reasons for inequality (Kelan, 2007).
port on. It is vital to develop strategies for how to
Gender may then vanish from the agenda and al-
use gender in management texts. Furthermore it is
though power continues to operate along gendered
important to theorise the constructions we are
lines, these processes are not voiced or made visible
confronted with, such as why men are largely absent
in discourses. Although the constructions appear to
from the discourses, what we make of terms like
be progressive, then, this should not blind theorists
‘mompreneurs’ and what role race and sexuality play
to their effects or prevent them from reflecting upon
in the texts. A last point to note is that I have as-
the vitally important question of what such con-
sumed rather than shown that the texts have real-life
structions mean.
effects and create decisional frameworks. As my own
What is evident is that the challenge for the
reading is clearly limited it seems vital that future
analysis of management texts is no longer to bring
research on gender and business ethics should engage
women in, but to explore how gender is used. The
with questions of how knowledge workers, man-
research agenda should be concerned with raising
agers, students and others read management texts,
awareness of how these different constructions can
which mental frames emerge as a result and how
be read and with developing creative ways to use
these influence lives and shape reality.
gender in management texts. One strategy may be to
consider the circumstances in which we want to use
Acknowledgment
gender and those in which we do no longer need to
draw attention to it. It would be also useful to An earlier version of this article was published in German.
consider how gender stereotypes could be destabi- The full reference is Kelan, E. K.: 2006. ‘‘Zur (De)-
lised, for instance through providing examples of Konstruktion von Geschlecht in neuer Manage-
men and women in unconventional and non-ste- mentliteratur’’, in R. Bendl, Betriebswirtschaftslehre und
reotypical situations. I am not offering any one-size- Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung, Teil 1: Verortung
fits-all solution for using gender in management geschlechterkonstituierender (Re-)Produktionsprozesse
(Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main). I thank the Peter Lang Arthur, M. B. and D. M. Rousseau: 1996, ‘Introduction:
Verlag for allowing me to publish a changed version of The Boundaryless Career as a New Employment
the article in English. I am also grateful to Rosalind Gill, Principle’, in M. B. Arthur and D. M. Rousseau
Julia Nentwich, Rachel Dunkley-Jones and the two (eds.), The Boundaryless Career – A New Employment
anonymous reviewers for their comments which im- Principle for a New Organizational Era (Oxford Uni-
proved this article immensely. versity Press, Oxford), pp. 3–20.
Ayman, R.: 1993, ‘Leadership Perception: The Role of
Gender and Culture’, in M. M. Chemers and R.
Ayman (eds.), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspec-
Notes tives and Directions (Academic Press, San Diego), pp.
137–166.
1
Although debates in the field are shaped by men Batt, R., S. Christopherson, N. Rightor and D. Van
(Marshall, 2007). Jaarsveld: 2001, Networking. Work Patterns and Work-
2
Drucker (1969) persistently referred to the knowl- force Policies for the New Media Industries (Economic
edge worker as ‘he’ (e.g. ‘but the knowledge worker Policy Institute, Washington (DC)).
sees himself as just another ‘professional’’ (259)). I Beck, U.: 2000, The Brave New World of Work (Polity,
therefore also used the male pronoun here. Cambridge).
3
For the analysis the 1995 Arrow Books paperback Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim: 1996, ‘Individualiza-
edition was used to which the page references refer. tion and ‘‘Precarious Freedoms’’: Perspectives and
4
For the analysis the 2002 Warner Books paperback Controversies of a Subject-Orientated Sociology’, in
edition was used, to which page references refer. It fea- P. Heelas, S. Lash and P. Morris (eds.), Detraditional-
tures an additional resource guide, similar to Peters’ ization: Critical Reflections on Authority and Identity
book, from pp. 315 ff. (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 23–48.
5
Dilbert is a character from a comic strip who is a Bendl, R.: 2006, ‘Gender Subtexte der Betriebswirtschaft-
technical nerd and a bit socially incompetent. The lichen Organisationsforschung – zur Analyse zum State of
comic strip is mainly about his struggles at work with the Field’, in R. Bendl (ed.), Betriebswirtschaftslehre und
his apparently incompetent co-workers. Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung, Teil 1: Verortung
geschlechterkonstituierender (Re-)Produktionsprozesse (Peter
Lang, Frankfurt/Main), pp. 165–194.
Benschop, Y. and H. Doorewaard: 1998a, ‘Covered by
Equality: The Gender Subtext of Organizations’,
References Organization Studies 19(5), 787–805.
Benschop, Y. and H. Doorewaard: 1998b, ‘Six of One
Acker, J.: 1990, ‘Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of and Half a Dozen of the Other: The Gender Subtext
Gendered Organizations’, Gender & Society 4(2), 139– of Taylorism and Team-Based Work’, Gender, Work
158. and Organization 5(1), 5–18.
Acker, J. and D. R. V. Houten: 1992, ‘Differential Billig, M., S. Condor, D. Edwards, M. Gane, D.
Recruitment and Control: The Sex Structuring of Middleton and A. Radley: 1988, Ideological Dilemmas
Organizations’, in A. J. Mills and P. Tancred (eds.), – A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking (Sage,
Gendering Organizational Analysis (Sage, London), pp. London).
15–30. Blair, H.: 2001, ‘‘You’re Only as Good as Your Last Job’:
Ahl, H.: 2004, The Scientific Reproduction of Gender the Labour Process and the Market in the British Film
Inequality: A Discourse Analysis of Research Texts on Industry’, Work, Employment and Society 15(1), 149–
Women’s Entrepreneurship (Copenhagen Business 169.
School Press, Copenhagen). Bly, R.: 1991, Iron John – A Book about Men (Element
Alvesson, M.: 1998, ‘Gender Relations and Identity at Books, Shaftesbury).
Work: A Case Study of Masculinities and Femininities Boltanski, L. and E. Chiapello: 2006, The New Spirit of
in an Advertising Agency’, Human Relations 51(8), Capitalism (Verso Books, London).
969–1005. Brenkert, G. G.: 1997, ‘Radical Feminism and Business
Alvesson, M.: 2002, Postmodernism and Social Research Ethics’, in A. L. Larson and R. E. Freeman (eds.),
(Open University Press, Buckingham). Women’s Studies and Business Ethics: Towards a New
Alvesson, M. and Y. D. Billing: 1997, Understanding Conversation (Oxford University Press, Oxford), pp.
Gender and Organizations (Sage, London). 95–104.
Brewis, J.: 2000, ‘‘When a Body Meet a Body...’’: Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (Sage,
Experiencing the Female Body at Work’, in L. McKie London), pp. 218–257.
and N. Watson (eds.), Organizing Bodies: Policy, Insti- Calás, M. B. and L. Smircich: 1997, ‘Predicando la Moral
tutions and Work (MacMillan, London), pp. 166–184. en Calzoncillos? Feminist Inquiries into Business
Brewis, J. and S. Linstead: 2000, Sex, Work and Sex Work Ethics’, in A. L. Larson and R. E. Freeman (eds.),
– Eroticizing Organization (Routledge, London). Women’s Studies and Business Ethics: Towards a New
Brown, R. B.: 1995, ‘Meetings and Intersections: Conversation (Oxford University Press, Oxford), pp.
Organizational Theory Encounters Feminist Theo- 50–79.
rising’, Women’s Studies International Forum 18(2), Calvert, L. M. and J. V. Ramsey: 1996, ‘Speaking as
197–203. Female and White: A Non-Dominat/Dominat Group
Burgess, Z. and P. Tharenou: 2002, ‘Women Board Standpoint’, Organization 3(4), 468–485.
Directors: Characteristics of the few’, Journal of Business Cameron, D.: 1995, ‘Verbal Hygiene for Women: Per-
Ethics 37(1), 39–49. forming Gender Identity’, in U. Pasero and F. Braun
Burke, R. J.: 1997, ‘Women on Corporate Boards of (eds.), Konstruktion von Geschlecht (Centaurus,
Directors: A Needed Resource’, Journal of Business Pfaffenweiler), pp. 143–152.
Ethics 16(9), 909–915. Castells, M.: 1996, The Rise of the Network Society
Butler, J.: 1990, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Sub- (Blackwell, Cambridge (MA)).
version of Identity (Routledge, London). Castells, M.: 1997, Power of Identity (Blackwell, Cam-
Butler, J.: 1993, Bodies That Matter: On The Discursive bridge (MA)).
Limits of ‘‘Sex’’ (Routledge, London). Castells, M.: 2000. The Institutions of the New Econ-
Cadbury Schweppes. 2006. Corporate and Social omy, Vol. 2002: A summary of the Address to the
Responsibility Report 2006. Delivering the Virtual Promise? Conference, London,
Cairncross, F.: 1997, The Death of Distance: How the 19th June 2000 (http://virtualsociety.sbs.ox.ac.uk/
Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives events/castells.htm).
(Orion Business Books, London). Catalyst. 2006. 2006 Census: Women Corporate Officers
Cairncross, F.: 2002, The Company of the Future – How the (http://www.catalystwomen.org/knowledge/cote.shtml).
Communications Revolution is Changing Management CEPT Consult. 2002. Frauen in Zukunftsberufen –
(Harvard Business School Press, Boston). Chance Multimedia – Eine Untersuchung im Auftrag
Calás, M. B.: 1992, ‘An/Other Silent Voice? Repre- des Senatsamtes für Gleichstellung. Hamburg: Senats-
senting ‘‘Hispanic Women’’ in Organizational Texts’, amt für Gleichstellung.
in A. J. Mills and P. Tancred (eds.), Gendering Orga- Cockburn, C.: 1983, Brothers – Male Dominance and
nizational Analysis (Sage, London), pp. 201–221. Technological Change (Pluto, London).
Calás, M. B. and L. Smircich: 1991a, ‘Re-Writing Cohen, L. and M. Mallon: 1999, ‘The Transition from
Gender into Organizational Theorizing: Directions Organisational Employment to Portfolio Working:
from Feminist Perspectives’, in M. Reed and M. Perceptions of ‘Boundarylessness’’, Work, Employment
Hughes (eds.), Rethinking Organization: New Directions & Society 13(2), 329–352.
in Organization Theory and Analysis (Sage, London), pp. Collinson, D.: 1992, Managing The Shopfloor: Subjectivity,
227–253. Masculinity, And Workplace Culture (W. de Gruyter,
Calás, M. B. and L. Smircich: 1991b, ‘Voicing Seduction Berlin).
to Silence Leadership’, Organization Studies 12(4), 567– Collinson, D. and J. Hearn: 1994, ‘Naming Men as Men:
601. Implications for Work, Organization and Manage-
Calás, M. B. and L. Smircich: 1992, ‘Using the ‘‘F’’ Word ment’, Gender, Work and Organization 1(1), 2–22.
– Feminist Theories and the Social Consequences of Collinson, D. and J. Hearn: 2000, ‘Critical Studies on
Organizational Research’, in A. J. Mills and P. Men, Masculinities and Management’, in M. J.
Tancred (eds.), Gendering Organizational Analysis (Sage, Davidson and R. J. Burke (eds.), Women in Manage-
London), pp. 222–234. ment Current Research Issues Vol 2 (Sage, London), pp.
Calás, M. B. and L. Smircich: 1993, ‘Dangerous Liaisons: 263–278.
The ‘‘Feminine-in-Management’’ Meets ‘‘Globaliza- Collinson, D. L. and J. Hearn: 2005, ‘Men and Mascu-
tion’’’, Business Horizons 36(2), 71–82. linities in Work, Organizations, and Management’, in
Calás, M. B. and L. Smircich: 1996, ‘From ‘The Wo- M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn and R. W. Connell (eds.),
man’s’ Point of View: Feminist Approaches to Orga- Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities (Sage,
nization Studies’, in S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. London), pp. 289–310.
Connell, R. W.: 2005, ‘Globalization, Imperialism, and Fraser, J. and M. Gold: 2001, ‘‘‘Portfolio Workers’’:
Masculinities’, in M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn and R. W. Autonomy and Control amongst Freelance translators’,
Connell (eds.), Handbook of Studies on Men & Mascu- Work, Employment and Society 15(4), 679–697.
linities (Sage, London), pp. 71–89. Gerhard, B., M. Osterloh and R. Schmid: 1992, ‘(Wie)
Connell, R. W., J. Hearn and M. S. Kimmel: 2005, Kommen Frauen in deutschsprachigen Personal-
‘Introduction’, in M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn and R. W. lehrbüchern vor?’, in G. Krell (ed.), Personalpolitik
Connell (eds.), Handbook of Studies on Men & Mascu- Aus Der Sicht Von Frauen – Frauen Aus Der Sicht Der
linities (Sage, London), pp. 1–12. Personalpolitik: Was Kann Die Personalforschung Von
Coppock, V., D. Haydon and I. Richter: 1995, The Der Frauenforschung Lernen? (Hampp, München), pp.
Illusions of ‘Post-Feminism’ – New Women, Old Myths 28–49.
(Taylor and Francis, London). Gherardi, S.: 1995, Gender, Symbolism and Organizational
Crainer, S.: 2003, The Ultimate Business Library – The Culture (Sage, London).
Greatest Books that Made Management (Capstone, Ox- Gherardi, S., J. Marshall and A. J. Mills: 2003, ‘Theo-
ford). rizing Gender and Organizing’, in R. Westwood and
de Beauvoir, S: 1949/1993, The Second Sex (Everyman’s S. Clegg (eds.), Debating Organization – Point-Counter-
Library, London). point in Organization Studies (Blackwell, Oxford), pp.
Derry, R.: 1997, ‘Feminism: How Does It Play in the 325–338.
Corporate Theatre’, in A. L. Larson and R. E. Giddens, A.: 1991, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and
Freeman (eds.), Women’s Studies and Business Ethics – Society in the Late Modern Age (Polity, Cambridge).
Toward a New Conversation (Oxford University Press, Gill, R.: 1993, ‘Justifying Injustice: Broadcasters’ Ac-
Oxford), pp. 11–29. counts of Inequality in Radio’, in E. Burman and I.
Derry, R.: 2002. ‘Feminist Theory and Business Ethics’, Parker (eds.), Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and
in: R. Frederick, E. (ed) A Companion to Business Ethics Readings of Texts in Action (Routledge, London), pp.
(Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 81–87. 75–93.
Drucker, P. F.: 1969, The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines Gill, R.: 2000, ‘Discourse Analysis’, in M. Bauer and G.
to Our Changing Society (Heinemann, London). Gaskell (eds.), Qualitative Researching with Text, Image
Economist, T. 2006. Survey: The Battle For Brainpower: and Sound: A Practical Handbook for Social Research (Sage,
5 Oct 2006. London), pp. 172–190.
Edley, N. and M. Wetherell: 1999, ‘Imagined Futures: Gill, R.: 2002, ‘Cool, Creative and Egalitarian? Exploring
Young Men’s Talk About Fatherhood and Domestic Gender in Project-Based New Media Work in Europe’,
Life’, British Journal of Social Psychology 38, 181–194. Information, Communication and Society 5(1), 70–89.
Ely, R. J.: 1994, ‘The Effects of Organizational Demo- Gill, R. and D. Dodd.: 2000, New Media – Working
graphics and Social Identity on Relationships among Practices in the Electronic Arts (DGV of the European
Professional Women’, Administrative Science Quarterly Commission and the London School of Economics,
39(2), 203–238. London).
Fairclough, N.: 1992, Discourse and Social Change (Polity, Gill, R., K. Henwood and C. McLean: 2000, ‘The
Oxford). Tyranny of the ‘Six-Pack’? Understanding Men’s
Fairclough, N.: 1995, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Responses to Representations of the Male Body in
Critical Study of Language (Longman, London). Popular Culture’, in C. Squire (ed.), Culture in Psy-
Fairclough, N.: 2005, ‘Peripheral Vision: Discourse chology (Routledge, London), pp. 100–117.
Analysis in Organization Studies: The Case for Critical Gill, R., K. Henwood and C. McLean: 2005, ‘Body
Realism’, Organization Studies 26(6), 915–939. Projects and the Regulation of Normative Masculin-
Faludi, S.: 1993, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against ity’, Body & Society 11(1), 37–62.
Women (Vintage, London). Gilligan, C.: 1982, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory
Fausto-Sterling, A.: 2000, Sexing The Body: Gender Politics and Women’s Development (Harvard University Press,
and the Construction of Sexuality (Basic Books, New London).
York). Glover, S. H., M. A. Bumpus, G. F. Sharp and G. A.
Ferguson, K. E.: 1994, ‘On Bringing More Theory, Munchus: 2002, ‘Gender Differences in Ethical
More Voices and More Politics to the Study of Decision Making’, Women in Management Review
Organization’, Organization 1(1), 81–99. 17(5), 217–227.
Fondas, N.: 1997, ‘Feminization Unveiled: Management Green, L., P. W. Parkin and J. Hearn: 2001, ‘Power’, in
Qualities in Contemporary Writings’, Academy of E. M. Wilson (ed.), Organizational Behaviour and Gender
Management Review 22(1), 257–282. (Sage, London), pp. 188–214.
Grosser, K. and J. Moon: 2005, ‘Gender Mainstreaming Work’, in D. L. Collinson and J. Hearn (eds.), Men
and Corporate Social Responsibility: Reporting Work- and Managers, Managers as Men – Critical Perspectives on
place Issues’, Journal of Business Ethics 62(4), 327–340. Men, Masculinities and Management (Sage, London), pp.
Hakim, C.: 1996, Key Issues in Women’s Work – Female 78–98.
Heterogeneity and the Polarisation of Women’s Employment Lämsä, A.-M. and T. Sintonen: 2001, ‘A Discursive Ap-
(Athlone, London). proach to Understanding Women Leaders in Working
Handy, C. B.: 1993, Understanding Organisations (Penguin, Life’, Journal of Business Ethics 34(3–4), 255–267.
London). Leonard, P.: 2004, ‘Westerns, Weddings and Web-
Handy, C. B.: 1994, The Empty Raincoat – Making Sense of Weavers: Reading Gender as Genre in Organizational
the Future (Hutchinson/Arrow, London). Theory’, Gender, Work and Organization 11(1), 74–94.
Handy, C. B.: 2001, The Elephant and the Flea: Looking MacInnes, J.: 1998, The End of Masculinity (Open Uni-
Backwards to the Future (Hutchinson, London). versity Press, Buckingham).
Hardy, C., I. Palmer and N. Phillips: 2000, ‘Discourse as a MacLellan, C. and J. Dobson: 1997, ‘Women, Ethics, and
Strategic Resource’, Human Relations 53(9), 1227–1248. MBAs’, Journal of Business Ethics 16(11), 1201–1209.
Harlow, E. and J. Hearn: 1995, ‘Cultural Constructions: Manske, A.: 2003, ‘Arbeits– und Lebensarrangements in der
Contrasting Theories of Organisational Culture and Multimediabranche unter Vermarktlichungsdruck –
Gender Construction’, Gender, Work & Organization Rationalisierungspotenzial für den Markterfolg’, in E.
2(4), 180–191. Kuhlmann and S. Betzelt (eds.), Geschlechterverhältnisse im
Hearn, J. and P. W. Parkin: 1983, ‘Gender and Organi- Dienstleistungssektor – Dynamiken, Differenzierungen und
zations: A Selective Review and a Critique of a Ne- neue Horizonte (Nomos, Baden-Baden), pp. 133–146.
glected Area’, Organization Studies 4(3), 219–242. Marshall, H. and M. Wetherell: 1989, ‘Talking About
Hearn, J. and P. W. Parkin: 1992, ‘Gender and Organi- Career and Gender Identities: A Discourse Analysis
zations: A Selective Review of a Neglected Area’, in Perspective’, in S. Skevington and D. Baker (eds.),
A. J. Mills and P. Tancred (eds.), Gendering Organiza- The Social Identity of Women (Sage, London), pp.
tional Analysis (Sage, London), pp. 46–66. 106–129.
Henninger, A.: 2001, ‘Gender-Probleme in der New Marshall, J.: 2007, ‘The Gendering of Leadership in
Economy: Geschlechterverhältnisse in kleinen Soft- Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Organiza-
ware-Firmen’, Zeitschrift für Frauenforschung und Ge- tional Change Management 20(2), 165–181.
schlechterstudien 2001(3), 88–108. Martin, J. and D. Collinson: 2003, ‘Feminist Theory and
Hill, D.: 1997, The Future of Men (Phoenix, London). Critical Theory: Unexplored Synergies’, in M. Al-
Jamieson, K. H.: 1995, Beyond the Double Bind: Women vesson and H. Willmott (eds.), Studying Management
and Leadership (Oxford University Press, Oxford). Critically (Sage, London).
Jones, T. M. and F. H. Gautschi: 1988, ‘Will the Ethics of Martin, J. and K. Knopoff: 1997, ‘The Gendered Impli-
Business Change? A Survey of Future Executives’, cations of Apparently Gender-Neutral Theory: Re-
Journal of Business Ethics 7(4), 231–248. Reading Max Weber’, in A. L. Larson and R. E.
Kanter, R. M.: 1977, Men and Women of the Corporation Freeman (eds.), Women’s Studies and Business Ethics:
(Basic Books, New York). Towards a New Conversation (Oxford University Press,
Kanter, R. M.: 1989, When Giants Learn to Dance: Mas- Oxford), pp. 30–49.
tering the Challenges of Strategy, Management and Careers McCabe, A. C., R. Ingram and M. C. Dato-on: 2006,
in the 1990s (Routledge, London). ‘The Business of Ethics and Gender’, Journal of Business
Kanter, R. M.: 2001, Evolve! Succeeding in the Digital Ethics 64(2), 101–116.
Culture of Tomorrow (Harvard Business School Press, McDowell, L.: 2000, ‘The Trouble With Men? Young
Boston). People, Gender Transformations and the Crisis of
Kelan, E. K.: 2007, ‘‘‘That Could not Happen Today’– Masculinity’, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Making Sense of Gender Discrimination in the Planning 24(1), 201–209.
Knowledge Economy’’, 5th Gender, Work and Orga- McDowell, L.: 2001, ‘Men, Management and Multiple
nization Conference, Keele, UK, 27–29th June 2007. Masculinities in Organisations’, Geoforum 32(2), 181–198.
Kerfoot, D. and D. Knights: 1993, ‘Management, Mas- McDowell, L.: 2002, ‘Transitions to Work: Masculine
culinity and Manipulation: From Paternalism to Cor- Identities, Youth Inequality, and Labour Market
porate Strategy in Financial Services in Britain’, Journal Change’, Gender, Place & Culture 9(1), 39–59.
of Management Studies 30(4), 659–677. McDowell, L.: 2003, Redundant Masculinities? Employment
Kerfoot, D. and D. Knights: 1996, ‘The Best is Yet to Change and white Working Class Youth (Blackwell,
Come?’: The Quest for Embodiment in Managerial Oxford).
Meyerson, D. and D. M. Kolb: 2000, ‘Moving out of the Potter, J. and M. Wetherell: 1987, Discourse and Social
‘Armchair’: Developing a Framework to Bridge the Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour (Sage,
Gap between Feminist Theory and Practice’, Organi- London).
zation 7(4), 553–571. Potter, J., M. Wetherell, R. Gill and D. Edwards: 1990,
O’Leary, J.: 1997, ‘Developing a New Mindset: The ‘Discourse: Noun, Verb or Social Practice?’, Philo-
‘Career Ambitious’ Individual’, Women in Management sophical Psychology 3(2), 205–217.
Review 12(3), 91–99. Projansky, S.: 2001, Watching Rape (New York Univer-
Oakley, A.: 1972, Sex, Gender and Society (Gower, Al- sity Press, New York).
dershot). Puwar, N.: 2004, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies
Oakley, J. G.: 2000, ‘Gender-Based Barriers to Senior Out of Place (Berg, Oxford).
Management Positions: Understanding the Scarcity Singh, V., S. Kumra and S. Vinnicombe: 2002, ‘Gender
of Female CEOs’, Journal of Business Ethics 27(4), and Impression Management Strategies: Managing the
321–334. Good Opinions Held by Others for Career Success’,
Ogbor, J. O.: 2000, ‘Mythicizing and Reification in Journal of Business Ethics 37(1), 77–89.
Entrepreneurial Discourse: Ideology-Critique of Singh, V. and S. Vinnicombe: 2006. The Female FTSE
Entrepreneurial Studies’, Journal of Management Studies Report 2006 (http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/
37(5), 605–634. research/centres/cdwbl/downloads/FTSE2006full.pdf).
Oriz, D. R.: 1997, ‘Phallocorporatism’, in A. L. Larson Solomon, R. C.: 1997, ‘Competition, Care, and Com-
and R. E. Freeman (eds.), Women’s Studies and Business passion: Toward a Nonchauvinist View of the Cor-
Ethics: Towards a New Conversation (Oxford University poration’, in A. L. Larson and R. E. Freeman (eds.),
Press, Oxford), pp. 127–135. Women’s Studies and Business Ethics: Towards a New
Parker, I.: 1990, ‘Discourse: Definitions and Contradic- Conversation (Oxford University Press, Oxford), pp.
tions’, Philosophical Psychology 3(2), 189–204. 144–173.
Perrons, D.: 2003, ‘The New Economy and the Work – Speer, S. A. and J. Potter: 2000, ‘The Management of
Life Balance: Conceptual Explorations and a Case Heterosexist Talk: Conversational Resources and
Study of New Media’, Gender, Work and Organization Prejudiced Claims’, Discourse & Society 11(4), 543–572.
10(1), 65–93. Tannen, D.: 1998, Talking From 9 to 5: Women and Men at
Peters, T.: 2001, The Brand You 50 (Alfred A. Knopf, Work, Language, Sex and Power (Virago Press, London).
New York). Taylor, S.: 2001, ‘Locating and Conducting Discourse
Peters Waterman, T. R. H.: 1982, In Search of Excellence: Analytic Research’, in M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S.
Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies (Harper and Yates (eds.), Discourse as Data: a Guide for Analysis
Row, London). (Sage, London), pp. 5–48.
Peterson, C. A. and J. Philpot: 2007, ‘Women’s Roles on Thomas, D.: 1993, Not Guilty – Men: The Case for the
U. S. Fortune 500 Boards: Director Expertise and Defence (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London).
Committee Memberships’, Journal of Business Ethics Thomas, R. and A. Davies: 2005, ‘What Have the
72(2), 177. Feminists Done for Us? Feminist Theory and Orga-
Phillips, A. and B. Taylor: 1980, ‘Sex and Skill: Towards nizational Resistance’, Organization 12(5), 711–740.
a Feminist Economics’, Feminist Review 6, 79–88. Tierney, M.: 1995, ‘Negotiating a Software Career:
Phillips, N. and C. Hardy: 1997, ‘Managing Multiple Informal Work Practices and ‘‘The Lads’’ in a Software
Identities: Discourse, Legitimacy and Resources in the Installation’, in K. Grint and R. Gill (eds.), The
UK Refugee System’, Organization 4(2), 159–185. Gender-Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and
Pink, D. H.: 2001, Free Agent Nation: How America’s New Research (Taylor and Francis, London).
Independent Workers Are Transforming The Way We Live Tonkiss, F.: 1998, ‘Analysing Discourse’, in C. Seale
(Warner Books, New York). (ed.), Researching Society and Culture (Sage, London),
Pongratz, H. J. and G. G. Voß: 2003, ‘From Employee pp. 245–260.
to ‘Entreployee’: Towards A ‘Self-Entrepreneurial’ Treanor, J.: 2007. Women quit before hitting glass ceiling
Work Force?’, Concepts and Transformation 8(3), 239– (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2028833,00.
254. html).
Potter, J.: 1997, ‘Discourse Analysis as a Way of Analysing Vinnicombe, S. and N. L. Colwill: 1995, The Essence of
Naturally Occurring Talk’, in D. Silverman (ed.), Women in Management (Prentice Hall, London).
Qualitative Research – Theory, Method and Practice (Sage, Wajcman, J.: 1998, Managing Like a Man (Blackwell,
London), pp. 144–160. Oxford).
Wetherell, M. and J. Potter: 1992, Mapping the Language of Under Construction? Konstruktivistische Perspektiven in
Racism: Discourse and the Legitimatisation of Exploitation feministischer Theorie und Forschungspraxis (Campus,
(Harvester Wheatsheaf, London). Frankfurt a.M), pp. 58–67.
Wetherell, M., H. Stiven and J. Potter: 1987, ‘Unequal Wharton, A. and S. Bird: 1996, ‘Stand by Your Man –
Egalitarianism: A Preliminary Study of Discourses Homosociality, Work Groups, and Men’s Perceptions
Concerning Gender And Employment Opportunities’, of Difference’, in C. Cheng (ed.), Masculinities in
British Journal of Social Psychology 26, 59–71. Organizations (Sage, London), pp. 97–114.
Wetterer, A.: 2003, ‘Rhetorische Modernisierung: Das Wilson, E. M.: 2001, ‘Organizational Behaviour and
Verschwinden der Ungleichheit aus dem zeitgenös- Gender’, in E. M. Wilson (ed.), Organizational Behav-
sischen Differenzwissen’, in G.-A. Knapp and A. iour Reassessed – The Impact of Gender (Sage, London),
Wetterer (eds.), Achsen der Differenz - Gesellschaftstheorie pp. 1–16.
und feministische Kritik 2 (Westfälisches Dampfboot,
Münster), pp. 286–319. The Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business
Wetterer, A.: 2004, ‘Widersprüche zwischen Diskurs und London Business School Regent’s Street,
Praxis: Gegenstandsbezug und Erkenntnispotenziale London, NW1 4SA, U.K.
einer sozialkonstruktivistischen Perspektive’, in U. E-mail: [email protected]
Helduser, D. Marx, T. Paulitz and K. Pühl (eds.),

Kelan - 2008 - The Discursive Construction of Gender in Contempor

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kelan - 2008 - The Discursive Construction of Gender in Contempor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kelan - 2008 - The Discursive Construction of Gender in Contempor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 81:427–445 Ó Springer 2007

The Discursive Construction of Gender

You might also like