Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations

Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4(2):139-58

 Need for the study

 Many social scientists have made theoretical contributions regarding women and organizations, but their work has not been brought together as a “systematic feminist theory of organizations” (Acker 1990: 140).  In this article, Acker attempts to develop a theory of gender and organizations. Gender segregation of work, inequalities in status and income between men and women and individual gender identity are created and reinforced by organizational practices and therefore, the need for a systematic theory. Cultural images of gender are created and reproduced within organizations. Finally, it is an important feminist project to make large organizations democratic and humane.

 Main Questions

Acker addresses the following questions in the article. First, why have feminist scholars not debated organizational theory in their work? Secondly, she looks at how feminists who worked on organizations conceptualized them? Thirdly she examines organizations as gendered processes where gender, body and sexuality are used to exercise control in organizations even while engaging in gender neutral and asexual discourses.

             Feminists did not debate organizational theory because of the following reasons. One, not many feminist organizations could retain the radical-democratic form, that they had envisaged in contrast to the bureaucratic organizational form. However, they did not engage in a discussion on the feasibility of this vision, when faced with this challenge. Secondly, the available concepts and models in organizational theory were embedded in a masculine experience of a working, which did not interest feminist scholars. Even when scholars studied organizations as spaces of control, power and exploitation, women were largely ignored. Another reason was that most discourses conceptualized organizations as gender neutral and asexual spaces. When organizations are viewed such that, the ‘masculine’ represents the sole human nature, organizations are seen as gender neutral.

             While discussing feminists who worked on this issue, Acker points out some main contributions. Kanter (1977) discussed structural issues in organizations, and how authority is exercised in seemingly gender neutral structures. Ressner (1987) talked about how bureaucracy and patriarchy operate in organizations, leading to women’s “discrimination, exclusion, segregation, and low wages” (Acker 1990 144). Ferguson (1984) identified how rationality, rules and procedures constructed a structure of male power. However, Ferguson’s argument although radical, stereotyped femininity as passive, oppressed and weak. Acker suggests that existing feminist studies on organizations dealt only with the theoretical understanding that organizations as gender neutral and ignored sexuality as an important part of continuous gender structuring.

             According to Acker, gendering occurs in five ways. One, through gender based divisions in work, physical locations, power, labor market structures, family and state. Two, through symbols and images that reinforce gender divisions. Third, gendering occurs in interactions between men and women and among men and women, where patterns of submission and dominance, reinforce gender divisions. Fourth, these processes enhance individual gender identities in men and women. Finally, organizations, while seemingly gender neutral have a “gendered substructure” reproduced in organizational activities. Acker takes the example of job evaluation as a management tool, to understand how organizations are gendered.

             Job evaluations are relative ranking of jobs in terms of complexity, knowledge, skill, effort and working conditions. Job evaluations are meant to be independent of the person performing the job. Thus, the underlying assumption therefore, is that the person is a male, who does not have other responsibilities of procreation, caring and nurturing. The job, while appearing to be gender neutral, has an implicit assumption of gendered work, separating the public from the private. Since job evaluations are also about hierarchy, it assumes that a person, who needs to divide commitments, will be most suitable for lower level jobs. Job evaluations are based on the principle that two people will not be responsible for same outcomes. Therefore, a secretary who implements a task for which the manager is responsible is never given a higher position in the hierarchy. Job evaluations assume that the worker is created only for the job, thus excluding women who have other roles to perform.

 By assuming that the worker has no emotions, no sexuality and does not procreate, the effort is to create organizations which were seemingly asexual. This also meant that some spaces excluded women to maintain an asexual structure devoid of emotions and procreation.  Moreover, sexuality is often used to exercise control over women, through symbols and objectification of women’s bodies. In places where women were excluded, attempts were made to restrict homosexual relations in the work place. The larger goal was to create a work place divided from the personal space, and thus sexuality.

 Conclusion:

Acker concludes by saying that organizations are deeply embedded in gendered processes and only a radical transformation of organizations can create an equal space for women. Moreover, feminist research can contribute to the creation of a space where collective work would refrain from dominating, controlling or suppressing women in the name of gender.

References:

Ferguson, Kathy E. 1984. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books

Ressner, Ulla. 1987. The Hidden Hierarchy. Aldershot: Gower.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4(2):139-58

Need for the study

Many social scientists have made theoretical contributions regarding women and organizations, but their work has not been brought together as a “systematic feminist theory of organizations” (Acker 1990: 140).  In this article, Acker attempts to develop a theory of gender and organizations. Gender segregation of work, inequalities in status and income between men and women and individual gender identity are created and reinforced by organizational practices and therefore, the need for a systematic theory. Cultural images of gender are created and reproduced within organizations. Finally, it is an important feminist project to make large organizations democratic and humane.

Main Questions

Acker addresses the following questions in the article. First, why have feminist scholars not debated organizational theory in their work? Secondly, she looks at how feminists who worked on organizations conceptualized them? Thirdly she examines organizations as gendered processes where gender, body and sexuality are used to exercise control in organizations even while engaging in gender neutral and asexual discourses.

            Feminists did not debate organizational theory because of the following reasons. One, not many feminist organizations could retain the radical-democratic form, that they had envisaged in contrast to the bureaucratic organizational form. However, they did not engage in a discussion on the feasibility of this vision, when faced with this challenge. Secondly, the available concepts and models in organizational theory were embedded in a masculine experience of a working, which did not interest feminist scholars. Even when scholars studied organizations as spaces of control, power and exploitation, women were largely ignored. Another reason was that most discourses conceptualized organizations as gender neutral and asexual spaces. When organizations are viewed such that, the ‘masculine’ represents the sole human nature, organizations are seen as gender neutral.

            While discussing feminists who worked on this issue, Acker points out some main contributions. Kanter (1977) discussed structural issues in organizations, and how authority is exercised in seemingly gender neutral structures. Ressner (1987) talked about how bureaucracy and patriarchy operate in organizations, leading to women’s “discrimination, exclusion, segregation, and low wages” (Acker 1990 144). Ferguson (1984) identified how rationality, rules and procedures constructed a structure of male power. However, Ferguson’s argument although radical, stereotyped femininity as passive, oppressed and weak. Acker suggests that existing feminist studies on organizations dealt only with the theoretical understanding that organizations as gender neutral and ignored sexuality as an important part of continuous gender structuring.

            According to Acker, gendering occurs in five ways. One, through gender based divisions in work, physical locations, power, labor market structures, family and state. Two, through symbols and images that reinforce gender divisions. Third, gendering occurs in interactions between men and women and among men and women, where patterns of submission and dominance, reinforce gender divisions. Fourth, these processes enhance individual gender identities in men and women. Finally, organizations, while seemingly gender neutral have a “gendered substructure” reproduced in organizational activities. Acker takes the example of job evaluation as a management tool, to understand how organizations are gendered.

            Job evaluations are relative ranking of jobs in terms of complexity, knowledge, skill, effort and working conditions. Job evaluations are meant to be independent of the person performing the job. Thus, the underlying assumption therefore, is that the person is a male, who does not have other responsibilities of procreation, caring and nurturing. The job, while appearing to be gender neutral, has an implicit assumption of gendered work, separating the public from the private. Since job evaluations are also about hierarchy, it assumes that a person, who needs to divide commitments, will be most suitable for lower level jobs. Job evaluations are based on the principle that two people will not be responsible for same outcomes. Therefore, a secretary who implements a task for which the manager is responsible is never given a higher position in the hierarchy. Job evaluations assume that the worker is created only for the job, thus excluding women who have other roles to perform.

 By assuming that the worker has no emotions, no sexuality and does not procreate, the effort is to create organizations which were seemingly asexual. This also meant that some spaces excluded women to maintain an asexual structure devoid of emotions and procreation.  Moreover, sexuality is often used to exercise control over women, through symbols and objectification of women’s bodies. In places where women were excluded, attempts were made to restrict homosexual relations in the work place. The larger goal was to create a work place divided from the personal space, and thus sexuality.

Conclusion:

Acker concludes by saying that organizations are deeply embedded in gendered processes and only a radical transformation of organizations can create an equal space for women. Moreover, feminist research can contribute to the creation of a space where collective work would refrain from dominating, controlling or suppressing women in the name of gender.

Ferguson, Kathy E. 1984. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books

Ressner, Ulla. 1987. The Hidden Hierarchy. Aldershot: Gower.