Women in Management Review

Gender and feminine identities – women as managers in a UK academic institution

Vincenza Priola

Vincenza Priola is a Senior Lecturer in Organisational Psychology at the University of

Wolverhampton Business School, Wolverhampton, UK.

Keywords
Gender, Managers, Educational development, Higher education, United Kingdom

Abstract
The paper considers gender identities in higher education. It examines how people involved in
university life engage in (re)creating gender identities and in (re)producing gender-related
expectations (and stereotypes) of managerial behaviour. The process of construction of feminine
identities is explored through the discourses of academics from a UK university (mainly women
who hold managerial positions). The paper reports findings from a series of in-depth interviews
with women managers (dean, associate deans and heads of departments) and with university
academics (men and women) from a Business School, part of a large British new university. The
school was of special interest because women held the majority of senior managerial posts. It
appears that the process of construction of femininities is mainly developed around four
(stereo-)typical aspects generally associated with feminine management practices (multi-tasking,
supporting and nurturing, people and communication skills, and team-work).

Introduction

Gender relations are rooted in organisational life. However, these relations are constructed within
the particular organisational context and vary across organisations and societies (Tienari et al.,
2002). Regardless of equal opportunities policies and a rhetoric of parity and fairness, gender
relations are often based on asymmetries which reinforce the inequalities between women and
men in organisations. While the idea of gender neutrality has been abandoned (Calas and
Smircich, 1992; Gherardi, 1994; Mills and Tancred, 1992; Mavin et al., 2004), inequalities are often
revealed by numerical discrepancies between men and women in certain positions (e.g.
managerial). Research (Alvesson and Billing, 1997; Collinson and Hearn, 1996) has shown the role
of gender in organisational functioning and has highlighted the importance of considering whether
managers are men or women when understanding organisational behaviour. As most managers
are men[1] it is important to consider the role of women managers and investigate the
construction of women’s identities in male dominated working environments.
The construction of identities is seen as a fluid and continuous process of negotiation taking place
within the working environment and society in general. Gender construction is embedded in
societal and organisational practices and although practices and relations change in different times
and in different settings, it is likely that organisations remain dominated by men and masculine
traditions (Kerfoot and Knights, 1993).
The sector of higher education is characterised by specific aspects which make it distinguishable
from the business world. However, in higher education, as well as in business, men and masculine
values are dominant (Whitehead, 2001). Statistics show that men represent the majority of
academic staff (in the UK men represent 63 per cent of the academic staff[2] and occupy the most
senior academic and managerial positions; Munford and Rumball (1999) report that only 7 per
cent of universities worldwide are managed by women. This picture is accompanied by a
continued emphasis on managerialism, competition and productivity (Deem, 2003), which more
than ever encourage masculine practices and academic machismo.
This paper explores the process of construction of feminine and managerial identities in academia
and reports findings from a series of in-depth interviews with women executives, female heads of
academic departments and with a random selection of university academics. The focus is on a
Business School, which is part of a British large “new”[3] university. This business school is
characterised by a high percentage of women holding management positions. In fact, the Dean of
the school, two of the three Associate Deans and two out of four Heads of Departments are
women. Furthermore, the Head of Learning and Teaching and the Head of Academic Development
are also women.
However, a wider look at the division of labour at this school highlights a typical pattern of other
academic institutions. Most of the administrative support staff are women and approximately a
third of the academics are women. Unusually, the majority of the executives are women. It is
interesting to note that since the appointment of the female Dean four years ago, the school is
moving towards a more balanced gender distribution of academics. During the interview, the Dean
suggested that since her arrival, the school is progressing towards a feminine environment or at
least is moving towards a more balanced gender distribution. She acknowledges that she has
employed more women than men (over two-thirds of all new appointees are women) and is
attempting at establishing fairness, quality and equality.
This paper investigates how women managers construct their identities in an organisation which is
mainly managed by women but has a tradition of “patriarchy” (Katila and Marila¨inen, 1999,
2002). Research into gender and leadership has often focused on barriers faced by women seeking
management positions and educational leadership (Wilson, 2003; Cubillo and Brown, 2003). On
the other hand, limited research examines the identities and self-accounts of women who have
achieved positions of leadership. This study is mainly concerned with two aspects of the “identity
work” which goes on at this institution. First, it explores the self-account and the discourses that
women construct to manage their professional identities. Second, it investigates whether this
institution is characterised by a more feminine environment and seeks to documents the
ambiguity and contradictions that may emerge when these processes take place in a traditionally
masculine organisation (Ferguson, 1984; Joyner and Preston, 1998).

Feminine and masculine identities at work

Femininity and masculinity are vague concepts and is difficult to provide definitions without falsely
describing them as unitary constructs. Alvesson (1998, p. 972) defines masculinity as “values,
experiences and meanings that are ascribed to men more than women in the particular cultural
context”. It follows that those values, experiences and meanings, which are generally socially
attributed to women refer to the idea of femininity. However, masculinities and femininities are
not fixed categories but diverse, ambiguous, fragmented subjectivities, which shift continually and
are culturally, historically (Collinson and Hean, 1994) and organisationally contingent. Collinson
and Hearn (1994, in Collinson and Hearn, 1996) suggest that this diversity includes differences in
relation to age, class, religion, ethnicity, bodily facility, sexuality, world view, region, nationality,
appearance, paternal/maternal kinship status, leisure, occupation and career, size and propensity
to violence.
A discussion of femininities cannot take place without consideration of masculinities and vice
versa. Some argue that an asymmetry exists between the two concepts. This is linked to cultural
evaluations of the male and female categories which have created the idea that feminine
attributes are of lesser value, subordinate and suppressed compared to masculine qualities
(Rosaldo, 1974, in Fondas, 1997). According to Gherardi (1994), affirming the one entails denying
the other considered as antithetical to it. Referring to Derrida’s work, Gherardi (1994) reports that
the interdependence of the terms masculine and feminine (as any other binary opposition) is
hierarchical, the first term is treated as superior and the second as derivate. What we affirm with
one term we negate with the other. “Unless we define the “true” essential femininity (or
masculinity) and fix it outside history in some realm of nature, we are trapped by the process of
binary opposition” (Gherardi, 1994, p. 596). An attempt, in this direction, has been made by Knight
(1997) who, through deconstructionism, seeks to indicate various solutions to the problem of
dualism.
Femininities and masculinities are continuously created, negotiated and recreated in daily social
interactions. It is implied that other people’s perceptions and responses contribute to the creation
and maintenance of feminine and masculine identities. A discussion of femininities and
masculinities should not correspond to a process of assigning behavioural categories or types to
women and men. In order to avoid the process of creation of undifferentiated categories of
“women” and “men”, Collinsons and Hearn (1994, p. 9) suggest “that analyses need to reflect and
explore the social relations and identities through which [women’s and] men’s differences, and
their perception of differences, are reproduced and transformed in organisational practices and
power asymmetries”[4]. Essentially, through processes of identification with some women (and
men) and differentiation from other women (and men), the construction of identities takes place
in everyday relations, discourses and practices.
Olsson and Walker (2004, p. 244) found that “women executives engage in processes of
identification and differentiation comparable to those of men” managers (as suggested by
Collinsons and Hearn, 2001). These women identify themselves with their supportive male
mentors and differentiate themselves from less successful women and more stereotyped female
roles (e.g. dependent on a man for financial security). They differentiate themselves from “the
boys” who play games, talk about sport and drink beer. On the other hand, they identify
themselves with other women for the advantages they take into the executive culture by bringing
in female qualities such as “intuition”, “ability to motivate others”, “be in touch with people”,
“better listeners than men” and transformational leadership.
From the early 1990 s, management literature proposes that contemporary management practices
such as employee participation, teamwork and flexibility encourage the feminisation of
management (Fondas, 1997; Lee, 1994). The feminisation of management refers to the spread of
values, meanings or qualities culturally associated with females. New systems of management
which emphasise behaviours such as nurturing and caring, interpersonal sensitivity and preference
for open and cooperative relationships, have been advocated as the most effective response to
changes in organisations’ environments (Kanter, 1989; Colwill and Townsend, 1999). In education,
Coleman (2000) surveyed women head-teachers in England and Wales and found that they
identify with a collaborative, people-oriented style of leadership. Some argue (Middlehurst, 1997)
that these (feminine?) management practices along with equal opportunities and demographic
shifts question traditional modes of managing and thus create space for women and different
ways of managing.
However, critical analysis on gendered power relations in contemporary organisations has
demonstrated the pervasiveness and dominance of masculine practices and discourses (Collinson
and Hearn, 1994; Alvesson, 1998), thus challenging the idea of feminisation. Hearn, 2001, cited in
Brooks, 2001) suggests that women do management in different ways without fundamentally
contesting the long established masculine culture. Collinson and Collinson, (1997, p. 402, cited in
Brooks, 2001, p. 21) challenge the idea of feminisation of management suggesting that “women
managers at all hierarchical levels will only survive if they follow the example of most of their male
counterparts”. Collinson and Hearn (1994, p. 13) refer to several masculinities which “remain
pervasive and privileged” in organisations and management practices. These are: authoritarianism,
paternalism, entrepreneurialism, informalism and careerism. Benschop and Doorewaard (1998a),
analysing the gender subtext of Tayloristic organisations and team-based organisations, suggested
that both types of work are permeated by masculinities, so dismissing the view that team- work
has encouraged the feminisation of management practices. Authoritarianism, paternalism, and
careerism characterise Tayloristic organisations, while entrepreneurialism and careerism are
dominant in team-based work. While the organisational rhetoric emphasises ideals of equality and
equal opportunity, organisational practices continue to inform the perceptions and expectation of
men and women as separate categories (Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998b).

The study: managerial and feminine identities

The study draws on material gathered through in-depth interviews with women executives (the
Dean and two Associate Deans), female heads of academic departments (two) and with a random
selection of university academics (15 men and women). The interviews with the executives and
the heads of department lasted for approximately one hour. The interviews with other staff
members varied in length. All interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis and were based
on a list of similar questions for all women managers. The interviews with staff members were
more informal and conversational. Data were collected between January and March 2002. All
names reported in this article have been changed to preserve confidentiality. All interviewees have
been part of this organisation for more than two years[5].
Furthermore, data include participant observation of the work climate and the daily routine of the
school.
From the interview data all women managers in this study position themselves through the
identification with “feminine” skills and qualities. The process of construction of femininities
within this institution, in fact, seems to be created mainly around four major discourses which
refer to aspects generally associated with femininities. These discourse are:
(1) The ability to manage multi-tasks (including administration).
(2) People and communication skills.
(3) The ability to focus on support and care for the staff.
(4) The implementation of a team-based approach rather than an authoritarian style.
More specifically, these women refer to these factors as patterns of differentiation from their male
colleagues (current and previous). At the same time, doing so, they identify themselves with “the”
group of women managers.
The discussion of these discourses associated with femininities should not be interpreted as a
practice of creation of categories or as a construction of “the” feminine category. The analysis
explores multiple and dynamic identities and relations which are continuously reproduced and
transformed in social and professional relations and organisational practices.

(1) Multi-tasking
The belief that women are better than men at managing different activities simultaneously finds
its origins in the role of women in various societies. Women are often carers of the family and of
the household in addition to external employment. Almost all of the participants referred to multi-
tasking presenting it as a female quality and ability, which contributes to the construction of
feminine identities in the work place. The ability to juggle several things at once was also reported
as one of the differences between women and men in Deem’s (2003) study of 137 manager-
academics (women and men). One of the managers interviewed for this study suggests that it is
easier for her to work with other women because they can cope more easily when dealing with
multi-tasks. In the extract below, Susan construct her own job/ position as a gender-neutral
context, however she states that working with women makes her job of a leader/coordinator
more straightforward because women do what they say and approach the various activities
without many objections. Here, she downplays gender as a factor affecting her own position but,
at the same time, she acknowledges the benefit that her female collaborators bring to their jobs
and their relationships.
I don’t think there are particular benefits in being a woman in my position. However, I find it
generally easier to work with female colleagues because they can cope with multitasks, they do
what they say and get on with things without too much fuss’ (Susan, Associate Dean).

Another participant constructs her femininity as independence of view and as ability to manage all
aspects of the job, even little and “dirty” tasks. In the extract below, the interviewee seems to
suggest that women are not only better at dealing with different tasks, but that they are also more
open in expressing their views, even if these may have negative repercussions on them. She
attempts a continuous comparison between men and women at her institution suggesting a few
interesting aspects which construct feminine (generally positive) and masculine (generally
negative) identities.
I think the difference between me and male colleagues is that I accept the admin and do all the
different things, everything that has to be done. I am not afraid of “getting my hands dirty”, of
picking up little bits in between. I think women are better at multi-tasking, but also at speaking up,
even if they may become unpopular. Men here look at the organisation’s values and play their
game (Linda, head of department).

In the extract above, two points are worthy of note. The first refers to the ability of women in
dealing with various activities required by a managerial job (including administration). The second
refers to a crucial difference between women who speak up and men who play the organisational
game of conformity. The interviewee seems to construct a parallel between masculine/feminine
and compliancy/divergence in organisational relations. This is an interesting aspect which
emphasises homogeneity as a male attribute even in an organisation managed by women.
Women are better at dealing with complex tasks, they are thorough and good at crossing “Ts” and
doting “Is”. Men like to be the front people, but don’t like to take things to completion and they
are more concerned with status. Women are not as concerned with status as men are .. . One of
the benefits of being a woman in this job is that we are better at seeing things through, at taking
care of all bits, it is not a great challenge, not particularly intellectually demanding, but we are
prepared to do the jobs that others don’t want to do. I also feel that I have had to prove, to
convince the others of my abilities (Cheryl, head of department).

Cheryl feels that as a woman she has to do more in order to prove her managerial abilities. A
plausible question which may arise refers to whether women are constructed as better at multi-
tasking or whether they do more, taking care of every aspect, to demonstrate their capabilities.
Cheryl’s view is very interesting because it highlights two aspects which may contribute to the
explanation of the greater presence of women in new universities compared to old universities[6]
(Hearn, 2001). She asserts that women are more thorough in jobs that require various different
activities and a great deal of organisation and administration. Additionally, she suggests that men
are more concerned with status but do not want to be involved in managing complex activities in
an academic environment. She refers to a tension between the perceived motives of men and
women in pursuing managerial jobs. She suggests that men want the status associated with the
managerial position and like to be the front people. Women, on the other hand, are not
particularly concerned with the status but are thorough, systematic and focus on all aspects of
their job. The structuring of gender relations within the institution can be seen as a re-balancing in
the allocation of the labour force. Women seem to get managerial jobs because they take care of
those tasks (which are part of the job) that others (men?) do not want to carry out. The
interviewee mentioned that it is not the case that men do not put themselves forward for the
managerial jobs, they apply for the positions but women are more successful at obtaining the jobs
and at accomplishing them. She states that in academia managerial jobs are not intellectually
challenging, this may be the reason why their organisational and administrative elements are not
popular.

(2) People and communication skills

From the analysis of the interview transcripts an important aspect emerged. All interviewees
emphasised the fundamental importance of good personal relationships within their work
environment. Various authors suggest that this emphasis is generally associated with femininity
and some (Helgesin, 1996) report that women executives generally highlight relationships and
inclusion preferring a “spider-web” structure of communication rather than a hierarchical
structure. One member of the staff at this institution suggested that the Dean had a more
“approachable, inclusive and hands-on style” than the male Director at her previous university.
Rosener’s (1990) study found that women managers put effort in building relationships and
understanding the people they work with, so that they can adapt their style to each individual.
The emphasis on relationships achieves consensus among the participants, in fact, one of the
female managers suggested: “In my managerial role I rely on personal relationships, to influence
changes I work on personal relationship, I see that as the basis of my work”. Another stated “the
relationships I have with my group of collaborators is very important for my job. There is mutual
trust and a high level of cooperation”. The Dean, talking about the changes she has been
implementing since her appointment, stated that “in order to change you need to take the people
with you”. One head of department (HoD) describes the importance of communication:
One of the difference between me and the previous head of department is that I talk openly, I say:
these are the things to be done, how are we going to go about them? I talk to them as colleagues, I
do not give orders, I bring them in, I involve them (Cheryl, head of department).

Differentiating herself from the previous male HoD, Cheryl constructs her “feminine” way of
managing by accepting the importance of open, equalitarian and interactive communication and
rejecting a hierarchical structure of communication.

(3) Supporting-nurturing
The third repertoire is linked to the previous of people and communication skills. The discourse
contributing to the construction of feminine identities is focused on the qualities of nurture and
support, which are culturally ascribed as feminine attributes. Research into the feminisation of
management suggests that contemporary managers are moving towards substituting the
“masculine power” of decision-making, giving orders and being obeyed, with the power to give
others (the work force) sustenance, nurture their growth and care for them (Fondas, 1997). The
following analysis attempts to illustrate how the “supporting-nurturing” discourse is reproduced
by the participants as a feminine attribute and reassessed as interconnected with masculinities.
The following three quotes recreate managerial identities focusing on a feminine discourse.
The Dean is reasonably nurturing and caring, particularly in a one to one relationship. She is good
and very supportive, but she has problems in managing the relationships on a wider level. Some
people here, generally the men that have been here a long time, call her names like “madam” etc.
She is very hospitable and welcoming. I remember one of the first times I met her, we were away
on a trip with some European partners and we went in a tea room, she immediately went to order
the teas and moved the table around and organised everything making sure that we were
comfortable, she always does that (Linda, head of department).

A few features are noteworthy in the above extract. The Dean here is represented as supportive
on a one to one basis, however, this is not the image she has at a wider level. She is described as
nurturing, caring, welcoming and attentive, someone who makes everybody at ease. However,
next to this representation there is that of the men (as perceived by this female head) who
attempt to re- establish their masculinities by using invective behaviours. They recreate gender
relations based on competitive activities and degrading some behaviours of the Dean (e.g. her
involvement). One male academic commented that: “the dean should not be so “hands-on” on the
daily running of the school, she should be out there talking to government bodies and authorities”.
In my job, I try to ensure a balanced workload and also to suit the right people to the right jobs. I
think I offer support and help whenever it is needed. As a leader, I think you need to take the
people with you, to encourage and make sure that everybody could do what is best for them. Also,
you should not be aggressive and I think I am a good leader, however, for some, I may be evil
(Linda, head of department).
Linda constructs a good leader as the feminine “transformational and interactive leader”
acclaimed by many management gurus (Rosener, 1990), who suggest that soft management skills
are more appropriate for dynamic and competitive environments. Rosener’s (1990, p. 120) study,
which involved successful male and female managers, found that women encourage participation
and spend more time getting to know what works for each person. They share power and
information and work to “enhance other people’s sense of self-worth” and to energize their
collaborators. Linda fits herself within this image. She substitutes the word manager with leader,
within a more democratic and equalitarian vision and suggests that support and encouragement is
very important. Also, she emphasises that a leader should not be aggressive and that should work
to match a person with a suitable job.
If you have a problem, you have to talk to her. I found that whenever I had difficulties and I
needed support she was always there with the right solution. She does not make much fuss about
problems, she just comes up with the solution (a female staff member about the head of
department).
Once more, the discourse of the supportive manager is reproduced in the above excerpt. The
managerial identity is here constructed as a feminine, almost maternal identity characterised by
protective and nurturing core elements. The “female” manager is here reproduced as constantly
present to help her subordinates when they have difficulties and to provide the correct solution to
their problems.
The following excerpts seek to highlight a key issue focused on unities and differences in order to
outline the multiple nature of femininities, but also the bland and often artificial separation
between
femininity and masculinity. As Cockburn (1991, p. 10) suggests “women can be the same and
different from one another and from men at various time and in various ways”.
She is clearly my boss, I would not confide to her personally but I would professionally. She would
understand and support in a professional matter. She is the only one boss I had who has thought
about me as an individual not only as a manager. She can easily move out from her boss role and
talk as a colleague (Susan, Associate Dean).

The interviewee above develops the image of her manager as supportive but dominant (“clearly
the boss”), as understanding but detached (in a “professional manner”). She does not represent
her manager as feminine, neither masculine, the image is one in which feminine and masculine
symbolic universes are intersected together to produce a more articulated and plural identity.
Nevertheless, in an attempt to establish femininity as the dominant domain, she acknowledges
that her “boss” is the only manager who cared for her as an individual as well as a subordinate and
that she can step down from her role and interact at an equal level. The view of a plural identity is
confirmed by the dean’s comments below. Here, she emphasises her developmental attitude but
also her exercise of control, which is direct with some subordinates and by delegation to others.
She justifies her power to control decisions as required by a need for organisational change.
My management style is focused and developmental. I tend to delegate, but to good people. I am
surrounded by very good people and I have high trust in my collaborators. I am demanding and I
realise that to change means more control. I think some people see me here as extremely
controlling and untrusting (Mary, Dean).
During the interviews it emerged that there appears to be a covert conflict between what is
perceived as the old culture, the mentality of those academics who have been employed since the
university was a polytechnic, and the view(s) of the new management team. This aspect is also
reported in the extract above when the dean distinguishes between the “good people”, her
“collaborators” and some other people, who see her as domineering and untrusting. Again, the
soft and the hard images of the manager are superimposed on one another and fused together.
One of the interviewees acknowledged: “this place needs more stroking and we don’t get
enough”. While she admitted that overall people felt supported by both management and
colleagues, she also recognised that it is not a particularly nurturing environment but rather a
more individualistic organisation, so dismissing the idea of the “feminine workplace”.

(iv) Team-based approach

The team approach to management is linked to the previous discourse of support and nurture.
Language associated with the team ideology does not imply an autocratic or superior relationship
with others. It suggests an emphasis on cooperation and mutual support and evokes the role of
the manager (generally defined as leader) as a coordinator and facilitator with a focus on
development. The discourse of the team approach is investigated through the perspectives of the
participants.
The extract below is an example of how a HoD uses the team ideology to construct and represent
“her” department as a democratic and equalitarian work place. She refuses any formal recognition
of her managerial role constructing herself as a team member.
I don’t see myself as a manager. I ended up doing differently from what I have been told by Mary.
When I took up the role, everything was going wrong, there were continuous arguments in the
department, there was no collegiality. Mary thought that I should have laid the law down. If I
adopted her style I wouldn’t be here now. We are a team and we support each other. Collectively,
we can be successful, there are not differences between people in the department. I don’t put
myself in a higher position, I am not the leader with a higher status, we are all a team (Cheryl,
head of department).

This interviewee represents two different approaches to a difficult situation. When she was
appointed HoD she was advised that in order to address the critical situation faced by the
department at that time, it would be appropriate and necessary to take a strong initiative and
assume an authoritarian leadership approach. She says that she rejected this style for a
democratic and supportive role. She takes great pride from the fact that her approach has been
successful in bringing the people of the department together and creating a team spirit.
I have an eclectic management style. I would not say dominant. I generally read the situation and
adapt my response to that. Overall, I prefer a collegial environment. I would prefer to say “us”.
.. . It is more of a team effort than delegation, it is to share responsibilities (Jo, Associate Dean).

In the extract above, the interviewee refuses any categorisation and reproduces her own identity
as flexible, adaptable, sensitive to the situation and diverse in her actions. Ideally, she says that
she favours collegiality and would prefer to use the first plural pronoun “us”. This academic
manager, like the previous, rejects any association between commanding, controlling and
delegating with her own role. They do not identify themselves with the image of the authoritarian
leader but with that of a team member. However, Jo suggests above that there is a divide between
the management, defined as “them” by the rest of the academic staff, and the “us”, the academic
staff with no managerial role. She implies that a team-based structure would be her ideal,
however, a divide exists. She also asserts that, within her group of collaborators, there is a more
democratic environment in which responsibilities are shared among colleagues. At the level of
their small teams, it appears that managers succeed in creating “one team of collaborators”, and
in influencing the allocation and distribution of power to team members. This becomes difficult at
a wider level where tensions and separation seem to exist. From the interviews and the
observations has emerged that the tensions and separation seem to be created by the attempt of
the Dean to change a long-standing culture.
It has to be considered that universities have traditionally been democratic institutions in which
“self-regulated” professionals have, recently, faced “pressures to replace the traditional ethic of
collegiality with that of managerialism” (Willmott, 1995). One of the interviewees explains how
she
had to set aside her management experience to learn how to manage academics and academic
processes. She acknowledged that she had a business rather than academic background and that
initially she found herself unprepared to work with academics, “who perceive themselves as
professionals rather than employees”. This may also explain why some of the university heads
refuse to be called managers while others (often those who have a business background) are more
comfortable using a managerial language.
In the extract below, Cheryl refuses the idea of adapting her style to the situation and suggests
that the ways in which people manage are not affected by their gender or the situation. She does
so in order to preserve her own feminine identity, which is different from the identity of other
women. In particular, she seems to construct her personal managerial identity as different from
the managerial identity of other women. Doing so, however, she is particularly careful in avoiding
any gender-related language opting for a “personality” discourse which is associated with
individual differences rather than with “women and men categories”.
I think the style has more to do with your own personality than with your gender. I don’t want to
fall in the trap of being bossy, I don’t want to use Maggie’s approach because I also think that is
not necessary anymore. Things are changing, you don’t need to be like that, women have more
access to top positions. In the longer term it is not the right approach; you may produce results
because people are scared and do what you tell them to do. This may work in the short term, but
that is not what is required now for the future. I think a collaborative approach is going to be
successful in the longer term (Cheryl, head of department).

To construct her identity as different she also suggests that the belief that successful women have
to be bossy to succeed may represent a trap, which she wants to avoid. She can represent her true
self because it is no longer necessary to ape men in order to gain top positions. While she
constructs a gender-neutral “personality” which influences her ways of managing (“I think the
style has more to do with your own personality than with your gender”), she preserves her
feminine identity refusing the authoritarian, hard and tough style (“Maggie’s [Margaret Thatcher]
approach”). Although she defends her femininity by opposing the suggestions of her manager on
how to manage, she constructs the image of a passive player, who reacts to changes in society,
which are then reflected in the world of work. Later in the extract, the collegial and collaborative
(feminine) approach she identifies with, is represented as the most appropriate for the long-term
success of the organisation. Once again, she finds external legitimisation for her approach. Her
way of managing to meet the demands of the current environment.

Discussion and conclusion

The analysis of the discourses of the interviewees at this new university has highlighted interesting
aspects, which need further consideration. The realisation that new universities employ more
women in senior positions than traditional universities do may suggest that they are effectively
implementing equal opportunities as a political objective. A focus on new universities, where the
women manager may be coming to the fore, may help in outlining the conditions and structures
under which women can progress.
From a general look at the distribution of managerial positions within the institution studied, an
aspect worthy of consideration is the fact that women may be gaining preferment in newer
universities. The Dean of the school stated that, in the last four years, she employed more women
than men and that when women applied for jobs they were more successful than men. As
suggested by Hearn (2001), the higher the status of the university, the more male academics are
likely to work there. One may argue that the situation is one in which male academics may be
choosing to withdraw from working in new universities and reassert their masculine domination
within more prestigious powerful universities which have better access to research and financial
resources. Thus, male academics may use their greater positional power to buttress the culture of
homosociability and keep women confined to niche positions such as teaching and pastoral care,
which still represent the main corpus of activities in new universities. This view also finds
confirmation in the perception of one interviewee who suggests that men are more concerned
with status and that women are prepared to do the jobs that men are not prepared to do (e.g.
“thoroughly” managing a department, managing academic awards). It is worth noting that at this
academic school all professors are men.
The analysis of the processes of construction of women’s professional and feminine identity has
highlighted a strong element of identification with stereotypical women managers. In fact, the
discourses emerged from the analysis of the interview material focused around four themes
named as: multi-tasking, people and communication skills, supporting-nurturing and team-based
approach. In examining the accounts of the management practices of women executives and
Heads of Department it is evident that they accept gender-differentiated criteria for managing in a
“feminine way”. They represent this different way of managing as an alternative to corporate
masculinity and create their organisational femininity; doing so they “belong” and legitimise
women managers as a group.
It appears that, for the creation and maintenance of feminine identities, a process of separation
between females and males is fundamental. However, the boundaries of femininities and
masculinities are continuously recreated. Within women’s discourses, it is clear that they construct
femininities as separated by masculinities. They use stereotypical feminine discourses (multi-
tasking, people and communication skills, supporting and nurturing and team-work) to highlight
the feminine content of their work and their ways of managing and interacting at work. They
attribute specific aspects to feminine ways of managing and often construct femininities as
opposed to masculinities. This seems important in relation to women’s and men’s differing gender
identities, with the women still needing to feel that they are maintaining a “feminine” working
environment in order not to become disassociated from their own individual identity. However, it
is also clear that some of the women managers interviewed denied some feminine attributes (e.g.
emotional, soft) to show masculine qualities (e.g. control).
The school observed is mainly managed by women, and one may ask whether a process of
feminisation is taking place in a traditionally masculine organisation, or whether a dichotomy
between feminine and masculine culture(s) exist. The analysis of the data highlighted an important
phenomenon. While masculine values seem to be predominant within this academic institution
(e.g. hierarchical structure, managerialism, emphasis on productivity and accountability), the
identity work which goes on challenges the idea of specific feminine (and masculine) identities.
The masculine culture of the organisation was also acknowledged by both managers and staff,
who denied the femininity of the institution. This puts some strain on the gender identity of the
women who manage it who tend to restore their femininities emphasising development and
support. This appears to be the mechanism used by these women to address the divergences
between their style and the university culture. It has been previously acknowledged by other
authors (Joyner and Preston, 1998) that women’s leadership styles tend to bring them into conflict
with universities norms and culture. For men, the dominance and successes of female managers
appears to be triggering a process of upholding and restoring the masculinity of the workplace,
often by undervaluing the work of their female colleagues and managers. As Katila and
Marila¨inen (1999, p. 171) reported:
... when women become visible either by being explicitly competent or when they become large in
number they constitute a threat to the prevailing system. Men start to feel unease which become
evident in different slip of tongue expressing that the situation is not “normal” or “natural”.

As acknowledged by Gherardi (1994, p. 598):

... in social practices, increasingly more women operate in a plurality of arenas, they break with
traditional role models, they create a space which is both practical and mental, structural and
projectual, adaptive to give constrains and productive of new personal and social arrangements.

The boundaries between the male and female universes have become fluid, negotiable,
intersected, merged.
The study suggests that women at this institution use stereotypical attributes of femininity to
legitimise a more general feminine management culture with which they identify themselves. It
also highlights that there may be discrepancies between the theoretical constructs of femininities
and masculinities proposed by researchers. This study offers a picture of the particular institution
observed in a specific period of its life. However, without more women in senior academic
positions the emergence of diverse approaches to management will be constrained.

Notes

1 Collinson and Hearn (1996) report that women comprise less that 5 per cent of senior
management in the UK and US. In 1998, The Institute of Management revealed that only 3.6 per
cent of company directors are women. Adams (2002) reports that women represent less than 2
per cent of senior board room executive posts in Britain; this proportion has barely changed over
the last ten years.
2 HESA (2000).
3 With new university, I refer to a post-1992 university, an institution which in 1992 changed its
status from polytechnic to university.
4 The content in brackets is my addition.
5 The length of service at this institution of the women managers interviewed is: Dean, four years;
Associate Dean S. 12 years; Associate Dean J. two years; Head of department L. 11 years; Head of
department S. 11 years.
6 Hearn (2001) reports that, for cultural and historical reasons, the new universities employ more
women in senior positions than traditional universities. In the UK, the first woman Vice-chancellor
was appointed in a new university and only in 1995 a woman was appointed Vice-chancellor of a
traditional university.

References