LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

MSC CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT

BEPG7042
PROJECT MANAGEMENT THEORY AND PRACTICE
ASSIGNMENT 1
CULTURE

Dr. David James Bryde

25TH NOVEMBER 2011

BY: PRISILIA PUTRI
 Masculinity and Femininity as Culture in Project Management

Abstract

There are various ways to define culture including definition of organisational culture and
national culture. Hofstede (1980 cited in Pheng & Yuquan, 2002) suggests that national
culture has four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. The aim of this paper is to focus on
masculinity and femininity as one of culture dimensions which applies in an organisation.
Masculine cultures are described as being dominated by power relationships and often are
results-oriented while feminine cultures are more connected with interpersonal relationships
and process-oriented. One of the key aspects is to identify that masculinity and femininity is
not mainly about the difference in biological types but also to be viewed as the
characteristics that are determined socially and therefore has the concept that can be
applied as culture. Another key aspect is to combine both masculinity and femininity in
project management rather than to practise only one approach. Research suggests that the
masculinity and femininity has to be combined in terms of crisis management. Furthermore,
construction industry has been described as a masculine industry in which number of
woman involved in construction projects is quite limited and therefore femininity approach is
rarely practised. A case study in Taiwan construction industry is provided to illustrate the
positive impact of merging both cultures.

Introduction

Culture has been defined in many ways. Hofstede (1994a) (cited in Fellows, 2006) defines
culture as the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of
one human group from those of another. As mentioned by Scott et al. (2003) (cited in
Hudelson, 2004), from anthropologist point of view, culture is defined as an “attribute”,
something the organization “has”, along with other attributes such as structure and
“strategy”. Culture is seen as an independent variable that can be manipulated through
management interventions in order to achieve organizational goals (Hudelson, 2004).

Various typologies have been suggested as useful means of describing differences in culture
between organizations (Cartwright & Gale, 1995b). Harrison (1972, 1987 cited in Cartwright
& Gale, 1995b) discusses four main types of organizational culture: power, role,
task/achievement, and person/support. Deal and Kennedy (1982 cited in Cartwright & Gale,
1995b) also have proposed four generic culture types as determined exclusively by one
aspect of organizational behaviour – the degree and speed of feedback on whether
decisions or strategies are successful. According to Mant (1983 cited in Cartwright & Gale,
1995b), Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g. USA, UK and Australia) tend towards masculinity and
individualism. In contrast, Scandinavian countries (e.g. Sweden, Denmark and Norway) tend
towards more feminine cultures while still retaining a high degree of individualism (Cartwright
& Gale, 1995b).

Hofstede (1980 cited in Pheng & Yuquan, 2002) describes four dimensions of a national
culture:
1. Power distance, i.e. the extent of power inequality among members of an organizational
society;
2. Uncertainty avoidance, i.e. the extent to which members of an organizational society feel
threatened by and try to avoid future uncertainty or ambiguous situations;
3. Individualism and collectivism, which describes the relationship between the individual
and the collectivity that is reflected in the way people live together; and
4. Masculinity and femininity, i.e. the extent of roles division between sexes to which people
in a society put different emphasis on work goals and assertiveness as opposed to
personal goals and nurturance.

The culture and style of work organisation in general and project management in particular
will almost certainly have an important influence on how, why and when things are done on
projects and who does them (Cartwright & Gale, 1995b). Culture within organisations is
reflected in the way that people perform tasks, set objectives and administer the necessary
resources to achieve objectives (Barthope, Duncan & Miller, 2000). Culture affects the way
that people make decisions, think, feel and act in response to the opportunities and threats
affecting the organization (Thompson, 1993 cited in Barthope, Duncan & Miller, 2000). This
essay therefore will focus on gender as one of culture, masculinity and femininity
characteristics and its impact in project management, particulary in construction project.

Gender Developed as Culture

According to Cartwright & Gale (1995b), the terms “sex” and “gender” are often confusing.
Sex is a biological type. Individuals are born having a male or female sex type. However,
gender is socially constructed (Garrett, 1987 as cited in Cartwright & Gale, 1995b) and
subsequently learned. There is, of course, a strong association between biological sex type
and gender values (Cartwright & Gale, 1995b). Once uncoupled from biological sex, as has
been discussed, the concept of gender can be applied to cultures as having a
masculine/feminine dimension (Cartwright & Gale, 1995b).

With the development of capitalism, forms of industrial work and masculinity have become
intertwined (Mills & Chiaramonte, 1991). Paul Willis (1977 cited in Mills & Chiaramonte,
1991) has indicated how those links persist today as young, working class males adopt
macho images as they prepare to take their place in the industrial world. Similarly David
Livingstone and Meg Luxton's (1989) (cited in Mills & Chiaramonte, 1991) description of
masculinity among Canadian steel workers gives us a feel for the persistence of the link
between male image and industrial work. However, as the profession confronts the growing
need to manage expectations, relationships and trust (Hartman, 2000; Sweeney, 1999 cited
in Buckle & Thomas, 2003), this style of behaviour is being called into question. There is a
trend towards accepting the ‘‘softer’’ side of project management appears to correlate with
the increasing acceptance of feminine strengths legitimized by literature in organizational
theory, management, and the sciences (Buckle & Thomas, 2003)

Femininity-masculinity dimension is first only applied to the gender role view; however it
emerges as a pattern of female nurturing (femininity) that is associated with harmony,
helpfulness, and humility, and a male assertiveness pattern (masculinity) that is associated
with aggression, exhibition, and conceit once applying to the national culture as a whole
(Hofstede, 1983 cited in Tsai & Chi, 2009)

Masculinity and Femininity Characteristic

It is suggested that masculine cultures are likely to be dominated by power relationships and
are results-oriented (Cartwright & Gale, 1995b). Masculine sensemaking tends to value
independence, self-sufficiency, separation, power deriving from hierarchical authority
(Mellymuka, 1999 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003), competitiveness (Stuhlmacher &
Walters, 1999 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003) and analytical and impersonal problem
solving (Gilligan, 1982; Hughes, 2000; Daley & Naff, 1998; Rossen, 1987; Eagley &
Johnson, 1990 as cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003).
Individuals with strong masculine styles hold a value system focusing on mastery over their
environment (Hughes, 2000; Eagley & Johnson, 1990; Keller, 1978; Martin, 2000 cited in
Buckle & Thomas, 2003). They apply objective and impersonal criteria to decision-making,
taking an adversarial stance in evaluating information (Magolda, 1992; Clinchy, 1996;
Belenky et al., 1997 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003). Their reasoning styles detach them
from the individuals and situations they seek to understand. This detachment is termed ‘field
independence,’ and manifests in a person’s preference to fidelity and conformance to
predetermined models of project reality, and preference to execute tasks according to those
predetermined views, regardless of the peculiarities of the specific situation (Haaken, 1988;
Martin, 1996 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003).

Cartwright & Gale (1995b) mention that feminine cultures are likely to be more concerned
with interpersonal relationships and be process-oriented. As has been suggested, power
cultures are likely to be experienced by the vast majority of men and women as being less
satisfying than are task or team cultures which place a greater emphasis on expert
knowledge than on positional power and allow members more individual autonomy.

Feminine sensemaking involves placing primacy on one’s connection with others (Fletcher,
1998; Clinchy, 1996; Belenky et al, 1997 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003). Such individuals
value sharing power (Martin, 2000 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003) and information (Daley
& Naff, 1988; Rosener, 1990 cited in Buckle & Thomas 2003), prize democratic or
participative decision-making (Eagley, Makhijani & Klonsky, 1992; Tarule, 1996 cited in
Buckle & Thomas, 2003) and tend to create cooperative work settings (Hughes, 2000;
Belenky et al, 1997 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003). Their tendency to be seen as
interpersonally supportive (Rosener, 1990; Jordan, 1997 cited in Buckle & Thomas 2003)
likely derives from their reasoning style that connects them to others as they attempt to
understand the experiences that produce another’s viewpoint. Feminine cognition can be
viewed as ‘field dependent,’ focusing on conceiving of tasks and plans through consideration
of the particular, idiosyncratic demands of the moment. Field dependent behaviour is
informed primarily in response to emerging realities, relationships, and information (Haaken,
1998 cited in Buckle & Thomas 2003).

Individuals with highly developed feminine behaviours tend to excel in skills of empathy
(Clinchy, 1996 cited in Buckle & Thomas 2003), mutuality (Weskott, 1997; Jordan, 1997
cited in Buckle & Thomas 2003), reciprocity, collaborative sensemaking and working styles
(Tarule, 1996 cited in Buckle & Thomas 2003), and a ‘‘sensitivity to ‘situations’ emotional
contexts’’ (Fletcher, 1998; Eagley & Johnson, 1990; Jordan, 1997 cited in Buckle & Thomas
2003). They excel at being helpful, sympathetic, and understanding (Goldberger 1997;
Kirchmeyer, 1998 cited in Buckle & Thomas 2003). As managers, they tend to look out for
the welfare of subordinates (Eagley, Makhijani & Klonsky, 1992 cited in Buckle & Thomas,
2003), excel at developing strong networks of information and power sharing (Daley & Naff,
1998 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003), contribute to the power and status of others
(Gherardi, 1994 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003), and may exert influence through reliance
on innovation, and the strategic use of charisma (Rosener, 1990 cited in Buckle & Thomas,
2003). Overall, their workplace behaviours can be characterized as highly interpersonal.

In summary, masculinity is associated with big power, often forceful, result-oriented,

competitive while femininity is related to personal connection, collaborative work, main
attention is to the process rather than the result and supportive.

Gender Approach on Project Management

Project management has been characterized as a ‘‘macho profession’’ (Cartwright & Gale,
1995; Cartwright & Gale, 1995 cited in Buckle & Thomas, 2003). Early work (Scheil, 1975
cited in Sheafer, Bogler & Sarfaty, 2011) about gender stereotypes found that men were
more likely to possess the characteristics associated with managerial success. Indeed, most
descriptors of male managers portray them as being assertive, self-reliant, competitive,
objective, forceful, ambitious, emotionally stable and self-confident (Paris et al., 2009 cited in
Sheafer, Bogler & Sarfaty, 2011). These results have not changed substantially over time, as
aptly noted by Berthoin-Antal and Izraeli (1993 cited in Sheafer, Bogler & Sarfaty, 2011), and
that presumably the most important obstacle for women in management is the persistent
stereotype that associates management with maleness.

Different culture in particular masculinity and femininity resulted in different way to manage a
project. Power cultures, which it is suggested epitomize masculinity, are characterized by
command structures and expect employees to “do what they are told without questioning”
(Cartwright & Gale, 1995b). They are also highly politicized environments and operate on the
axiom of “survival of the fittest”. There has been substantial research comparing the
managerial styles of men and women (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1993 cited in Cartwright & Gale,
1995b). A recent unpublished study (Ferrario, 1990 cited in Cartwright & Gale, 1995b) of 124
female managers and 95 male managers found that women have significantly more of a
team management style than do men, characterized by a high regard for people and a high
regard for task. Vinnicombe (1987) (cited in Cartwright & Gale, 1995b) found that, compared
with males, women are less “traditional” and more “visionary” in their approach to business –
a valuable asset to any organization. This description on how masculinity and femininity
nurture a project is not to compare which one is more suitable or one is better than the other
but more to understand each approach has uniqueness and thus has to be combined in
practise.

In term of managing crisis in organisation, research has proved that feminine leadership
traits would be more conductive. The distinction between people (supposedly women)
versus task-oriented (supposedly men) leadership styles has generated prolific literature
(Kaiser et al., 2008 cited in Sheaffer, Bogler & Sarfaty, 2011) and it largely corresponds with
transformational and transactional leadership (Purvanova and Bono, 2009 cited in Sheaffer,
Bogler & Sarfaty, 2011). Accordingly, women tend to endorse the people-oriented style
(Avolio et al., 2009 cited in Sheaffer, Bogler & Sarfaty, 2011). Generally, a transformative-
oriented managerial style is typified by empowerment, participatory teamwork and a
decentralized structure. This managerial pattern facilitates decision making based on
consensus, and diversity of ideas that often enhance cooperation during crises (Bartunek et
al., 2000 cited in Sheaffer, Bogler & Sarfaty, 2011). Sheaffer, Bogler & Sarfaty (2011) then
conclude that feminine characteristics would be helpful in enhancing crisis prepadness.
Thus, it is reasonable to expect that both male and female managers endorsing
transformational leadership would be more crises prepared.

Gender Influence in Conflict Resolution of Construction Industry

Case Study – Taiwan Construction Industry

According to Tsai & Chi (2009), experience shows that many disputes can be avoided at the
job site entirely, but much too often, contractors and field engineers fail to negotiate and
solve disagreements in the first place. Once an issue leaves the field, a disagreement that
lingers inevitably becomes a dispute.

Tsai & Chi (2009) further interview Chinese residing in Taiwan for the focus group. 62
engineering students in universities and 64 engineers in industry practices, totalling 126.
Their study is an attempt to understand the Chinese strategies that lead to resolving
construction disputes in public projects. Tsai & Chi (2009) describe that Chinese in Taiwan
specify particular expectations on how disputes should be preceded for resolutions—with
profound effects on the styles people learned as participants in this culture. Based on the
assumption that cultural orientations affect interpersonal conflicts, the study explores the
correlation between cultural orientations and conflict management styles at the individual
level (Tsai & Chi, 2009).

Part of the variable the study used is masculinity and femininity. The study shows that
masculinity uplifts the employment of dominating and collaborating approaches while
femininity is associated with avoiding and accommodating approaches, because of their
different concerns on achievement and harmony, respectively. (Tsai & Chi, 2009)

The investigation data shows that people of the focus group tend to adjust their attitudes to
the traits of avoiding and accommodating approaches against conflicts of different social
contexts in workplace (Tsai & Chi, 2009). Examining the survey results as a whole, the
variance between individuals’ predisposition conflict approach, and their adjusted
approaches, the study found that the adjustment tendency is correlated with culture
orientations (Tsai & Chi, 2009).

In brief, Tsai & Chi (2009) believe people are the driver who move forward the construction
project and carry out the production works. People’s intention and behaviour in a certain
institutional system are influenced by their cultural orientations. In this study, it is
demonstrated the influence of cultural orientations on to resolve disputes employing
Taiwan’s construction industry as the case.

Tsai & Chi (2009) fully agree that the only way to change the adversarial climate on
construction projects is to develop techniques for encouraging people to communicate,
cooperate, deal realistically with problems at the time they occur, and resolve disputes as
early as possible. Those characteristic is matched with femininity approach even when
construction industry is always associated with masculinity which according to Cartwright &
Gale (1995a) is characterized by male dominant, crisis, aggression and conflict.

Conclusion

In conclusion, masculinity and femininity is one of important culture in organisational culture.

It is to be noted that the term masculinity and femininity is not only used to distinguish the
sex type amongst people but also to describe the characteristics in managing project in
particular in construction industry. Masculinity and femininity as culture have unique
characteristic. Masculinity is associated with strength, aggressive and task oriented while
femininity is more focused on sharing emotions, democratic, cooperation and
communication. Although both seems like contradicting with each other, it is important to
combine both cultures when managing a project in particular in resolving dispute or crisis in
an organisation. The case study in Taiwan construction industry proves that even though
construction industry has always been associated with masculinity, femininity approach is
also effective when it comes to conflict resolution.
 References

1. Barthorpe, S., Duncan, R. and Miller, C.(2000) “The pluralistic facets of culture and
its impact on construction” Propery Management Vol.18(5), pp. 335-351

2. Buckle, P. and Thomas, J. (2003) “Deconstructing project management: a gender

analysis of project management guidelines” International Joural of Project
Management Vol.21, pp. 433-441

3. Cartwright, S. and Gale, A. (1995a) “Woman in project management: entry into a

male domain? A discussion on gender and organizational culture – part 1”
Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol.16(2), pp. 3-8

4. Cartwright, S. and Gale, A. (1995b) “Project management: different gender, different

culture? A discussion on gender and organizational culture – part 2” Leadership &
Organization Development Journal Vol.16(4), pp.12-16
5. Fellows, R. (2006) “Understanding approaches to culture.” Construction Information
Quarterly Vol.8, pp. 160

6. Hudelson, PM. (2004) “Culture and quality: an anthropological perspective.”

International Journal for Quality in Health Care Vol.16(5), pp. 345-346

7. Mills, AJ. and Chiaramonte, P. (1991) “Organization as Gendered Communication

Act” Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol.16(3)

8. Pheng, LS. and Yuquan, S. (2002) “An exploratory study if Hofstede’s cross-cultural
dimensions in construction projects” Management Decision Journal Vol.40(1), pp. 7-
16

9. Sheaffer, Z., Bogler, R. and Sarfaty, S. (2011) “Leadership attributes, masculinity and
risk taking as predictors of crisis proneness” Gender in Management: An
International Journal Vol.26(2), pp. 163-187

10. Tsai, JS. and Chi, CSF. (2009) “Influences of Chinese Cultural Orientations and
Conflict Management Styles on Construction Dispute Resolving Strategies” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management Vol.135(10), pp. 955-964
 Rich Picture

Main Characteristic of Masculinity and Femininity

Relationship Helpful
Process
Sympathetic
Communic Oriented
ation Understanding

Power
Oriented ambitious
Result
Self
oriented
sufficiency

Independent
Aggressive