rethinking organisations: a feminist perspective
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Texas A & M International University]On: 04 October 2014, At: 08:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Gender & DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgde20
Rethinking organisations: Afeminist perspectiveAruna Rao & Rieky StuartPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Aruna Rao & Rieky Stuart (1997) Rethinking organisations: A feministperspective, Gender & Development, 5:1, 10-16, DOI: 10.1080/741922295
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/741922295
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
8:10
04
Oct
ober
201
4
In the past few years, those of us whowork in development organisationshave seen a number of brilliant and
extremely useful efforts by individuals,both women and men, which have made adifference for women. Each of us couldidentify programmes, projects, andinitiatives that have been quite stunningin their impact. But our impression is thatthese successes, important as they are,have mainly been accomplished byindividuals who are often swimmingagainst the flow in their own organisation.They succeed in spite of, and not becauseof, the way their organisations work.
The writers of this article choseorganisational transformation as a focusfor the Canada conference, and for ourwider work, because organisations aresuch important arenas of humanengagement. Whether they are smallNGOs, government departments, univer-sities, or for-profit companies, organisa-tions are fundamental features of our
societies, and very important ways ofmobilising social energy. We need to thinkmore deeply about organisations them-selves. Trying to `add gender’ into theirstructure and work is not enough; we needto understand and re-conceptualise whatan organisation is, and then we need to re-invent organisations and institutions of allkinds in all our societies.
It became clear at the conference thatwhat we are aiming at is organisationaltransformation. We are not talking aboutorganisational development, nor aboutorganisational change. In the case ofdevelopment organisations, we meanincluding women as architects anddesigners of programmes, and as agents,managers, and beneficiaries; and reshap-ing social institutions and organisations toinclude men and women’s varied pers-pectives.1 We want to move organisationsin a direction that can accommodate,cherish, and foster the creativity and theproductivity of women, men, young, old,
Gender and Development10
Rethinking organisations: a feminist perspective
Aruna Rao and Rieky Stuart
In April 1996, 24 women and men from Asia, Africa, Latin and North America, and Europe metfor five days in Canada, to share their experience of helping organisations, especially developmentorganisations, to include women in their programmes, and ensure equitable power relationsbetween women and men. This article gives an account of some of the ideas and observationsabout organisational transformation which emerged at this conference.
Gender and Development Vol 5, No. 1, February 1997 ISSN 1364± 9221
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
& M
Int
erna
tiona
l Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
8:10
04
Oct
ober
201
4
people of colour, people of differingability. We want organisations to incorp-orate goals and values that are life-affirming, human-centred, and justice-oriented. We need to challenge andchange the `deep structures’ of the organ-isations in which we work.
Theory and methodology
There are two conceptual `lenses’ that wehave found very useful in our work, boththeoretically and practically. One isorganisational theory. There is a body ofknowledge about what organisations are,how they work, and how they change,that has not been generally incorporatedby development practitioners, includinggender and development practitioners.
The second conceptual lens is morefamiliar: the learning from feminist theoryand practice, from Women in Develop-ment (WID) initiatives, and the learningfrom attempts to apply a gender perspect-ive to development. Using these twolenses together is very helpful in identify-ing promising approaches to organisa-tional transformation.
Images of organisations
At the Canada conference, we began by
asking people to share with us their
images of and metaphors for organisa-
tions. We wanted them to think holistic-
ally about what an organisation is.
Organisations as onionsWe ourselves have worked with a verywide range of development and otherorganisations, including Northern andSouthern NGOs, bilateral and multilateralorganisations, and for-profit organisa-tions. The image that captures our exper-ience of introducing a gender perspectivein organisations is the peeling of an onion.An onion must be peeled to release itsflavour, yet the process brings tears; and
as you peel, you encounter layer afterlayer. Recognising that organisations, too,have many `layers’ , helps to explain whystrategies and activities focused on a singlelayer of the organisation may be necessarybut may not be sufficient.
For example, one of the approaches tochange in organisations is by developinggender policies. Sometimes the policieslook marvellous, and are very useful forpublic relations purposes. But often theydon’ t have many plans or resourcesattached to them; they sit and gather duston the shelves. A policy on affirmativeaction is necessary, but not sufficient. Theactual number of women, or old people, oryoung people, or people of colour in anorganisation is important but more import-ant is how they think and what they do.Gender parity and meeting diversity quotasmay not change power relations which arestructured by gender, race or class.
Similarly, initiatives which address asingle aspect of the ways in which theorganisation fails to consider women arenecessary but not sufficient. Simply per-forming a gender analysis is not enough.We can know how women in general orspecific groups of women are disadvant-aged, in the organisation itself and in itswork, but if we lack the capacity to changethe situation, organisational transforma-tion will not occur.
A third example is the use of perform-ance indicators. These, too, are necessarybut not sufficient, if performance ismeasured solely in terms of countinginputs, and does not focus on outcomes orimpact. One of the famous jokes atCanadian CIDA is the response of someengineers when asked about the differ-ential impact of their highway construc-tion project on women and men: `well,women walk on roads too’ (personalcommunication). Even gender trainingand sensitisation are necessary but notsufficient, if participants are unable orunwilling to apply their learning.
Rethinking organisations 11D
ownl
oade
d by
[T
exas
A &
M I
nter
natio
nal U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
10 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Organisations as icebergsAnother participant thought of organisa-tions as icebergs: when you study anorganisation, you may not see all thatexists. Each organisation has unconsciousor submerged values in its culture, and ahistory which influences its way of work-ing. These unseen dimensions may movean organisation in a direction which youmay not anticipate, if all you consider iswhat can be seen on the surface. In ourdiscussions, we termed that which is notvisible, `deep structure’. In trying to trans-form organisations, we need to be moreaware of what is unconscious or invisible,and what is conscious or visible, to resolvethe tensions between the two.
Our first illustration of this comes fromthe findings of some work done in for-profit corporations in the US (Rapoport etal., forthcoming). This Ford Foundation-supported action-research carried out inthree sites within the Xerox Corporation,Corning, and Tandem Corporations, useda work-family lens to introduce workplaceinnovations that helped to ease thepersonal situation of the employees whileat the same time enhancing business goals.The research revealed that one set ofcharacteristics and behaviour that wasunconsciously valued in these organisa-tions was heroism. A `hero’ Ð someonewho will stay at the office working for 24hours when the report is due, who canrespond to an emergency and solve theproblem Ð is noticed, has a high profile,feels valued, and is promoted.
In comparison, the report showed thatskills such as preventing crises, buildingrelationships, coordinating, thinking inadvance, and helping things to movesmoothly and calmly, were effectivelyinvisible; they were undervalued, and notas likely to lead to promotion. The uncon-scious values, which reinforce `heroic’behaviour and make the exercise of pre-ventive skills invisible, are one example ofwhat we called `deep structure’.
Another example was given by aparticipant at the Canada conference. Shetold fellow participants that in her view,the visible purpose of the World Bank isdevelopment. But what is unacknow-ledged, is that the really important task isto move money Ð lots of it Ð on time. Thisis what people are rewarded for. Movingmoney on time and in big quantities mayor may not be good development. Thereare tensions on many levels, including theamount of money that the multilateralagency thinks is appropriate to lend to aparticular country, and the many defini-tions of ̀ good development’ on the part oflender, beneficiary government, andNGOs of all kinds within the country(Conference, 1995).
A third example of the need to considerthe deep structure of an organisationcomes from the work we have been doingwith BRAC, the well-known NGO inBangladesh. A central goal of BRAC is theempowerment of the disadvantaged, par-ticularly poor women. One of the waysthis is put into practice is through a creditprogramme. The staff spend a lot of timegiving out loans and collecting loaninstalments, and this may occasionally bedone quite coercively; coercion of poorwomen to make repayments is hardlyempowerment. Thus, there is a tensionbetween the espoused goals and values ofthe organisation and its way of working(personal experience, BRAC GenderTeam, August 1996).
Focusing on three areas ofdeep structure
There are three areas of deep structurethat participants believed to be of partic-ular importance in looking at gender andorganisational transformation.
The `work:life’ divideFirst, in almost all organisations there is adichotomy between paid work and
Gender and Development12D
ownl
oade
d by
[T
exas
A &
M I
nter
natio
nal U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
10 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
everything else: family, community, life.Work is extremely important, both in theamount of time allocated to paid work,and in the meaning and shape it gives topeople’s lives. This is an aspect of modern-isation that seems inseparable fromorganisations as we know them.
When we are at work, we are notsupposed to be concerned with family orwith community. When we look at anorganisation’s practice, we need to payattention to evidence of expectations thatstaff should place their employment at thecentre of their lives. This is very significantwhen trying to address gender inequality,because of women’ s current role asprimary carers for the family.
The exercise of powerA second area of deep structure to look forconcerns the practice of power. In almostall organisations, power is equated withcontrol and hierarchy. One metaphor forthis is to think of power as a pie: if I havemore, you have less. The superior takes asmuch of the pie as he or she can get, andthe subordinate has to be satisfied withless.
In examining this aspect of deepstructure, one of the characteristics to lookfor is who has the information and how itis shared; organisations can spend a greatdeal of time worrying about information,because it is a source of power.
A different way of thinking aboutpower is as something we can create, addto, and build on. Instead of seeing poweras a finite resource, power is infinite. Forexample, parents have almost completepower over their small children. Parentsdo not necessarily feel, as the child growsup and becomes more powerful, that theybecome less powerful. If their goal is toraise children who are strong, independ-ent, responsible, and capable, then accom-plishing this enhances the parents’ ownsocial power and prestige. This view ofpower stresses it as a source of energy,
which has to be distributed to be useful: avery different view from that prevalent inmost organisations; however, some usethis understanding of power when theytalk about `self-managing teams’, or about`mentoring’.
Foci and ways of workingA third area of organisational deepstructure is what we are tentatively callingthe `monoculture of instrumentality’ .What we mean by this phrase is the tend-ency of organisations to focus narrowly ona single purpose, and on one course ofaction to get there. These limited object-ives, ways of working, and perceptionsare often indicated by the presence ofdepartmental `silos’ which try to exist asindependently as possible. For example,in BRAC, we might say that the `mono-culture’ of credit and meeting credittargets drives out an attention to broaderaspects of women’s empowerment. Yetachieving credit targets is not the onlyway to foster women’s empowerment.
To have more complex objectives fororganisations is more challenging but alsoricher. A corporation normally has onegoal: to earn profit. Adding to that thegoals of being a good corporate citizen, agood employer, and environmentallysound, greatly complicates how thatorganisation works. But it may also makeit richer in many dimensions, including itslong-term profitability. Attention to thebalance between family and work, in theFord Foundation study, for example, alsoresulted in increased productivity inseveral cases.
Another aspect of monocultural think-ing is that rationality is the only aspect ofhuman intellect which is appropriate tothe workplace. In fact, people in organisa-tions do not operate only on the basis ofintellect, but on intuition, emotions, theego, and complex individual needs.
While the visible structure uses thelanguage of intellect, merit, and
Rethinking organisations 13D
ownl
oade
d by
[T
exas
A &
M I
nter
natio
nal U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
10 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
accomplishment for all organisationalprocesses and products, what mayactually be driving decisions and actionsare emotions and needs such as the desirefor status and power.
Finally, if an organisation thinks toonarrowly or instrumentally about accom-plishing stated goals, it may undermineits ability to achieve those goals. Even iforganisations believe, for example, thatdiversity of thought and equity amongdifferent groups represented on the staffenrich the organisation, they often alsofear that such diversity is costly. That costthey see as a distraction from the mainenterprise of the organisation. What theydo not often see is the reward: greaterresources and perspectives to tap in orderto cope with external change and tackleinternal problems.
Promoting change in thedeep structure
Participants at the Conference had variousideas about approaches that had thepotential to change aspects of the deepstructure of organisations, in terms ofgender issues:
Linking feminist goals to organisationalvaluesFirst, the feminist goals of social trans-formation need to be linked to theespoused values of the organisation.Positive change will not come about ifthere is no direct connection betweenwomen’s empowerment, gender trans-formation, and the explicit values of theorganisation. For example, in BRAC, theGender Programme focused on theorganisation’s goal of poverty alleviationand women’s empowerment by workingon programme and organisational quality.This meant addressing a range of issuesconcerning programme effectiveness,organisational systems and cultures, andthe ability of the organisation to retain
greater numbers of qualified women staff,as well as fostering better workingrelationships between male and femalestaff.
If, however, an intervention is linkedsolely to the narrower objectives of anorganisation Ð effectiveness of the creditprogramme, for example Ð there may bevery real short-term gains, but there is adanger in the long run that the goal ofgender equity will be disregarded becauseit is not congruent with the real businessof the organisation. Most if not all not-for-profit institutions have socially laudablegoals. Therefore, linking these goals withgender equity objectives becomes a matterof judgement and creativity on the part ofthe change agent, who needs to use avariety of strategies to build support fororganisational transformation. Organisa-tions which are not run for profit maycouch their motivations in languagewhich suggests a commitment to socialtransformation; this potentially providesa lever with which to work.
Understanding multiple perspectivesSecondly, it is critical to start from where
people are. Strategies must be negotiated,
and spaces for change must be sought. We
are all familiar with the multiple meanings
attached to the concept of `gender’ , and
the many implications of these for
different organisational contexts, and for
different people. We must negotiate with
members of the organisations, and dis-
cover what they see the issues to be
regarding gender.There will be a variety of factors to
consider: where to start, what level onwhich to begin work, which strategiesmight work, and what needs to be nego-tiated with the various groups involved.Clearly, elegant formulations and theoriesof gender relations and women’s disad-vantage (even useful ones), may need to bemodified to focus on the particular require-ments of the organisational context.
Gender and Development14D
ownl
oade
d by
[T
exas
A &
M I
nter
natio
nal U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
10 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
However, negotiation is not simply atactic to increase the enthusiasm of thosewith whom one is engaging in the organ-isations; the ideas of the change agent arealso a subject for negotiation. Though aschange agents we need to be clear that wehave our own ideals and perspectives, andare speaking in our own voices, we cannotremain fixed in our own position. We arenot limited to the role of advocate. Weneed to be aware in our turn that aspectsof deep structure are embedded in ourown unconscious; perhaps those veryaspects we are trying to change. AsRemmy Rikken of the NGO PILIPINAsays, `this is sacred ground, take yourshoes off and walk carefully’ (conference,1995). At the Canada conference, we usedthe term `changing agent’ to describe thisexperience.
Organisational work practicesThird, we need to examine organisational
work practices. How does the organisa-
tion get the job done? What does this tell
you about aspects of deep structure? By
examining work practices, we can uncover
the dissonance between organisational
values and culture Ð such as the ethic of
`hard work’ measured in terms of long
hours on the job Ð and organisational
practices as they have evolved over time.
In tracing the link between practice and
values, you may want to keep the values
but change the practice; in some cases, you
may want to change the values .For example, in CIMMYT (Centro
Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz yTrigo), the maize and wheat institute ofthe CGIAR (Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research)system, fieldwork is highly valued and itis generally assumed that as a scientistyou are not doing real scientific workunless you yourself travel up and downfrequently to the experimental stations.Sharing such responsibilities with seniortechnicians, through working in teams,
has been regarded as shirking one’ sresponsibilities. This `requirement’ of thejob has dissuaded many women scientistsfrom applying for jobs at CIMMYT, at atime when the organisation is trying tohire and retain more women and also tofind new ways of working, for example,by moving from breeding the best cropvarieties toward broader communityresource-management goals (MerrillSands, 1996).
Fourthly, it is important to bring silentvoices to the `surface’, or conscious level,of the organisation, and recognise that inevery organisation there are contestingmeanings. Listening to one group of voiceswithin or outside the organisation revealsonly one part of the story. As JoyceFletcher (Conference participant, North-eastern University, Boston) says, listeningto hitherto silent voices fills out thepicture. It is a little like a kaleidoscope Ðevery time you shake it or change the lens,you see a slightly different configurationof the same elements.
In listening to these other voices, weare bringing in other concepts of the truth,for example, what it feels like to be atvariance with the dominant culture. AsBarbara Williams (Conference participant,private consultant working with the Cityof Toronto) says, we can think of power ascirculating in language, and in the know-ledge that language authorises. Then it ispossible to see gaps in power, complica-tions, and contradictions. Other possibil-ities for mapping specific organisationalprocesses might be re-envisioned. But thisis tricky, because of the power of legitima-tion: what Stephen Lukes calls the `powerwithin’ Ð the subordination we acceptand internalise without questioning evenwhen it is contrary to our own self-interest(Lukes 1986). Some things are just thoughtto be right!
Finally, we need to challenge whatparticipants at the Canada Conferencetermed the `process-outcome split’ . We
Rethinking organisations 15D
ownl
oade
d by
[T
exas
A &
M I
nter
natio
nal U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
10 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
have a tendency to focus on outcomesrather than process, not recognising thatprocess itself may be an outcome. Forexample, organisational insiders do notsay, `last year we did accounting, so wedon’ t need to do that any more!’ Whyshould processes of change related togender be any different? To have an effect-ive organisation, you need to pay attentionto accounting all the time. Similarly, youalways need to pay attention to genderequity and to deep structure: inherentlypolitical processes.
Where does one start? There is an oldsaying that `there are no perfect places tostart, only real ones’ . But each strategymust be grounded in an understanding ofdeep structure, the importance of the`work-family split’ , an understanding ofpower as control, and the monoculture ofinstrumentality, to provide pathways forradical change, which is both necessaryand sufficient.
Aruna Rao is a gender and developmentconsultant and writer. Editor of `Women’sStudies International: Nairobi and Beyond’(The Feminist Press, 1991) and `GenderAnalysis and Development Planning: ACase Book’ (Kumarian Press, 1991), she haswritten extensively on gender analysis, gendertraining, and institutional development. From1994 to 1996, she headed the BRAC GenderProgramme. Currently, she is a VisitingFellow at the Simmons Institute for Leadershipand Change in Boston, USA.
7702 Hamilton Spring Road, Bethesda,MD 20817, USA. tel: 1 301 365 3886; e-mail:[email protected]
Rieky Stuart is Programme Manager for theCanadian Council for InternationalCooperation, the Canadian umbrellaorganisation for Canadian developmentNGOs. A development worker since the 1960s,she has worked as a trainer, writer andconsultant on organisational change since1985.
CCIC, 1 Nicholas Street, Suite 300, ottawa,Ontario K1N 7B7, Canada; tel: 1 613 2417007; e-mail: [email protected]
References
Lukes, S (ed) (1986) Power, Blackwell:Oxford.
Merrill Sands D Presentation on GenderIssues in the Workplace in CIMMYT atthe Association for Women inDevelopment Forum, Washington,DC, September 1996.
Rapoport, R and Bailyn, L (eds)(forthcoming) Relinking Life and Work:Towards a Better Future, FordFoundation, New York.
Notes
1 The report of the conference, Building aGlobal Network for Gender andOrganizational Change, by DavidKelleher, Aruna Rao, Rieky Stuart andKirsten Moore can be obtained fromRieky Stuart (CCIC, Ottawa, Canada;tel:1-613-241-7007, extn. 352; fax: 1-613-241-5302; email: [email protected]
Gender and Development16D
ownl
oade
d by
[T
exas
A &
M I
nter
natio
nal U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
10 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014