|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 244, Zeilen: 1 ff. (entire page) |
Quelle: Kark 2004 Seite(n): 166, 167, Zeilen: 166: 10-22, 31ff; 167: 1 ff. |
|---|---|
| [Therefore, according to this perspective, women's difficulties in getting promoted to leadership positions cannot be understood in] individual terms only, but rather as part of a wider social system of gender, in which the personal becomes political.
Following this perspective, radical feminism envisions a new social order where women are not subordinated to men. For this purpose it proposes alternative, often separatist, economic and cultural arrangements that undermine the values represented by a male-dominated culture (Calàs and Smircich, 1996). Radical feminists have proposed several ways to change the existing gender relationships ranging from working toward an androgynous culture, in which a biological male or female would be both masculine and feminine, to replacing male culture with a “female culture” (Tong, 1998). After further reflections on the concept of androgyny, many radical feminists concluded that the androgyny is not really a liberation strategy for women, and advocated the replacement of a male culture with a female culture (Rich, 1980). According to radical feminism, “women's difference” from men, in particular, their “relationship orientation” can constitute an effective management style (Ely and Meyerson, 2000). They emphasize the positive value of qualities identified with women (e.g. sensitivity, nurturance and emotional expressiveness), and highlight the benefits of women's ways of knowing (e.g. intuitive, non-verbal and spiritual) (Jagger, 1983). Gender resistance perspectives, as applied to leadership, led to work emphasizing that “women's ways of leading,” and their relational skills and intuitive mode of thinking were not deficiencies to be overcome, but advantages for corporate effectiveness (Hegelsen [sic], 1990; Peters, 1990; Rosener, 1990, 1995). Calàs, M.B. & Smircich, L. 1996. [sic] From the "woman's" point of view: Feminist approaches to organization studies, in the Handbook of Organizational Studies, S. Clegg, W. Nord [sic] & C. Hardy [sic] (eds.), London: Sage. Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behaviour [sic] , 22, 103-151. Hegelsen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday. Jagger A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totoway, [sic] NJ: Rowman & Allenheld. Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and the lesbian existence. Signs, 5(4): 631 660 [sic]. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 119–125. Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press. Tong, R. P. (1998). Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. |
Therefore, according to this perspective, women’s difficulties in getting promoted to leadership positions cannot be understood in individual terms only, but rather as part of a wider social system of gender, in which the “personal becomes political” (Tong, 1998).
Following this perspective, radical feminism envisions a new social order where women are not subordinated to men. For this purpose it proposes alternative, often separatist, economic and cultural arrangements that undermine the values represented by a male dominated culture (Calàs and Smircich, 1996). Radical feminists have proposed several ways to change the existing gender relationships ranging from working toward an androgynous culture, in which a biological male or female would be both masculine and feminine, to replacing male culture with a “female culture” (Tong, 1998). After further reflections on the concept of androgyny, many radical feminists concluded that the androgyny is not really a liberation strategy for women, and advocated the replacement of a male culture with a female culture (Rich, 1980). [...] According to radical feminism, psychoanalytical feminism and standpoint feminism, “women’s difference” from men, in particular, their “relationship orientation” can constitute an effective management style (Ely and Meyerson, 2000). They emphasize the positive value of qualities identified with women (e.g. sensitivity, nurturance and emotional expressiveness), and highlight the benefits of women’s ways of knowing (e.g. intuitive, non-verbal and spiritual) (Jagger, 1983). [...] [page 167] Gender resistance perspectives, as applied to leadership, led to work emphasizing that “women’s ways of leading”, and their relational skills and intuitive mode of thinking were not deficiencies to be overcome, but advantages for corporate effectiveness (Grant, 1986; Helgesen, 1990; Lipman-Blumen, 1992; Peters, 1990; Rosener, 1990, 1995). Calàs, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1996), “From the women’s point of view: feminist approaches to organization studies”, in Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W. (Eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, London, pp. 218-57. Ely, R.J. and Meyerson, D.E. (2000), “Theories of gender in organizations: a new approach to organizational analysis and change”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 103-51. Grant, J. (1986), “Women as managers: what they can offer to organizations”, Organizational Dynamics, pp. 56-63. Helgesen, S. (1990), The Female Advantage: Woman’s Ways of Leadership, Doubleday Currency, New York, NY. Jagger, A.M. (1983), Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1992), “Connective leadership: female leadership styles in the 21st-century workplace”, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 183-203. Rich, A. (1980), “Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence”, Signs, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 648-9. [sic] Rosener, J.B. (1990), “Ways women lead”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 119-25. Rosener, J.B. (1995), America’s Competitive Secret: Women Managers [sic], Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Tong, R. (1998), Feminist Thought [sic] A More Comprehensive Introduction, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. |
The true source is not given. There are eight hidden links in this fragment which all link to a URL containing a session identifier at the publisher www.emerald.com:
There is no entry for Peters 1990 in the reference list. The name of a journal is changed by Dsi to reflect British English, although the journal is published in America and the title is in American spelling. The subtitle for Rosener 1995 given by the source is incorrect, this is the subtitle for the 1997 edition. Dsi has the correct subtitle for 1995. The page numbers given for Rich 1990 in the source are incorrect, Dsi has the correct page numbers. |
|