Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]
| Autor | Ronit Kark |
| Titel | The transformational leader: who is (s)he? A feminist perspective |
| Zeitschrift | Journal of Organizational Change Management |
| Jahr | 2004 |
| Jahrgang | 17 |
| Nummer | 2 |
| Seiten | 160-176 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530593 |
| URL | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235320773_The_transformational_leader_Who_is_she_A_feminist_perspective |
Literaturverz. |
no |
| Fußnoten | no |
| Fragmente | 4 |
| [1.] Dsi/Fragment 231 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-12-28 14:26:48 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, Kark 2004, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 231, Zeilen: 1-7 |
Quelle: Kark 2004 Seite(n): 165, 166, Zeilen: 165: last paragraph; 166: 1 f. |
|---|---|
| [Although the gender] resistance conception of gender still focuses on gender differences, its proponents argue that these differences should not be eliminated, but rather, celebrated (Ely & Meyerson, 2000). This perspective emphasizes the importance of profound analysis and theorizing of women's experiences and situations, arguing that women have indeed certain experiences and interests that are basically different from those of most men, at least when it comes to how these experiences are formed and enacted under the existing patriarchal conditions (Alvesson & Billing, 1997).
Alvesson, M., & Billing, Y.D. (1997), Understanding Gender and Organisations [sic]. 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, 22, 103-151. |
[page 165]
Although the gender resistance conception of gender still focuses on gender differences, its proponents argue that these differences should not be eliminated, but rather, celebrated (Ely and Meyerson, 2000). This perspective stresses the importance of profound study and theorizing of women’s situation and experiences, contending that women have specific experiences and interests that essentially differ from those of the majority of men, at least with [page 166] regard to how these experiences are formed and enacted under the existing patriarchal conditions (Alvesson and Billing, 1997). Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y.D. (1997), Understanding Gender and Organizations, Sage, London. 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. |
The true source is not given. There are two hidden links in this fragment which both link to a URL containing a session identifier at the publisher www.emerald.com:
|
|
| [2.] Dsi/Fragment 243 16 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-12-28 17:18:40 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, Kark 2004, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 243, Zeilen: 16-21 |
Quelle: Kark 2004 Seite(n): 166, Zeilen: 3 ff. |
|---|---|
| Radical feminism has been highly influential in the study of gender and leadership. Resistance feminism grew out of women's dissatisfaction with liberal feminism and its endeavor to achieve equality by equating women to men (Lorber, 2001). What is seen by liberal feminists as individual challenges is seen by radical feminists more systematically, as the consequence of the privilege of men in a society where masculinity defines the norm (Jagger, 1983). 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.]
Jagger A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totoway [sic], NJ: Rowman & Allenheld. Lorber, J. (2001). Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. |
Within the gender resistance theories, radical feminism, standpoint feminism and psychoanalytical feminism have been highly influential in the study of gender and leadership. Resistance feminism grew out of women’s dissatisfaction with liberal feminism and its endeavor to achieve equality by equating women to men (Lorber, 2001). What is seen by liberal feminists as individual challenges is seen by radical feminists more systematically, as the consequence of the privilege of men in a society where masculinity defines the norm (Jagger, 1983). 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).
Jagger, A.M. (1983), Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ. Lorber, J. (2001), Gender Inequality, Roxbury Publishing, Los Angeles, CA. Tong, R. (1998), Feminist Thought A More Comprehensive Introduction, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. |
The true source is not given. There are two hidden links in this fragment which both link to a URL containing a session identifier at the publisher www.emerald.com:
|
|
| [3.] Dsi/Fragment 244 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-12-28 18:13:15 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, Kark 2004, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
| [4.] Dsi/Fragment 245 02 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-12-28 21:06:36 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, Kark 2004, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 245, Zeilen: 2-16, 18-19 |
Quelle: Kark 2004 Seite(n): 162, Zeilen: 23 ff. |
|---|---|
| The first and perhaps most common approach to gender equity is the gender reform approach. This approach, mostly represented by liberal feminism, asserts that gender differences are not based on biology and that men and women are similar in their common humanity (Lorber, 2001). Therefore, biological differences should be ignored in order to achieve gender equality in work opportunities (Jagger, 1983).
Most of the organizational literature that focused on gender and leadership is consistent with liberal feminism (Calàs and Smircich, 1996). It is mostly interested in comparisons between men and women in terms of inequality and discrimination and aims to explain such phenomena (Alvesson and Billing, 1997). A major focus in this literature is to determine if there are sex/gender differences in relation to conventional organizational concepts such as power, negotiation, and job satisfaction, as well as to investigate under what circumstances men and women differ. According to the liberal feminist perspective, sex-role socialization produces individual differences in the characteristics of men and women, which have rendered women less skilled than men to compete in the business world. Hence, liberal feminists do not agree with the attribution of agentic and communal characteristics in leadership. Liberal feminists believe that if women developed appropriate traits and skills, they would be better equipped to compete with men and would advance at comparable rates. Alvesson, M., & Billing, Y.D. (1997), Understanding Gender and Organisations [sic]. London: Sage. 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. Jagger A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totoway [sic], NJ: Rowman & Allenheld. Lorber, J. (2001). Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. |
The first and perhaps most common approach to gender equity is the gender reform approach. This approach, mostly represented by liberal feminism, asserts that gender differences are not based on biology and that men and women are similar in their common humanity (Lorber, 2001). Therefore, biological differences should be ignored in order to achieve gender equality in work opportunities (Jagger, 1983). According to this perspective, sex-role socialization produces individual differences in the characteristics of men and women, which have rendered women less skilled than men to compete in the business world. Hence, if women developed appropriate traits and skills, they would be better equipped to compete with men and would advance at comparable rates.
Most of the organizational literature that focused on gender and leadership is consistent with gender reform feminism (Calàs and Smircich, 1996). It is mostly interested in comparisons between men and women in terms of inequality and discrimination and aims to explain such phenomena (Alvesson and Billing, 1997). A major focus in this literature is to determine if there are sex/gender differences in relation to conventional organizational concepts such as power, negotiation, and job satisfaction, as well as to investigate under what circumstances men and women differ. Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y.D. (1997), Understanding Gender and Organizations, Sage, London. 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. Jagger, A.M. (1983), Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ. Lorber, J. (2001), Gender Inequality, Roxbury Publishing, Los Angeles, CA. |
The true source is not given. There are four hidden links in this fragment which all link to a URL containing a session identifier at the publisher www.emerald.com:
|
|