at the same time being portrayed as in need of a man’s protection (Bock, 2006). Kelly and Shortall (2002) describe how women contribute to this discourse through positioning their off-farm work as a ‘family household decision’ (p. 336), and viewing it as a means of ensuring their husbands’ mental health. Likewise, O’Hara (1994) purports that women’s work on farms is shaped through a series of negotiations that they make as to their priorities in relationship with the farm. Farmar-Bowers (2010) conceptualizes these negotiations as resulting from a sense of both personal responsibility to the family and the obligation to instil responsibility to the family in the next generation. Heather et al. (2005) attribute this dynamic to the deep integration of hegemonic discourses into the relationships between farm men and women.
Studies in at least six Western countries have shown that the unequal division of labour between men and women on farms is grounded in socially accepted definitions of masculinity and femininity (Bock, 2006). Morris and Evans (2001) claim that representations of masculinity and femininity that they studied in agricultural media echo this by showing a maintained gender division of labour even when women were central to, or equal partners in, business activities. This persistence in gender divisions of labour on farms has been influenced by the view of women’s bodies and work as ‘secondary’ and inferior to men’s (Saugeres, 2002), since it is done in the privacy of the home and is not as physical as men’s work (Brandth, 2002). Women’s work is thus made trivial unless it is done in direct support of men and their households (Little and Austin, 1996).
In fact, women’s biological makeup is seen as not only a hindrance to their ability to complete the same on-farm tasks as men, but as an actual handicap that women may only attempt to overcome (for example, by becoming women farmers) at the expense of losing their femininity (Saugeres, 2002). In response, young women may turn to ‘explicit and conscious performances of their femininity and feminine bodily appearance’ at other times (Bock, 2006) in order to avoid being seen as inappropriate and therefore rejected by the rural community (Little and Austin, 1996). Just as the broader women’s studies literature showed that job requirements might change with gender, so qualities of a good farmer may be rejected as bad when they are displayed by a woman (Saugeres, 2002).
In spite of the rise in women’s off-farm work over the past several years, Kelly and Shortall (2002) found that women’s household work and on-farm responsibilities have changed very little. Bennett (2004) confirms this in writing that patriarchy is alive and well on the family farm, with women still expected to handle the majority of domestic responsibilities. And even as Brandth (2002) discusses the possibility that women’s off-farm work provides them with a framework from which to be seen as active in making choices that take them away from their subordinate position as invisible workers on the farm, she also consents that hegemony can still be maintained in the face of such changes. It is interesting to note, however, that rural and farm women are not always pleased to be re-enacting established patterns of gender relations. In Silvasti’s (2003) study, she described the family farm as an ‘ideological battlefield’ on which traditional gender relations face the changes taking place in society at large (p. 162). It is important to keep these difficult intersections and experiences of hegemonic tendencies in mind as we now turn to the literature regarding organizations, setting the stage for a discussion of how gender and organizational issues affect women’s attainment of leadership positions.
1.3 Organizations and Organizational Constraints
1.3.1 Organizations
It has been claimed that the foundations of classic sociology rest on the study of organizations (Parker, 2000). This is unsurprising, given the powerful status of organizations in industrialized societies (Perrow, 2000). Since the publishing of Weber’s highly influential conceptions of organizational hierarchy and authority, organizational theorists have wrestled with debates of structure and culture within organizations (Hatch, 1997; Parker, 2000), striving to untangle the mutual influences organizations and society exercise upon each other (Scott, 2004). Most recently, this debate has begun to turn towards critical realism for explorations that reach past the limitations of postmodern and poststructuralist epistemologies (Reed, 2005). However, as with all ‘new’ perspectives, critical realism has met with critique (Mutch et al., 2006).
Issues of gender within organizations have been studied productively for many years (Scott, 2004). Through these and other, similar, studies, organizational practices have been situated in the context of wider social discourses (Mills, 2002; Reed, 2005; Walsh et al., 2006). However, current discussions of gender and organizations are addressing the assumptions of feminist studies on these topics, as well as asking whether gender can reliably be studied in the context of organizational culture (Mills, 2002). In part, this can be attributed to the movement towards a complex view of gender identities as multiple and shifting, in opposition to the traditional organizational studies’ concept of organizations as ‘naturally’ occupied by men (Leonard, 2002). Mills (2002), while recognizing that women have made strides towards dismantling this concept, draws attention to the non-linear development of female advancement in employment. Similarly, Kreimer (2004) notes that women’s entrance into the labour market has not significantly changed which jobs are available to women – clearly illustrating one of the ways in which corporations fail to allow wider social issues to affect their ‘core business practices’ (Westenholz et al., 2006). Even after decades of affirmative action, many organizations are still struggling to integrate diversity in all its forms (Awbrey, 2007).
We must at this point return to the question of how such organizational practices are influenced by and simultaneously influence society (Scott, 2004), reinforcing (and being reinforced by) gendered practices. If we accept the definition of an organization as a group of people who are brought together by the requirements of a particular task, with different people performing various pieces of the task, then it is a small leap to recognize that the way in which the group is divided creates power dynamics (Hatch, 1997). Following on from this, it is also possible to conceptualize individuals as perpetuating existing power dynamics through social interactions (Reed, 2005). This resonates with leadership literature, which has begun to recognize such practices as contributing to the marginalization of women leaders through the failure of organizations with traditionally male-dominated structures to practically apply their own gender-inclusive policies and procedures (Elliott and Stead, 2008). Shortall (2002, p. 160) carries this concept into her research on agricultural and rural restructuring, and also finds in these fields the presence of gendered structures that ‘support the status quo’ by using inclusive language to mask an aversion to the process of actually addressing gender issues. These dynamics necessitate a discussion of organizational constraints faced by women, and, in particular, rural women in the process of attaining (and maintaining) positions of leadership.
1.3.2 Organizational constraints
It has been well established that women have a difficult time attaining positions of leadership in male-dominated organizations. Recently, this has been corroborated by a report from the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) Policy Web, which identified traditional attitudes about gender roles as a barrier to women’s employment in rural areas (Shortall, 2006). Other frequently cited barriers are lack of accessible childcare and transportation, and the unavailability of stimulating and rewarding occupational choices – all of which work together to inhibit women’s pursuit of careers and higher-level positions in organizations (Little and Austin, 1996). Once women are formally recognized as leaders in such organizations, the masculinized nature of the organization in which they are involved is unlikely to change, since the overwhelming majority of others involved are men (Shortall, 2001). Nearly every piece of literature on women in leadership addresses not only the obstacles women face in reaching positions of leadership, but also the many challenges they face during the time of their leadership (Appelbaum et al., 2003; Greenberg and Sweeney, 2005; Trinidad and Normore, 2005).
For
