Search results

This paper aims to review Ruth Simpson’s contribution to the field of gender and management.

This paper looks at Ruth Simpson’s body of work over her career through a conversation that took place between Pullen and Ross-Smith.

Ruth Simpson’s contribution to gender, class, work and organizations is discussed.

This piece remembers Ruth Simpson’s feminist scholarship to the field of gender and management.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how board recruitment processes have been impacted by the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) governance changes requiring listed boards to report annually on their gender diversity policy and profile.

Employing a social constructivist approach, the research analyses interviews conducted with matched samples of board directors and stakeholders in 2010 and 2017 about board recruitment in ASX50 companies.

The introduction of ASX guidelines requiring gender reporting disrupted traditional board appointment processes. Women's gender capital gained currency, adding an additional dimension to the high levels of human and social capital seen as desirable for board appointments. The politics of women's presence is bringing about changes to the discourse and practice about who should/can be a director. The authors identify highly strategic ways in which women's gender capital has been used to agitate for more women to be appointed to boards.

While sample sizes are small, data within the themes cohered meaningfully across the time periods, making visible how women's presence in the board room has been reframed. Future research could consider what this may mean for board dynamics and how enduring are these changes.

This study highlights the forms that human and social capital take in board appointments, which can be instructive for potential directors, and how these intersect with gender capital. The insights from the study are relevant to board recruitment committees seeking to reflect their commitment to a more gender equitable environment.

There has been a recalibration of men's and women's gender capital in board appointments, and there is now a currency in femaleness disrupting the historical privilege afforded “maleness”.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how women in senior management draw on discourses of merit and special contribution in making sense of the contradictions and tensions they experience in their working lives. It has a particular focus on how women explain possible experiences of disadvantage and the extent to which they see such experiences as gendered.

The research is based on an Australian study of women leaders in the private and tertiary sectors. Data are drawn from in‐depth interviews with 14 women.

Findings suggest that women draw on discourses of meritocracy and of “special contribution” in discussing their experiences at work. Inconsistencies between these competing discourses are mediated through notions of choice.

The research has implications for the understanding of how women at senior levels make sense of their experiences in organizations. A wider sample may give further corroboration to these results.

The paper highlights the significance of the discourse of choice in aligning discourses of “special contribution” with the reality of their lives whilst keeping intact the concepts of equality and meritocracy to which they strongly adhere.

Reviews a case study of five Australian universities with over 30 percent of their senior management jobs filled by women. Highlights how such a culture can be achieved and maintained, and the effect of increased women on management culture.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments.

Particularly in terms of corporate culture, it is beneficial to have women among the senior executives of an organization. At least 35 percent of the team should be made up of women, in order to have the effect of a critical mass. The ratio of men to women at the top in Australian universities is getting fairer, but there is still a way to go.

Though times are slowly changing, on average the number of women occupying senior positions in the workplace is still discouragingly low. Of the women who have managed to make it to the top, the vast majority are still to be found in the traditional “pink ghettos” such as Human Resources, and more often than not their job title is Assistant Director rather than Director. Yet business writers continue to argue the case for having more women in high places, and new legislation increasingly enforces hiring without regard for gender. But is this fight simply about striving for gender equality or is there more involved?

Analyses why women should be in senior roles, how to attract them, and what is involved in creating the right environment for them to flourish. Argues strongly about the power of numbers to start a snowball effect, which could be an interesting learning point for any type of large organization.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the findings of a research project involving five Australian universities with over 30 per cent of their senior management positions filled by women. It explores the factors that enabled this to happen and also discusses the responses of the universities to the report.

The research was essentially qualitative, based on 81 interviews, 50 with senior women and 31 with senior men. All those interviewed were in senior positions, from Vice‐Chancellor down to Dean, Director or equivalent. 46 (24 men and 22 women) were academics; 35 (28 women and seven men) were in administrative, support or general staff positions.

Interviewees identified as crucial for the appointment of women having a critical mass of other women in senior positions, opportunities to network, encouragement and support from organisational leaders, friendly and collegial environments and strong organisational commitment to values.

The paper describes the actions currently being taken by the five universities to build on the research findings and to ensure that their relative success in promoting women is maintained and improved. It considers whether it is possible to transform hierarchical and traditional cultures in order to establish networks of support and to raise questions about gendered assumptions about capacity and ambition.

The paper presents information which draws on the findings of a large scale empirical research project on how women reach senior positions in universities. It also discusses how these findings have been turned into organisational action to improve the position of women.

The purpose of this paper is to interrogate changes to women's representation on boards from an institutional perspective in a particular national context (Australia).

Drawing on institutional theory at the legal, political and social levels the paper identifies the factors through which women's underrepresentation on corporate boards in Australia gained traction over the period 2009-2012.

Through the analysis of the Australian context over the period 2009-2012, the paper proposes a framework to represent the multiple, differentiated and often conflicting spheres affecting women's representation on boards and how this may have wider application internationally.

In focusing on the institutional factors, the paper does not mean to underplay organisational factors relevant to women's access to board positions; rather the authors seek to draw attention to how the organisational factors may be shaped by changing institutional “rules”. From the interrogation of the conditions under which women's underrepresentation on corporate boards in Australia gained traction, the paper provides a conceptual foundation for the emerging study of institutions and women's representation on corporate boards internationally.

The purpose of documenting these institutional changes in Australia is to be instructive to others addressing the practical problem of how to increase women's representation on boards and what institutional factors may need to be considered to prompt change.

The conceptual framework adds to the as yet relatively under-theorised field of women on corporate boards.

This paper aims to examine how the work of Ruth Simpson and the subsequent collaborations have contributed to understanding of the gendered constructions of meritocracy, as they apply in organizations.

This paper is a personal analysis of the work of Ruth Simpson and her colleagues and the way in which her work has resonated with me and influenced our joint collaborations. The key questions our work has addressed, both when we work together and with others, include how merit is constructed. Is it gendered? How does it influence organizational outcomes? How is merit recognized? Is merit “performed”? Key theoretical constructs and frameworks are used to address these issues; including, gendered organizational structures and regimes (Acker, 1990; Ely and Meyerson, 2000; Gherardi and Poggio, 2001), the gendered nature of meritocracy (Thornton, 2007; Sommerlad, 2012, Brink van den and Benschop, 2012) and the performance and “stickiness” of meritocracy (Ashcraft, 2013, Bergman and Chalkley, 2007).

The paper reveals alternative ways of interrogating the discourse of meritocracy. Usually taken for granted, as an objective and fair mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources, the concept is examined and found to be much more contingent, unstable and subjective than had previously been considered. The gender-based implications of these findings are assessed.

The implications of the work are to broaden the field and develop frameworks within which we can understand more clearly the way in which merit is understood. Through the work we have done, we have highlighted that merit far from being an objective measure of ability is deeply rooted in contextual and we argue, gendered understandings of contribution, worth and desert.

The practical implications are that firms can no longer rely on discourses of meritocracy to evidence their commitment to equality and fairness. They will need to go further to show a direct link between fairness in the design of processes as well as fairness in the outcomes of these processes. Until these objectives are more clearly articulated, we should continue to shine a light on embedded inequalities.

The social implications are that a call for wider societal understanding of meritocracy should be made. Rather than simply accepting discourses of merit, key constituent groups who have not benefitted from the prevailing orthodoxy should seek to examine the concept and draw their own conclusions. In this manner, the author develops societal mechanisms that do not just purport to ensure equality of outcome for all; they achieve it.

This paper offers an examination of the development of ideas, how we can learn from the work of influential scholars within the field and, in turn, through collaboration, advance understanding.

This editorial aims to introduce the special issue on meritocracy, difference and choice.

The first part is a commentary on key issues in the study of the notions of meritocracy, difference and choice. The second part presents the six papers in the special issue.

Five of the six papers in this special issue explore the work experiences of women managers/directors in senior positions within a variety of organizations. All of these papers demonstrate that despite their economic empowerment, these women are still strongly connected to the domestic realm through their continued entanglement in the traditional roles of mother and homemaker. This has led them to interpret their work situation either through a consideration of what they understand by the notion of merit or a presentation of their situation through the lens of choice. A further paper which explores the experiences of sex workers exposes the gendered nature of agency, highlighting the limitations on “choice” that different types of workers experience.

The authors comment on how contemporary notions of merit and choice individualise women's experience within organisations, ignoring the structural and systemic elements inherent to women's continued disadvantage. This allows “blame” for women's absence in the upper echelons of organisations to lie with women themselves, explaining this in terms of their lack of skills or the traditional “choices” they make. The six papers which make up the special issue explore how women's “choices” are constrained, how the contemporary discourses of merit and choice conceal issues of structure and organizational process and how women struggle to make sense of their own and others' experiences.

The issues discussed in the papers have important implications for understanding women's experience of work and organizations. They highlight the need to introduce a structural and systemic element to the understanding of how women experience work at senior (and other) levels of organizations, why they take the decision to leave a senior position and why women appear to “choose” not to seek senior positions.

Gender and Management: An International Journal invited this special issue on meritocracy, difference and choice to draw attention to the ways in which women draw on these discourses as a means of understanding their organizational situations and how use of these discourses acts to conceal the structural and systemic element connected to their work experiences.