Irony
as a Strategy for Deconstructing Leadership
Anna
Wahl, Charlotte Holgersson and Pia Höök
Stockholm School of Economics
Department of Organisation and Management
P.O. Box 6501, SE-113 83 Stockholm, Sweden
Anna.Wahl@hhs.se, Charlotte.Holgersson@hhs.se,
Pia.Hook@hhs.se
WORKING PAPER
How should
women be in order to succeed as leaders? Can a woman be a manager without
having to sacrifice her femininity? Is the road to success via adapting to
masculine norms or should women affirm their femininity? Do they have to be
good, kind and caring? Or is toughness and sharp elbows the right recipe?
Should the body be concealed as far as possible or is sexiness the thing that
counts? And not least, how should women as leaders relate to other women, and
most controversially, to feminism?
The
mere existence of these questions reflects a patriarchal gender order in
society, where men have the right of interpretation and where gender is
perceived as a dichotomous category. Masculinity and femininity are considered
as two opposite poles. Each individual also has a biological body, which in our
society is used as the basis for defining gender category. Belonging to the
category man means belonging to a superior category, just as belonging to the
category woman entails subordination. Moreover, since leadership is constructed
within a patriarchal gender order, our perceptions of leadership is closely related
to our perceptions of masculinity, both being dominant positions in an
asymmetrical power relationship. Femininity and leadership are therefore
constructed as each other’s opposites.
A
theoretical concept used to describe and understand the way women deal with
their situation within the existing gender order in organisations is women’s strategies. The term strategy is chiefly
used to describe how women relate to the gender order and their own
self-esteem. Theory is elaborated in our discussion through linking the term
strategy to action, and to various interpretations in the organisational
context.
Our
aim is to link awareness of gender order to action. Constructions of leadership
are results of the gender order and instrumental in the reproduction of the
gender order. Therefore deconstructing and reconstructing leadership for women,
and thus also for men, requires knowledge of gender order in organisations. It
is only through transgressing a patriarchal order that women leaders can form a
leadership without denying their own gender, one which paves the way for other
women. A leadership, which permits the expression of the whole individual, will
also provide scope for the sexual identity of both women and men. We have given
this type of identity, where gender, sexuality, competence and power may be
acknowledged simultaneously in leadership, the term integrated identity.
We
also discuss the use of irony in
active strategies for change, both when related to awareness of gender order
and an integrated identity in leadership. Irony as a strategy may be expressed
in at least three ways. Firstly it can be understood as a survival strategy in
a subordinate position. It can also involve methods used by women to gather
strength and develop a sense of mutual affinity through their awareness of
gender order absurdity. Thirdly, irony as strategy may also be used more
explicitly and openly as a protest against the gender order, through
simultaneously exposing it and transcending it. In such a way irony can
function as a strategy for change.
In
this paper, we will describe different strategies used by women managers and
how these strategies influence women’s leadership and how they are perceived as
managers in the organisation. Thereafter we discuss irony as a strategy for
change
Each individual
woman takes some sort of stance on the gender order in her leadership, whether
she is aware of gender order or not. Standing in the rarefied air outside this
order, clad in one’s insights, is not possible. Women’s leadership is steered
by two factors: firstly the strategies used by each individual woman, and
secondly the interpretations of the organisational context.
The gender
neutral strategy described in research (Lindgren 1985, Sheppard 1989, Wahl
1992a), is the most common found among women in male dominated contexts. Women
in senior posts are almost always in a minority, with one consequence being
their visibility as deviators from the male norm in the organisation. A gender
neutral stance involves women denying the importance of gender in the
organisation and giving prominence to themselves as gender neutral individuals.
In this way they also deny the existence of the gender order, allowing
themselves to maintain good self-esteem. Gender neutral strategy bridges the
gap between a sense of good self-esteem and belonging to a subordinate
category.
This
strategy can be successful in gaining respect as a competent leader. It leaves
behind those problems related to women such as: private life; children;
sexuality; feminism. It also excludes that femininity traditionally defined in
terms of subordination, e.g. manipulative behaviour, objectification, passivity
and frailty. In other words it may form a power platform for women but minus
gender. Thus the executive woman cannot be acknowledged as an integrated person since her gender
identity remains unacknowledged. This is the price she has to pay as an
executive, as opposed to the men around her in no need of gender neutrality.
Lack
of complete acknowledgement is not the only disadvantage, since disadvantages
often result from those negative interpretations made in organisations of
gender neutral women as executives. Within the organisation they are condemned
as women who deny their femininity, something often considered negatively by
both women and men, and described in terms of aggressive, disloyal, pathetic
and not least, unfeminine. These women are clearly seen as competent and
ambitious, but unfortunately they are slightly too competent and ambitious considering they are women (Wahl 1995).
This being understandable from the aspect of constructions of leadership being
largely compatible with constructions of masculinity, and thus in opposition to
constructions of femininity (Wahl 1998).
One
consequence of a gender neutral strategy is that denial of gender’s role also
implies denial of sexuality. Gender neutral strategy usually means a non-sexual
identity, which may mean anything from no open discussion of family and children,
to putting greater emphasis on desexualising through clothing and other means.
Executive women have described how they balance between masculinity and
femininity in clothing, aiming as serious individuals to melt into an
environment dominated by men, without being considered as provocative, without
melting in too much and being considered too masculine (Sheppard 1989, 1992).
At the same time they balance between two different kinds of femininity, where
it is important not to be linked to subordinate femininity by being sexy, for
example. Gender neutral strategy may thus provide certain space for women in
leadership, but it also involves clear limitations both regarding individual
identity and scope for manoeuvre.
Following
experiences in both working and family life, many women change strategy. Once
it becomes clear that gender plays an important part in society and in
organisations the gender neutral strategy is no longer feasible. A need to find
other explanations and other methods of maintaining self-esteem arises (Wahl
1992a). One such strategy, shown to be common among highly educated women and
women in senior posts, is the positive strategy. Through this attitude the
importance of gender in an organisation is acknowledged, but not from a power
perspective.
Positive
strategy involves executive women emphasising the advantages of being women as
against the disadvantages. Thus there is emphasis on positive femininity
without actually having to take a stance on an existing gender order. As with
the gender neutral strategy, self-esteem can remain intact. While the executive
woman also gets her sexual identity confirmed in the organisation. She is
considered a normal woman, but usually as somewhat below par as a leader.
Concepts
of feminine leadership as different to ‘normal’ leadership often follow on the
heels of a positive strategy. These are defined by men and based on men’s
lives. Women executives are seen as a different but less important resource.
Through their difference they have something to add – an attribute which
considerably limits their total room for manoeuvre as leaders (Wahl 1997,
1998).
The
positive strategy also leaves room for sexuality. But since it does not involve
a protest against prevailing power structures, the feminine sexuality given
scope is of the subordinate, manipulative sort. Being a woman and sexual object
in an organisation involves being ‘feminine’ according to men’s
interpretations, rather than being a sexual subject based on one’s own terms
(Sinclair 1995). Positive strategy is however often used in such a way as to
exclude sexual identity in leadership. Just what ‘the advantages of being a
woman’ really are in practice varies according to context, i.e. according to
the organisation in question.
The need for
new survival strategies arises when women can no longer stay gender neutral due
to experiences in life. Besides positive strategy there is also another stance,
mainly based on acquired knowledge, termed the contextual strategy (Wahl
1992a). Using this strategy a woman can relate to and understand experiences
and phenomena from the perspective of her contextual. In practice this means
that knowledge of the gender order in society and organisations becomes
integrated into her own approach. Understanding the world and one’s own
situation is possible once the existence of a gender order is acknowledged
where the different positions of women and men play a decisive role.
For individual women in leading positions the contextual strategy involves creating understanding and action based on knowledge of the gender order. Self-esteem can be high, since it is possible to find explanations for women’s situation in society. There is no specific description in research dealing with the interpretation in organisations of women adopting the contextual strategy. What has been established is the frequent forming of resistance in organisations to changes designed to go against the gender order (Cockburn 1991, Wahl 1995). Women in senior posts in favour of equal opportunities for women and men, such as senior recruitment also among women, is not usually considered in a positive light either. This is often regarded as advocating women’s issues (Wahl 1995). Research has also described how men and women make different judgements in organisations as to whether or not women and men have equal opportunities. A majority of men consider equal opportunities to exist, while a majority of women do not (Asplund 1985, Cockburn 1991, Wahl 1992b). This is one of the reasons women possess a defensive attitude to sexual discrimination in organisations. Almost all women have experienced discrimination, but only a few have openly cited this in organisations (DiTomaso 1989, Wahl 1992a).
Women
using the contextual strategy demand respect both as women, and thus as
individuals, and as leaders. Women with this strategy go against the gender
order, which can lead to changes welcomed by both women and men. Different
forms of resistance against change may also be generated, where emphasis is put
on the natural and functional nature of the gender order (Cockburn 1991).
Seeing women as a supplementary resource, as encouraged by the gender neutral
strategy, or as a different resource, as with the positive strategy, does not
threaten the gender order. On the other hand, the contextual strategy involves
women embracing the right to put their own interpretation on the world, which
can lead to women leaders being seen as a power resource (Wahl 1998).
Using
contextual strategy to act from a woman’s position does not limit room for
manoeuvre as a leader as it does when acting from a gender neutral stance or
from subordinate and adapted femininity. It also involves acknowledgement of
women as sexual beings, the possibility of being sexual subjects. The
contextual strategy calls for full acknowledgement of the individual, both as
leader and sexual being.
Following this
review of common strategies used by executive women and the interpretation given
to these in organisations, it can be established that the gender order may be
denied, or a stance taken, but it cannot be side-stepped. What does taking a
stance on the gender order involve, and what room for manoeuvre and expression
is available? The gender neutral strategy involves denial of the gender order’s
existence. The positive strategy deals with gender but not necessarily the
gender order, since differences in men and women’s positions are not related to
power. In some cases positive strategy may even relate to the gender order in
an affirmative manner, where the different scope of women and men in leading
positions is explained as natural. The contextual strategy involves a clear
stand on gender order, with its most common expression being a call for radical
changes in organisations. Thus this is the strategy which can lead to change in
the gender order itself. Women working for changes in leadership must use the
contextual strategy as their base, where knowledge of the gender order can be used
to transgress it.
Knowledge and
awareness of the gender order, along with an identity where both power, gender
and sexuality are acknowledged, is the basis from which protests against the
gender order are made in one’s leadership. Leadership entailing change has
clear feminist characteristics in its demands for equal terms for women and men
and its desire to break down the masculine/feminine dichotomy. The central
issue is women, themselves, defining their leadership and identity in relation
to the organisation they are part of. Affirming one’s identity as both woman
and leader must involve scope for expression and variation. It is not possible
to define a certain type of clothing, or a certain way of being, more than to
say that subordination and adaptation should be excluded. Each individual must
consider the difference between a women who affirms her position in the gender
order as a sexual object and one who affirms herself as a whole being, of which
sexuality in a general sense is part.
It
is also clearly evident that a changed leadership will be open to all forms of
interpretation. The change will be welcomed by some, but for many others such
leadership would be threatening, which will lead to resistance. Women’s changed
leadership can be ridiculed in many ways: aggressive, ‘bitchy’, pathetic,
denying one’s femininity (i.e. sexuality), using femininity (i.e. sexuality),
not serious, incompetent etc. That is part of the picture. One example is the
ridiculing of the so-called tie-blouse. One of the most highlighted expressions
for power dressing in Sweden during the 1980’s was the tie-blouse, i.e. a
blouse with a bow-tie attachment. The tie-blouse could be interpreted as a
garment developed as a collective symbol for women in power positions, as an
ironic comment on ties and power. Resistance to women in executive positions
was displayed by ridiculing of the symbol itself, with the resultant disarming
of the collective symbol. Thus women were once again left to act as individual
deviators in their physical manifestations.
The link
between contextual strategy and integrated identity may be accomplished with
help from irony. Using irony to create change requires awareness, experience and
presence of mind. In this way irony may be seen as a way of exposing,
challenging and changing the gender order. Constructions of femininity,
masculinity and leadership can be exposed and problematised through
exaggeration, understatement, ambiguity and contradiction. Irony is a possible
scientific method within feminist research for deconstructing the gender order
(Ferguson 1993). Irony may also be understood as a useful power and survival
strategy for people or groups finding themselves in a subordinate position.
Choosing to see irony as a power or a survival strategy being dependent on the degree of subordination and just how ‘gender-consciously’ the irony is used.
For
clearly subordinate women irony represents a more or less unconscious way for
them to distance themselves and survive life with a double awareness, to play a
part in their own subordination and objectification and yet still maintain
their integrity and self-esteem. It has for example been shown that women
prostitutes use irony as a strategy for poking fun at sex buyers and thus
distancing themselves from, and enduring their situation (O´Connell Davidson
1995). While being involved in the process of subordination, the women’s
self-contempt is converted into the ridiculing of the subordinators. In this
context irony can be understood as the survival strategy of the powerless.
Irony
may also be a way for women together to deal with subordination. It becomes a
method of collectively laughing about experiences in common and thus also a
method of creating understanding of their own position. This type of irony
fills several functions since it also becomes a method of gaining strength
against the many absurdities of daily life. But unlike the irony of the
powerless it is not directed outwards. It may however still serve to undermine
the gender order since it involves a form of silent protest or incomprehensible
resistance to those round about through laughter or knowing glances. It is
common that women from the same workplace meet informally and laugh at the
discrimination they are exposed to.
For
only relatively subordinate women irony may represent one of the few power
strategies available to them. An executive, subordinate in her position as
woman and yet superior in her seniority, is a good example of such a woman.
Being ironic may be a method of exposing the right of interpretation of senior
executives in a gender conscious and implicit manner. Irony questions without
openly challenging. It can be directed more outwardly and in an open fashion as
a protest against the gender order. This may result in the break-up of
prevailing power structures, producing scope for alternative interpretations.
One
example of such a situation might be a meeting where only two women are among a
majority of men. A male executive expresses a common notion of women, such as
women not daring to speak up or that women are not suited to be executives due
to their biology. One of the women at the meeting immediately makes an ironic
quip about this, with active support from the other woman (e.g. body language,
glances and laughter), aimed at the other men at the meeting. Some of them also
start to laugh, and the male executive becomes uncertain as to what is actually
happening in the room. The irony has exposed the gender order and
simultaneously challenged it. A shift of power takes place since the executive
gains no support for his concept of women.
Three forms of
irony as a strategy for change are presented here as a summary of the
discussion above.
1.The survival strategy of the powerless
Maintaining
self-esteem. Gender order intact.
2. Mutual understanding
Drawing
strength and dealing with situations collectively. May serve to undermine the
gender order. May also serve to maintain the status quo.
3. Protest
Open exposure
of gender order manifestations. Works at changing the gender order through
creation of perplexity, embarrassment, laughter, uncertainty etc.
Using irony as
a strategy for change demands awareness and presence of mind. It cannot be planned,
it involves taking opportunities as they arise and deciding on the spur of the
moment whether or not irony can be used as a way of simultaneously exposing and
protesting without triggering resistance. The aim is to gain support from those
around, to create change through what may be understood in common.
A
step by step approach is not relevant here. The three forms can exist side by
side. For women with very limited power the situation or position must be
changed to allow irony to be directed outwardly. Women often are aware from
experience that in many situations open protest is impossible. Irony as common
understanding may still undermine the gender order in the long term. Many
reactions to discrimination in organisations are of this nature. Women more
often react in a defensive way to discrimination in organisations. They will
either ignore it totally or try to play it down. This reaction can be
understood in relation their subordinate position as women in male-dominated
organisations (Wahl 1992a). Our belief is that irony as a protest, is already
being used by women in organisations, although this has not yet been explored
in research. Using greater awareness of the gender order as a basis, women
could avail themselves of the third form more often instead of the second to
both challenge and change organisation structures. This could be a way of
breaking with the defensive stance on discrimination in organisations.
A feminist
perspective in research brings with it a power perspective. Thus one or two
short comments on how power is related to the above discussion are required. We
have claimed that through using contextual strategy as a basis (awareness and
knowledge of the gender order) women leaders can create an integrated identity
with help from irony as a strategy. What does a power perspective on sexuality
and irony involve?
Acknowledging
an integrated identity within oneself, and thus also one’s sexual identity,
involves a challenge to the gender order. With a power perspective on sexuality
the superiority/subordination structure becomes part of what we assimilate on
sexuality. We are influenced by the notion that men dominating and women being
subjugated is somehow sexy. This is part of the heterosexual, traditional
model, which also influences concepts of normality in an organisation (Hearn
and Parkin 1987, Pringle 1988). Claiming an identity in leadership where
awareness of gender and sexuality are a part thus challenges the ‘normal’
pattern. Being a sexual subject in an environment where women are sexually
objectified is not self-evident, but for a woman in a power position this may
be possible. Her way of being might also create scope for other women in the
organisation. Serving in the long run as an example to women in general.
Many people
feel an instinctive antipathy towards irony, where it is associated with
unpleasantness, superiority and ridicule. Thus it is important to stress its
relation relative to status. The whole concept of irony as a strategy for
change as presented above is based on subordination as a central point of
departure. It is a strategy for subordinates to expose and question their
subordination. Understanding women’s irony requires knowledge based on
experience of subordination. Without this knowledge there is lack of a
referential framework making identification of exaggeration, understatement and
contradiction possible. In this way irony is related to status. It is a
strategy, which emerges from subordination, which makes steering and control by
superiors difficult. The latter do not possess the same experiences as
subordinates and are thus not always able to fully comprehend their irony.
Being
able to laugh at an unpleasant or absurd situation can feel liberating.
Laughter also fills other functions: it exposes the boundaries of our
day-to-day reality. Laughter is also based on the existence of common
experiences of boundaries and situations. These experiences may have been made
in similar circumstances, resulting in irony based on common understanding. But
they may also have been experienced from different positions. For example, men
and women often experience the same situation but from different gender
positions. In which case laughter may represent a meeting between men and women
where the experiences of both sides in the situation are exposed, thereby
enabling the gap to be bridged.
When people in
superior positions used irony, it represents a tool of power. Its effect is
contempt, superiority, unpleasantness or ridicule. It is interesting to note
that ridicule is often used by men against women in defence of the gender order
(Kanter 1977, Ås 1992). Sometimes women who try make space for themselves are
ridiculed, so as to subvert their power. The tie-blouse as a positive symbol
for women in power positions disappeared when publicly ridiculed. Thus laughter
can represent both protest against the gender order, and resistance against
change.
In
the literature on sexual harassment it is clear that this is more due to
wielding of power than sexuality (MacKinnon 1979, Stockdale 1996). Having
pin-ups on the wall at work or openly talking about visits to pornographic
clubs are ways of showing contempt for and superiority over women in
organisations. The gender order is reproduced via sexuality when women
represent sexual objects for men. This might also be interpreted as a form of
irony since the pin-up of the absent woman indirectly places the women in an
organisation on the wall. Women in pornographic clubs or prostitutes may
ironically enough also symbolise the peripheral positions of women in an
organisation.
Our wish has
been to reveal the significance of irony to women ”sentenced” to belonging to a
subordinate category of the gender order. Irony is a survival strategy for
women in highly exposed positions, for example those working in the
sexploitation industry. Irony may also represent a tool for women in various
situations in life, a way of communicating the absurdity in finding themselves
in the gender order. Thus providing both strength and solidarity. This type of
irony is primarily expressed mutually among women.
Use
of irony as protest against the gender order in more public contexts is found
both in fiction, the media and among individual women in their daily life.
Being ironic about the gender order can be disarming, perplexing, invigorating,
underscoring, revealing and elucidatory. Thus irony may both concern survival
and solidarity, and also protest.
The
issues discussed have dealt with the strategies of women linked to practical
leadership. When irony is used as a strategy to bring about change it serves to
contribute something. We shall now very briefly delineate the expressions of the
different strategies.
A. The gender
neutral strategy is characterised by adaptation. Its practical expression is
usually silence. Women react defensively in discriminating situations.
B. The positive strategy is often more manipulative and
uses the scope existing in subordination in the best way possible. The
practical expression of this strategy is often based on concepts of subordinate
femininity, sexiness etc.
C. The contextual strategy introduces a certain degree
of conflict. Its expression is straight to the point via remarks, complaints
and reproofs.
D. Irony as strategy (with contextual strategy as point
of departure) combines awareness with sensitivity and presence of mind in
specific situations, it being expressed through irony using exaggeration,
understatement and ambiguities; providing resistance, strength, perplexity and
openness in interpretation.
The different
strategies may be illustrated in practical situations.
Situation 1:
In a meeting
containing one woman and five men a male executive passes the following
comment, ‘Women are too cautious and are
unsuited to executive jobs.’ The sole woman at the meeting acts as follows:
A.
(Gender neutral strategy) She remains silent, or
mumbles agreement.
B.
(Positive strategy) She smiles and says, ‘We have in
fact got something to contribute as well!’
C.
(Contextual strategy) She says clearly, ‘You are
completely wrong! Research shows women to be more committed than men, but are
judged more severely.’
D.
(Irony) She exclaims in a falsely affectionate voice,
‘We can’t all be as suited to executive work as you, George, can we now?’
Situation 2:
An executive
man says the following to a lower-ranking woman executive,
‘Your salary is lower than John’s since
you’ve been out of circulation, having children and all that.’ She responds:
A. ‘I totally understand.’
B. ‘Yes, but as a mother, I would never sacrifice my
children for my career.’
C. ‘I disagree. My competence and my performance for
the company have not been affected negatively. And by the way, doesn’t John
have children?’
D. ?!?
Just what does
she say in D above? Illustrating
irony as a strategy for change can be ‘trite’ in texts such as this. Readers
are thus left to fill in the space with words of their own, as an encouragement
to using own experience and imagination.
Irony
as strategy for change is based on knowledge gained from contextual strategy.
It differs however in its practical expression. Put simply it may be seen as
moving from ‘harping on’ to paving the way for a new and common interpretation.
In discussions on irony we have been involved in with women executives irony
appears more beneficent to change, since it creates perplexity rather than
defence. Strong resistance against change in the gender order might be reduced.
Laughter could represent a meeting place between women and men in an
organisation. Not internal or subordinate laughter, but laughter which requires
an arena where women and men stand on the same level.
In
principle, efforts to achieve equal opportunities between women and men, as
well as efforts to break down the masculine/feminine dichotomy, can be as
interesting and important to men as to women. In this respect such feminist
thinking is equally open to women and men as leaders. The different positions
of men and women in the gender order are however given different expression in
changed leadership. Men as leaders who aspire to equal opportunities for women
and men must find ways of expressing their transgression of the gender order.
Interpretations and reactions in society are also influenced by the different
positions of women and men. Men working in support of equal opportunities in
organisations are ‘punished’ for supposed disloyalty to their brotherhood.
Perhaps feminist men can also use irony as a strategy for exposing the
absurdity of being aware of the gender order and yet acting as a man from the
conditions it stipulates?
Being
straight to the point is a strength, but this is not possible for all women in
all situations. And those women in the habit of pointing out injustice and
discrimination are often considered a problem in organisations, unless the
amount of power they possess allows them to be straight to the point. Irony as
strategy for change does not always work. Awareness, sensitivity and presence
of mind are needed for deciding the moment is right. Our belief is however that
those women who are either straight to the point or ironic maintain a better
self-esteem compared to those who remain silent in situations where they would
rather prefer to protest. A parallel may be drawn with the reactions of women
to rape. Women who resist – whether the rape is accomplished or not – find
recovery easier than those who remain passive to the attack.
In
this article we have focused on power in gender-relations. Society offers a
whole series of power asymmetries, based for example on class, sexual
preference, ethnicity or nationality. Irony is also no doubt used within these
categories in order to cope with subordination. Irony has been discussed as a
possible strategy for changing the gender order, but not as the only way or
best way. We believe that several other ways exist both in practical reality
and as ideas, and would like to see discussion within organisations on other
strategies already employed in resistance. Not forgetting the importance in
such discussions of going beyond existing boundaries in order to encourage new
thinking. It would not be feasible to conclude by describing when to use irony
and its concrete expression. Irony as strategy is dependent on circumstances,
relations, awareness and presence of mind. It may be expressed in many ways,
through words, body language, facial expressions or even purely through
laughter.
References
Asplund, Gisèle
(1985) Women Managers. Changing
Organizational Cultures. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Cockburn, Cynthia (1991) In The Way of Women. London: Macmillan.
DiTomaso, Nancy (1989) Sexuality in the Workplace:
Discrimination and Harassment. In Hearn, Jeff et al (eds.) The Sexuality of Organizations. London: Sage Publications.
Hearn, Jeff and Wendy Parkin (1987) "Sex" at "Work". The
Power and Paradox of Organization Sexuality. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New
York: Basic Books.
Lindgren, Gerd (1985) Kamrater, kollegor och kvinnor. Department of Sociology, Umeå
University.
MacKinnon, Catherine (1979) The Sexual Harassment of Working Women. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
O'Connell Davidson, Julia (1995) The Anatomy of
'Free Choice' Prostitution. Gender, Work and
Organization , Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 1-10.
Pringle, Rosemary (1988) Secretaries Talk. London: Verso.
Sheppard, Deborah L. (1989) Organizations, Power
and Sexuality: The Image and Self-Image of Women Managers. In Hearn, Jeff et al
(eds.) The Sexuality of Organizations.
London: Sage Publications.
Sheppard, Deborah L. (1992) Women Manangers
Perceptions of Gender and Organizational Life. In Mills, Albert J. and Peta
Tancred (eds.) Gendering Organizational Analysis. London: Sage.
Sinclair, Amanda (1995) Sexuality in Leadership. International Review of Women and Leadership
, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 25-38.
Stockdale, Margaret S. (ed.)
(1996) Sexual Harassment in the Workplace.
London: Sage Publications.
Wahl, Anna (1992a) Könsstrukturer i Organisationer. Stockholm: Ekonomiska Forskningsinstitutet.
Wahl, Anna (1992b)
Företagsledning som konstruktion av manlighet. In Sjöstrand, Sven-Erik and
Ingalill Holmberg (eds.) Företagsledning bortom etablerad teori. Stockholm: Ekonomiska
Forskningsinstitutet.
Wahl, Anna (ed.) (1995) Men’s perceptions of women
and management.
Stockholm: Fritzes.
Wahl, Anna (1997) Ledarstil, makt och kön. In
Sundin, Elisabeth and Anita Nyberg (eds.) Ledare,
makt och kön (SOU 1997:135).
Stockholm: Fritzes.
Wahl, Anna (1998). Deconstructing Women and
Leadership. International Review of Women
and Leadership, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 46–60.
Ås, Berit (1992) De fem härskarteknikerna. Video. Växjö.