Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
1
A Call to Praxis:
Using Gendered Organizational Theory to
Center Radical Hope in Schools
Kathryn Fishman-Weaver, Ph.D.
University of Missouri-Columbia
Abstract
While organizational theory is a helpful analytical framework for educational leadership, it has a key depth problem—the absence of feminist voices. Some scholars have responded to this problem by gendering organizational theory. This
scholarship offers an important, albeit still seldom used, reference for educational
leadership. Teasing gendered organizational theories apart through three distinct
feminist lenses (liberal, radical, and postmodern) offers nuanced practical possibilities for school leadership. As a call to praxis, this paper proposes a new framework for equitable, hope-based decision making in schools. This model uses gendered organizational theory to imagine more equitable schools and districts.
Key words: organizational theory, educational leadership, feminism, PK-12 schools
Background
School districts are complex organizations,
composed of many organizational units
joined by a common vision of student support and achievement (Bolman & Deal,
2010). Organizational theory- the study of
the structures, behaviors, and motivations
of collective members- is particularly helpful for understanding these complex sys-
tems within education (Bolman & Deal,
2010). However, there is a fundamental
depth problem within organizational theory. Until recently, women’s voices in general and feminist voices in particular were
virtually absent from the scholarship on
organizational theory. Tancred-Sheriff and
Campbell (1992) called it the “pervasive
maleness in the field. The male fact exists
in a double sense: Men have produced a
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
2
body of organizational theory and...men
are assumed to be the primary objects of
study” (p. 31). Beginning in the 1990s, following closely on the rise of third wave
feminism, a cadre of scholars began what
they called gendering organizational theory to address this issue (see especially:
Acker, 1990; Calás & Smirich, 1992; Mills,
1992; Mills & Tancred, 1992; and Tancred
-Sheriff & Campbell, 1992).
remap or re-read the gendered organizational scholarship through three feminist lenses:
liberal, radical, and postmodern. After setting up this theoretical foundation, I discuss
how educational leaders can move from understanding theory to applying it to schools.
This work builds toward an early conceptual
framework for centering radical hope in
schools.
While gendered organizational theorists offer powerful insights, their theories
are still seen as outside or auxiliary to organizational theory proper; therefore, the
instruction of organizational theory in
graduate programs including educational
leadership continues to be taught from a
male-dominated framework (Burnier,
2003). Recognizing that “gender is a crucial, yet neglected aspect of organizational
analysis” the following paper highlights
the contributions and possibilities of feminist organizational theory (Mills, 1992, p.
93). Inherent in the work of gendering organizational theory is a commitment to
hope or imagination—the ability to think
beyond how organizations are to how they
might be. This radical hope is essential in
building a framework for more equitable
educational leadership in schools and districts.
Gendered Organization Theory, an
Overview
This paper is organized to parallel my
own sensemaking about gendered organizational theory. The following section gives an
overview of the theory. Subsequent sections
complicate and add nuance to understanding
multiple perspectives within gendered organizational theory. I came to the academy
with a working knowledge of feminist theory
and frameworks. I use this background to
Gendered organizational theory makes
gender bias, discrimination and privilege
more visible within organizations. This work
is also necessary in the school equity movement. Feminist organizational theory, like
feminism, is not only a theory for or about
women (hooks, 2000). Creating equitable opportunities and conditions for all people to
survive and thrive is central to the feminist
agenda (hooks, 2000). Feminist organizational theory explores the ways gender impacts all relationships and behavior within
organizations. Mills and Tancred (1992)
write, “A gendered analysis of organizations
includes both women and men and places
gender at the center of the explanatory
framework” (p. 8). Feminist scholars contend
that this work benefits all members of organizations.
Gendered organizational theory is built
on three key assumptions about gender and
gender relations, each of these have important implications for equity work in
schools. These assumptions and implications
are briefly summarized in table 1.
Gendered organizational theory developed alongside and in some cases in collab-
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
oration with third-wave feminism. Third
wave feminism popularized in the 1980s
and beyond, considers micro and macro aggressions, multiple/intersecting identities
and the power dynamics inherent in the
social constructions of gender in a media
saturated culture (Mack-Canty, 2004). Using intersectionality, the third wave ideology espouses a commitment to make room
for a broader range of identities within the
feminist dialogue, particularly, LBGTQ
voices, women of color voices, and men
(Collins, 2000; hooks, 2000).
Intersectionality is a structural analysis
and critique of the systems of social inequalities (Collins, 2000; Granka, 2014). In
particular, Collins’ (2000) work illustrates
the way these identities function as a matrix of oppression causing patterned experiences of advantage and disadvantage.
The role of identity, the privileging of multiple voices, and the importance of micro
and macro aggressions are all issues cen-
3
tral to gendered organizational theory and
equity work in schools.
Liberal, Radical, and Postmodern
Theories
Teasing gendered organizational theories apart through three distinct feminist
lenses (liberal, radical, and postmodern)
offers nuanced practical possibilities for
school leadership (Acker, 1990; Crow, 2000;
Halberstam, 1991). Within the gendered
organizational theory literature, very few
scholars identify specifically with a liberal,
radical, or postmodern frame. Instead the
gendered organizational theory literature
presupposes a general feminist perspective.
In many ways this oversimplifies the feminist influence on gendered organizational
theory. Therefore, I am reorganizing the
literature around gendered organizational
theory to better ground educational leaders
with a more complex reading of the feminist influences that contribute to gendered
Table 1. Three Major Assumptions for Gendered Organizational Theory
Assumptions
Implications
Gender is a social construct.
Gender is patterned and socially produced. In U.S. culture, gender continues to be understood primarily in
limiting binary distinctions between men and women
(Acker, 1990, 2006; Duerst-Lahti & Kelly, 1990).
Gendered differences in patriarchal
societies—including the United
States—disempower women (Acker,
1990).
Discrimination is often built into the organizational
structure, as in the glass ceiling (Cotter et al. 2001; Bell
et al. 2002).
Sexism, gender discrimination, and
gender bias in organizations is not
always overt (Acker, 1990, 2006).
Processes of discrimination are often—and increasingly— covert, as in a subtle dialogue between a manager
and his women colleagues.
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
organizational theory. Briefly, the liberal
feminist framework examines issues of access and aims to mobilize legislative
change (Acker, 1990 Crotty, 2013). Radical
feminism explores the “monopolization of
knowledge and culture” by the dominant
patriarchal group (Acker, 1990, p. 419;
Crotty, 2013). Postmodern feminism deconstructs truths, knowledge, and discourses as well as the ways identities are socially constructed.
Liberal Feminist Organizational Theory
Liberal feminism is a theoretical frame
that grew out of the early tradition of liberalism (see Mill & Taylor as early as 1870).
Liberal feminism offers a theoretical bridge
across the three historical feminist waves
in the U.S. (Donner, 1993). Central tenets
of the framework include a commitment to
equal opportunity, access, individual
rights, liberty, and legislative equity
(Donner, 1993, Wendell, 1987). Liberal
feminists demand
...an end to de facto discrimination
on the basis of sex,' enlisting the
State in attaining that goal. Liberal
feminists have the traditional liberal
beliefs in the power of education as a
means of social reform and its importance to human fulfillment.
(Wendell, 1987, p. 66)
In 1989 at the Academy of Management
meetings in Washington D.C. Marta Calás
and Linda Smircich presented a paper on
the social consequences of organizational
research. In their chapter Calás and Smircich (1992) link the women’s management
literature to liberal feminism, citing legislative victories for women in organization
4
including sexual harassment policies, civil
rights, and affirmative action as important
feminist management trends. Ultimately,
Calás and Smircich argue for a more fundamental shift in management literature,
which I will explore in the section on postmodern feminism. In their most recent edition, Bolman and Deal (2013) included gender in their discussion of the human resource frame. The human resource frame,
which explores the interpersonal relationships in organization has the potential to
be a springboard from “traditional” organization theory to a more critical or feminist
framework.
Liberal feminism focuses on organizational
morals and advocates a feminist ethic of care
(Donner, 1993). An important distinction between liberal and radical feminist frameworks is the epistemological hope placed in
organizations for potential healing and repair. While radical feminists posit that existing orders must be completely deconstructed
(see below), liberal feminists, “assume that
inequity is a consequence of ignorance or prejudice and thus something that gradually can
be modified through enlightened educational
programs and corrective policies such as affirmative action” (Thompson, 2003, p. 14).
Tancred-Sherrif and Campbell (1992)
offer a liberal feminist hope that women
will gradually begin to fill more roles in organizations, including leadership roles (e.g.
principal and superintendent), which will
in turn shift organizational perspectives
and policies to those that are more inclusive and equitable. Adding women to existing structures through access and inclusive
policies is a hallmark of liberal feminism.
However, many theorists, even TancredSherrif and Campbell (1992) admit that
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
adding women to existing organizations is
a more retroactive (e.g. responding to a
system that is not working) than proactive
(e.g. creating a whole new system) approach to challenging oppression. It is for
this reason, that radical feminism proposes
a different approach for creating organizational change.
Radical Feminist Organizational Theory
Radical feminism, popularized in the
late 1960s and 1970s posits that sexism—
the oppression of women—is the oldest or
root oppression (Crow, 2000; Morgan,
1977). Morgan (1977) writes,
I believe that sexism is the root oppression, the one which until and
unless we uproot it, will continue to
put forth branches of racism, class,
hatred, ageism, competition, ecological disaster, and economic exploitation. (p. 9)
Radical ideology suggests that systems
of power and oppression are so deeply ingrained in organizations that they must be
completely deconstructed. In Lorde’s seminal speech she asserted that “the master’s
tools will never dismantle the master’s
house” (Lorde, 1979). There are many consequences of sexism as the root oppression,
two directly relevant to organizations, including schools and districts: first, that all
women—and by proxy most men, in their
varied relationships to women—are impacted by sexism and second, that sexist
oppression is often covert and normalized.
Dixon (2000) writes, “All women suffer
from economic exploitation, from psychological deprivation, and from exploitive
5
sexuality” (Dixon, 2000, p. 73). Given this,
radical organizational theorists propose
new organizational structures that focus
on gender equity. These structures must be
new, not revisions because “the inferior position of women is of such long tradition
that it has remained unquestioned even by
radical thinkers” (Ware, 2000, p. 101).
Radical feminism is deeply associated with
the work of black feminists and lesbian
feminists to disrupt not only patriarchy but
also the homogenous, white rhetoric of second wave feminism (see especially, Cornwell, 2000; hooks, 2000; Lorde, 1979; Rich,
1980).
As an organizational framework, radical feminists support deconstructing existing hierarchies and organizational systems
to create new organizations that place gender equity at the center of the organizational model. Joan Acker, a seminal gendered organizational theorist and Donald
Van Houten (1992) contend that there is
an inherent “sex power differential” within
current organizations characterized by “a
hierarchical ordering of jobs...as a result
males generally have more power than females” (p. 16). Analogous with the radical
feminist assertion that organizations need
to be completely reconstructed in order to
advance equity, Gibson Burrell (1984) argues for organizational desexualization.
Burrell contends that, "there is no doubt
that patriarchy and power are present in
cross-gender interactions but this does not
mean that it is impossible for the sexes to
co-operate in the face of common problems" (p. 101).
The process of organizational desexualization requires reconstructing morality, ra-
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
tionality, and employee demands (Burrell,
1984). Albert Mills (1992) calls for a similar radical restructuring of organizations.
He advocates “a woman-centered approach...as an alternative to existing, functionalist and interpretive, accounts of organizational culture” (p. 93). Radical gendered organizational theorists (such as
those in this section) highlight the imbalance of power among men and women in
patriarchal organizations. They support
organized resistance to oppression, and
call for new organizational structures that
place gender equity in the center of their
frameworks.
Postmodern Feminist Organizational
Theory
Postmodern theorists explore a fluid
perception of space/time, and truths
(Halberstam, 1991). Postmodernism is “a
way of seeing the human subject as decentered, polymorphous, and indeterminate” (Johnson, 1992, p. 1976). Postmodern feminist theory is differentiated from
other theoretical traditions by its insistence that all social constructs can—and
should—be contested and examined. Not
only are gender, race, and human identities social constructs, within a postmodern
feminist framework, language is also a pivotal social construct (Ebert, 1991; Johnson,
1992). These multi-layered understandings complicate and problematize all levels
of organization and organizational analysis. Consider:
If we cannot define the word
"woman," how can we speak of
"women's oppression?” How can
6
women be liberated or empowered
if there is uncertainty about what
the word "woman" means? Is the
problem with particular definitions
of "woman" or with the very attempt to define "woman" at all? Is
there any definition that fits all
women? Is it not precisely the
ways in which the word "woman"
has been restrictively defined by
the patriarchy that have been oppressive? (Johnson, 1992, p. 1080)
Ebbert (1991) posits that theorists must employ resistance postmodernism to tackle
these complex lines of questioning.
Resistance postmodernism “views the relation
between word and world, language and social
reality or, in short, ‘difference,’ not as the result of textuality but as the effect of social
struggles” (Ebert, 1991, p.887). Language is
neither neutral nor natural; instead it is a
construct of privilege and power. Postmodernism employs an intellectual uncertainty
with status quo methods for interpreting human experience and organization (Flax, 1987;
Halberstam, 1991).
Utilizing the critical and sociallyconstructed framework for discourse, Hearn
and Parkin (1992) analyzed major organizational theories for their perspectives on gender. In doing so, they found organizational
theory marred by the absence of gendered
and feminist discourse. Further, the few
theorists who did address gender, tended to
do so in a way that normalized patriarchy.
Hearn and Parkin (1992) concluded, “the
very way in which the idea of ‘organization’
is thought about in our everyday
lives...leads to the conclusion that dominant
notions of ‘organization’ are themselves pa-
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
triarchal” (pgs. 63-64). Sheppard (1992)
studied women’s experiences within organizations in two qualitative studies, one with
interviews with women managers in Canada
and another with dual-career families. She
found accepted definitions of organizations
inadequate at capturing her participants’
feelings of isolation, the complex ways power
played out within organizational life, and
women’s experiences with work inside and
outside of formal organizations (Sheppard,
1992). The inside/outside unequal division
of labor was explored in length by
(Hochschild, 2003) in her seminal book The
Second Shift which explored the lived experiences of working women whose first shift
happens in formal organizations and who
then serve a second shift in the home. Calás
and Smircich (1992) apply postmodern feminist views to organizational analysis in their
call for organizational leaders to imagine
new structures, discourse, and knowledge.
Guiding questions for this analysis include:
What are women’s ways of
‘committing’? What shapes would
‘organizations’ take if they were based
on a morality of care (‘committing’ to
people) rather than a morality of
rights (‘committing’ to rules)? Is it
possible to conceive of other types of
relationships between personas and
organizations that do not have the
necessary accomplice of immorality?...The work is never done; you have
to keep on questioning who can be as
you are today. (Calás & Smircich,
1992, p. 230-232)
7
suggestions listed below draw on all three
frameworks: liberal feminism to improve policies from within existing structures, radical
feminism to imagine new structures for
schools and school leadership, and postmodern feminism to engage in the hope and questioning necessary to operationalize these new
solutions and organizations.
Applying Gendered
Theory to Schools
Organizational
Schools and districts are committed to instilling learning within their organization.
Learning is, after all, the central mission of K12 school systems. As organizations, schools
and districts are also learning through policy
and leadership changes. Fry (2003) defines
learning organizations as one in which
"expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured
and collective aspiration is set free... For the
learning organization, developing, leading,
motivating, organizing, and retaining people
to be committed to the organization’s vision,
goals, culture, and values are the major challenge." (p. 694). Translating these aims across
school district missions, visions, and values of
student support and achievement are essential for organizational theory in education
(Bolman & Deal, 2010).
School and Classroom Level
Creating more equitable school districts requires an important reimagining of school organization. The following suggestions are
guided by the feminist ethic of care (Gilligan,
1982)—a commitment to addressing human
needs. I propose that an initial focus for equity work in schools begin by reconstructing and
Bearing these questions in mind, I turn to
re-valuing the agency and the impact of indihow gendered organizational theory can be
vidual teacher/leader pedagogy within classapplied to schools and districts. The practical
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
rooms. A report by Women in Academia posits that classroom teachers are uniquely suited to address gender inequity (Beane, et al.
2014). Educational research suggests that
teachers are the most important change
agents in schools (The New Teacher Project,
2012). However, it is not enough to tell teachers to be change agents, even if this message
is delivered compassionately. Instead, truly
supporting teacher leadership requires a new
imagining and distribution of power in
schools. This power is met with building capacity within the areas of emotional, material, and professional support.
The human resource frame presupposes
that people are the most valued resource
within an organization and therefore effective
organizations must emphasize care for persons (Bolman & Deal, 2013). In schools, this
includes meeting both students and teachers’
basic needs and their higher-level socialemotional needs (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1997; Gilligan, 1982; Glasser & Gough, 1987). Liberal feminist organizational theory would support consciousness
raising in classrooms through service and civic projects where students and teachers investigate social issues and are encouraged to be
advocates for justice. Additionally, liberal
feminists have long advocated for equal opportunity education such as initiatives that
encourage girls to pursue advanced STEM
classes (Wendell, 1987).
Radical feminist organizational theory
pushes schools to reconstruct assumptions of
students, classrooms, and teachers. MacDermid et al. (1992) wrote that feminist teaching
requires connectedness first through studentto-teacher relationships, and second, between
classroom content and students’ lives. Gen-
8
dered organizational theory offers an equity
lens to examine student, teacher, staff, and
administrative experiences within schools. As
mentioned earlier, sustaining change requires
a true commitment by school leaders to implement new structures, rules, systems, and
language if and when the existing system is
not serving stakeholders within school organizations.
Postmodern feminist organizational theory
charges educational leaders to deconstruct
the language they use in their classrooms.
This is no small task—the research suggests
that even well-intentioned and thoughtful educators hold implicit raced and gendered biases (Beane, et al. 2014). “Sometimes... teachers need help learning to see injustices, as
well as in making sense of the sociopolitical
systems of which schooling is a
part.” (Groenke, 2010, p. 86) Professional development support from school leaders may
help teachers to see the hidden curriculum of
schools, covert systems of oppression, and
their own implicit biases. Further, radical
and postmodern organizational theorists
might imagine completely new classroom
structures informed by multiple voices
(students and teachers) and ways of knowing
to provide relevant support and learning opportunities (The New Teacher Project, 2012).
Following are a few suggestions for
reimagining classrooms as sites for morality
of care (Gilligan, 1982):
•
Raise consciousness in classrooms through
service and civic projects where students
and teachers investigate social issues, and
are supported in advocating for justice.
•
Provide equal opportunity education such
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
as initiatives that encourage girls to pursue advanced STEM classes and leadership positions.
•
Develop professional development for staff
on connectedness through student-toteacher relationships and, then, between
classroom content and students’ lives.
•
Create professional development for staff
on implicit bias.
•
Build task-forces on wellness and morality
for students and teachers to address affective needs.
•
Provide administrative emotional, material, and professional support for teacher
leadership and shared leadership models.
Cultivating equity in schools requires a
hope-based commitment to center the classroom as the pivotal space for decision making
in schools. This is addressed in more detail in
the decision making framework outlined in
the following section. How leadership and
agency is conceptualized in schools is inexorably linked to beliefs about equity, power, and
possibility. Valuing students and teachers as
critical leaders in school systems offers radically new opportunities for new kinds of
schools, districts, and future leaders. “Schools
provide a venue for addressing persistent gender leadership gaps by creating a pipeline of
girls and young women who are interested in
taking on future leadership roles” (Beane, et
al. 2014 p. 2). This pipeline issue brings me to
my next section on incorporating gendered organizational theory at the district level.
District Level
There are a multitude of equity issues to
explore in examining school district organizations, for the purposes of this article I focus on
only one: the leadership issue. In 1971, less
9
than 1% of superintendents were women
(Dopp & Sloan, 1986). In 2000, this number
rose to 13% (Glass, 2000), and, in 2016, the
number rose again to 23% (Superville, 2016).
This is still a meager ratio is considering that
women make up 72% of teaching faculty in
PK-12 districts (Glass, 2000). In their study
on women superintendents, Meier and Wikins
(2002) suggest that women face a classic glass
ceiling effect evidenced by the shrinking proportion of women at each level: teacher, assistant principal, principal, assistant superintendent and superintendent. In his list of recommendations for the School Superintendents
Association, Glass (2000) offers a few potential solutions that echo the work of gendered
organizational theory. These include legislative support (liberal feminism), reconstructing
the superintendency (radical feminism) and
reconceptualizing discourse around leadership,
mentorship
and organizations
(postmodern feminism). Glass first calls for
“changing the nature of the superintendency” (para 33) to a distributed leadership model
such that more of the demands of the superintendency are shared across central-office administration. He contends that this would
make the superintendency a more attractive
position and that empowering more central
office administrators would provide a pool of
diverse candidates willing to take on the leadership role.
Glass (2000) recommends, “state-funded
year-long superintendency internships…
[with] carefully chosen mentors [who] might
well be influential in attracting [diverse] superintendent interns into the profession” (para 38) Sanchez et al. (2009) also advocates for a mentoring pipeline. In this pipeline, promising women teachers and teachers
of color would be mentored into principalships
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
and promising women and minority principals
would be mentored into central office and superintendency positions. Aligned with this vision, earlier this year (2016) the school superintendents association (AASA) launched an
initiative to find and support potential women
superintendents through a mentor match program (Superville, 2016).
Gendered organizational theory provides a
powerful platform for addressing the leadership gap in school districts and for ultimately
changing the cultures of these organizations
to promote greater equity. However, the effective implementation of new and more equitable frameworks in schools and districts will
require additional resources, research, and
training.
Decision Making Framework to Center
Radical Hope in Schools
What follows is a new framework for equitable, hope-based decision making in schools.
This model uses key concepts from gendered
organizational theory (care, equity, hope, collaboration) to imagine a new decision making
process in schools. The model is centered on
hope, a universal form of resistant imagination. To hope is to believe that situations, circumstances, and practices can be better. This
decision making framework centers hope by
calling on educational leaders to consider how
schools can create more equitable responses
and practices to dynamic situations in schools.
Taking a feminist, shared-leadership approach, the decision-making framework uses
a series of values-based questions to support
collaborative perspectives. These questions
should be considered with teacher, student,
and community leadership teams during any
decision making process.
10
Figure 1: Decision Making Framework to Center Radical Hope in Schools
(Framework is adapted from Fishman-Weaver, 2016)
Hope: Are we considering new possibilities? Are we engaging in resistant imaginaries that allow for new solutions? Are we
giving our community members the benefit of
the doubt? Are we assuming positive intent?
Learning: What is our school community
(classroom, school. district) learning? What is
an individual stakeholder (student, teacher,
support staff, administrator) learning? Are we
safeguarding learning at high levels? How is
this lesson pushing our school or district forward?
Care: Who needs support in this situation?
How can we (as a class, school, or district)
give support? What support would I want if I
were on the other end of this decision?
Communication: How are we honoring our
commitment to active listening? How will this
decision and rationale be communicated to all
stakeholders? What opportunities are there
for teachers or students to have agency in the
communication and implementation of this
decision?
Equity: Are we fully considering the needs
of this particular community (classroom,
school, district) and/or community member
(student/teacher/support
staff/admin istrator)? Have we explored ways to ensure
access? Have we considered the role that dif-
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
ferent lived experiences might play in this
situation? Are we valuing diversity?
Leadership is often the art of decisionmaking, shared leadership models engage
collaborative (rather than individual, topdown) decision making. The questions above
provide a hope-centered protocol for imagining new and more equitable solutions in
schools. This protocol can be used in a variety of dynamic situations with new and diverse leadership teams.
Implications for Schools:
Where do we go from here?
The calls to action in this paper are mutually dependent, meaning to create sustainable change scholars and educational leaders
need to work on multiple fronts simultaneously. Scholars writing on gendered and feminist organizational theory raise important
questions on equity issues within organizations. However, their scholarship is not yet
integrated into the organizational theory
cannon, including, in particular, organizational theory courses in graduate programs.
In their 2002 study on gender in public affairs graduate programs, Mills and Newman
found that fewer than 30% of colleges/
universities responding to their national survey offered stand-alone courses exploring
gendered issues (Burnier, 2003). Given gender inequity in organizations, including the
underrepresentation of women leaders, and
the underpaid status of women at all levels,
gender must continue to be a focus in courses
on organizations, particularly as the students taking such courses may well be our
future leaders. I propose that graduate programs in educational leadership, policy, public affairs, and business, integrate and restructure their syllabi to meaningfully in-
11
clude the scholarship of critical and gendered
theorists. I also support offering stand-alone
courses on critical and feminist issues as special topics courses in organizational leadership particularly with a focus on equitable
decision-making models for school leadership.
While this article has focused on gendered
and feminist organizational theory, it would
be remiss to not mention other critical perspectives also absent from the dominant literature and teaching of organizational theory. For example, critical management studies (CMS) which developed in tandem with
gendered organizational theory provides another alternative to the positivist and maledominated tradition of organizational analysis (Grey, 2004; Prasad & Mills, 2010). I believe it essential to create a critical model of
organizational theory from the feminist, gendered, and critical traditions designed for
schools and districts. Addressing and redressing the multiple perspectives and agency of marginalized groups through an ethical
framework is essential if educational leaders
want to move the needle on achievement, opportunity, and enrichment gaps in schools
(Alvesson & Willmott, 1992).
In addition to the decision-based framework outlined above, I propose that educational leaders engage in equity audits to assess potential areas for growth and improvement. Equity audits have their origins in
civil rights (Groenke, 2010). Often used to
highlight the unequal distribution of fiscal
and academic resources across race and
class, equity audits have provided valuable
information to organizational reformers in
schools. A critical organizational theory equity audit for schools would include specific
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
indicators for critical social responsibility,
feminist ethic of care, the social-emotional
wellbeing of students (and teachers), school
and classroom culture, safe spaces for diversity, and other ideals garnered from the gendered, feminist, and critical organizational
theories (Acker, 1990; McWilliams & Siegel,
2001; Mills & Tancred, 1992). This information would provide a powerful platform for
organizational reimagining at the PK-12 level.
In conclusion, gendered, feminist, and critical organizational theories offer powerful
frameworks for current and future school
leaders to address equity issues in schools.
The task at hand is multifold: theorists must
continue to develop critical organizational
theory for schools; graduate and professional
development programs must integrate such
frameworks into their teaching; and educational leaders must practice the difficult
reimagining and hope needed to make school
systems more effective and equitable organizations where all stakeholders can thrive.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of
gendered organizations. Gender and Society. 4(2), 139158.
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: gender, class and
race in organizations Gender and Society 20(4), 441464.
Acker J. & Van Housten, D. (1992). Differential recruitment and control: the sex structuring of organizations In Mills, A & Tancred P’s Gendering Organizational Analysis (pp. 15-31).Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Alvesson, M. & Willmott H. (1992). Critical theory and
management studies: an introduction. In M. Alvesson
& H. Willmott, Critical Management Studies (pp. 120). London: Sage.
12
Beane C., Kawashima-Ginsberg, K., Kiesa, A., & St.
Rose, A. (2014). Closing the leadership gap: how educators can help girls lead Women in Academia Report.
http://image.email.nea.org/lib/fe8e1570706d037873/
m/2/Girls+Leadership+Report.pdf
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J.,
(1997). Women’s ways of knowing: the development of
self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bell, M., Mclaughlin, M., & Sequeria, J. (2002). Discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling: women
executives as change agents, Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 65-76.
Bolman L.G & Deal, T.E. (2010). Reframing the path
to school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Publishers.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2013). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Burnier D. (2003). Giving voice to gender in the MPA
classroom: teaching organization theory with a gender
emphasis. Journal of Public Affairs Education 9(4), 275
-283.
Burrell, G. (1984). Sex and organizational analysis.
Organization Studies. 5(2), 97-118.
Calás, M. & Smircich, L. (1992) Using the “F” word:
feminist theories and the social consequences of organizational research. In Mills A. & Tancred P.’s Gendering Organizational Analysis (pp.222-235). Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE publications.Collins, P. (2000). Black
Feminist Thought. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cornwell, A. (2000). Selections from Black lesbian in
White America. In Crow B’s Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader (pp. 443-450). New York, NY: New
York University Press.
Cotter, A., Hermsen, J., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R.
(2001) The glass ceiling effect, Social Forces, Oxford
University Press. 80(2), 655-681.Crenshaw, K. (1989)
Demarginalziing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A
Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum. 140 139-167.
Crotty, M. (2013) Feminism: re-visioning the manmade world In M. Crotty The Foundations of Social
Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research
Process (pp. 160-176) St. Leonard’s, Allen & Unwin.
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
13
Crow, B. (2000). Introduction: radical feminism. In
Crow B.’s Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader
(pp. 1-11). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Groenke S. (2010). Seeing, inquiring, witnessing: using
the equity audit in practitioner inquiry to rethink inequity in public schools. English Education, 43(1), 83-96.
Dixon M. (2000). Why women’s liberation? In Crow,
B.’s Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader (pp. 6771). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Halberstam, J. (1991). Automating gender: postmodern
feminism in the age of the intelligent machine. Feminist Studies. 17(3), 439-460.
Donner, W. (1993). John Stuart Mill's Liberal feminism. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal
for Philosophy in the Analytic. 69(2), 155-166.
Hearn, J. & Parkin P. (1992). Gender and organizations: a selective review and a critique of a neglected
area. In Mills A. & Tancred P.’s Gendering Organizational Analysis (pp. 46-66). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Dopp, B. & Sloan, C. (1986). Career development and
succession of women to the superintendency, The
Clearing House, 60(3), 120-126.
hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: passionate
politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Duerst-Lahti, G. & Kelly R. (1990). Gender and style in
bureaucracy. Women and Politics 10(1), 67-100.
Hochschild , A. (2003). The Second Shift. New York:
Penguin Books.
Ebert, T. (1991). The "difference" of postmodern feminism, National Council of Teachers of English. 53(8),
886-904.
Johnson, B. (1992). The postmodern in feminism. Harvard Law Review. 105(5), 1076-1083.
Fishman-Weaver, K. (2016). Viewpoint: Are you an
effective leader? Check your micro-ethics. Principal
Leadership https://www.principals.org/news-andresources/publications/principal-leadership/principalleadership-archives/principal-leadership-volume-172 01 6- 1 7 /pr in ci pa l - le a de r sh ip - s e p te m be r - 20 1 6/
september-2016-viewpoint?SSO=true
Flax, J. (1987). Postmodernism and gender relations in
feminist theory. Signs 12(4), 621-643.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693– 727.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In A Different Voice. Boston: MA,
Harvard University Press.
Glass, T. (2000). Where are all the women superintendents? AASA’s latest study on the profession suggests
seven reasons why female numbers still lag in top district posts. AASA, the School Superintendents Association.http://aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?
id=14492&terms=women+superintendents
Glasser, W. & Gough, P. (1987). The key to improving
schools: an interview with William Glasser. The Phi
Delta Kappan. 68(9), 656-662.
Granka, P. (2014). Intersectionality: a foundations and
frontiers reader. Boulder, CO; Westview Press.
Grey, C. (2004). Reinventing Business Schools: The
Contribution of Critical Management Education, Academy of Critical Management Education. Academy of
Management Learning and Education 3(2), 178-186.
Lorde, A (1979). The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. In Lorde, A. (2003) Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde (pp.110114). New York: NY. Ten Speed Press.
MacDermid, S., Jurich, J. Myers-Wall, J., & Pelo, A.
(1992). Feminist teaching: effective education. Family
Relations (41)1 31-38.
Mack-Canty, C. (2004) Third-wave feminism and the
need to reweave the nature/culture duality, NWSA
Journal, 16(3), 154-179.
McWilliams, A. & D. Siegel. (2001). Corporate social
responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review. 26(1), 117-127.
Meier, K. & Wilkins, V. (2002). Gender differences in
agency head salaries: the case of public education. Public Administration Review, 62:(4), 405-411.
Mill, J. & Taylor H. (1870). From the subjection of
women. In Kolmar W. & Barkowski F.’s (2000) Feminist Theory: A Reader (pp.67-75). Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Company.
Mills, A. (1992). Organization, gender, and culture. In
Mills A. & Tancred P.’s Gendering Organizational
Analysis (pp.93-112). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Mills A. & Tancred P. (1992). Gendering organizational
analysis (pp.31-45). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Morgan, R. (1977). Going too far: the personal chronicle of a feminist. New York: Random House.
Journal of 0rganizational Theory in Education, March 2017. Volume 2
14
The New Teacher Project (2012). The Irreplacebles.
Reimagine Teaching. http://tntp.org/publications/view/
the-irreplaceables-understanding-the-real-retentioncrisis
school districts. Why? Education Week. http://
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/11/16/few-womenrun-the-nations-school-districts.html?
r=1993015025&cmp=SOC-EDIT-FB
Prasad, A. & Mills A. (2010). Critical management
studies and business ethics: A Synthesis and Three
Research Trajectories for the Coming Decade. Journal
of Business Ethics. 94(2), 227-237.
Tancred-Sheriff, P. & Campbell, E. (1992). Room for
women: a case study in the sociology of organizations.
In Mills A. & Tancred P.’s Gendering Organizational
Analysis (pp.31-45). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Rich A. (1980) Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian experience. In Kolmar W. & Bartkowski’s Feminist
Theory: A Reader (pp. 304-312). Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishers.
Thompson, A. (2003). Caring in context: four feminist
theories on gender and education Curriculum Inquiry,
33(1), 9-65.
Sanchez, J., Thorntorn, B. & Usinger, J. (2009). Increasing the ranks of minority principals developing
school leaders, 67(2) http://www.ascd.org/publications/
educational-leadership/oct09/vol67/num02/Increasingthe-Ranks-of-Minority-Principals.aspx
Sheppard, D. (1992). Women manager’s perception of
gender and organizational life. In Mills A. & Tancred
P.’s Gendering Organizational Analysis (pp.151-167).
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Ware, C. (2000). The relationship of Black women to
the women’s liberation movement. In Crow B.’s Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader (pp. 98-113).
New York, NY: New York University Press.
Wendell S. (1987). A (qualified) defense of liberal feminism. Hypatia, 2(2), 65-93.
Supervile, D. (2016). Few women run the nation's
JOTE is a publication sponsored by the AERA Organizational Theory Special Interest Group. By virtue of their appearance
in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial
settings 90 days after initial publication. Copyright for articles published in JOTE is retained by the authors. More information is available on the JOTE Web site: www.organizationaltheoryineducation.com