paper

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279544491

Can Gender Equity Be More Equitable?: Promoting an Alternative Frame for Sport Management Research, Education, and Practice

Article in Journal of Sport Management · October 2006

DOI: 10.1123/jsm.20.4.483

CITATIONS

56

READS

1,629

2 authors:

Sally Shaw

University of Otago

46 PUBLICATIONS 492 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Wendy Frisby

University of British Columbia - Vancouver

49 PUBLICATIONS 939 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wendy Frisby on 08 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

483

Journal of Sport Management, 2006, 20, 483-509 © 2006 Human Kinetics, Inc

Shaw is with the School of Physical Education, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, and Frisby is with the School of Human Kinetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1.

Can Gender Equity Be More Equitable?: Promoting an Alternative Frame for Sport Management Research,

Education, and Practice

Sally Shaw University of Otago

Wendy Frisby University of British Columbia

Gender research in sport management has been dominated by liberal feminist theory, which does little to challenge or alter dominant gendered discourses and power structures within sport organizations. In this paper, the limitations of three existing conceptual frames for understanding gender equity are discussed. A fourth frame is proposed that builds on the work of Ely and Meyerson (2000a), Meyerson and Kolb (2000), and Rao, Stuart, and Kelleher (1999). We argue that the fourth frame, based on poststructural feminist theory, provides an important alternative, addressing the complexities of gender relations in sport organizations through the processes of critique, narrative revision, and experimentation. We extend the fourth frame by considering two additional elements: (a) the intersection of gender with other aspects of diversity and (b) a deconstruction of the traditional discourses that pit gender equity against organizational effectiveness using Bauman·s (2001) concept of moral sensitivity. The implications of the fourth frame are then discussed in relation to sport management teaching, research, and practice.

Over the last two decades, signifi cant gains have been made by some women reaching high-level administrative positions in sport organizations. For example, women now hold major posts in organizations such as the International Olympic Committee, the Canadian Interuniversity Sport organization, and the National Col- legiate Athletic Association, a situation that would have been unlikely 20 years ago (Acosta & Carpenter, 2004). Despite these relatively isolated high-profi le gains, many women still struggle to access middle and upper managerial positions in commercial, voluntary, and not-for-profi t sport organizations and may face more barriers to employment than their male counterparts (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). Commenting on the United Kingdom context, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport, Tessa Jowell, wryly noted that

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 48303Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 483 9/24/06 1:00:21 PM9/24/06 1:00:21 PM

484 Shaw and Frisby

more girls and women now play football [soccer] than netball but the Football Association·s women·s football committee of twelve members has only a single woman on it. Why should the women·s game be run by people called Mike, Ray, Peter, and Denis? (Kelso, 2004, p. 1)

Research into gender-related diversity in sport organizations consistently demon- strates that sport organizations are, on the whole, far from being equitable for a number of reasons. Specifi cally, Hovden (2000) noted that the tightly protected White male networking circles comprising senior sport administration structures in Norway has led to the exclusion of women from high-ranking roles. In a similar vein, Whisenant, Pederson, and Obenour (2002) reported on the widespread marginaliza- tion of women in United States university athletics administration to positions that relate only to women·s sports, such as being the contact person for female athletes or having responsibility for promoting women·s sports. Not only does this practice limit the areas in which women might fi nd employment, it “denies them the power associated with controlling the ¶revenue generating· sports” (Whisenant et al., 2002, p. 489) that are usually played by male athletes. At an organizational level, Hoeber and Frisby (2001) indicated that competing values in sport organizations led to the marginalization of gender equity in relation to other organizational values that were perceived to be more important, such as winning performances and generat- ing revenue. Yet, even when women·s teams had a longer history of winning than men·s teams, the inequities in budgets, promotions, and access to administrative positions persisted (Hoeber, 2004; Hoeber & Frisby, 2001). Ironically, one of the links between the above four studies is that all of the organizations involved were, in some way, accountable for gender equity either through legislation (e.g., Title IX in the United States; Whisenant et al., 2002); policies (e.g., Canadian Interuniver- sity Sport; Hoeber, 2004; Hoeber & Frisby, 2001); or by association with national reputations for equity and fairness (e.g., in Norway; Hovden, 2000).

This body of research supports the view that there is a disjuncture between the development of gender equity policies and programs and the ways in which gender relations, or the socially constructed ideas of what it is to be a man or woman, are expressed and played out (Acker, 2000). Indeed, research has shown that gender equity policies and programs have struggled to meet their espoused purposes and may even work to the detriment of their stated equity aims (Hoeber, 2004; Hoeber & Frisby, 2001; Shaw & Penney, 2003). For example, while the aim of some policies is to increase the numbers of women in management positions, this does little to change the dominance of masculinities that are deeply and historically entrenched in sport. In addition, the implementation of equity policies may be faced with backlash, as some men and women may resent the seemingly special treatment that women might receive (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a).

Workable alternatives to the evident contradictions between the creation and implementation of gender equity policies have been rare (Acker, 2000). In trying to address this concern, Ely and Meyerson (2000a) suggested that the underlying limitations of gender equity policies are due in part to “the limited conception of gender traditionally used to defi ne and address problems” (p. 105). Gender equity has been conventionally theorized as a women·s-only issue. This perspective is limited because it risks putting blame on women for their historically produced circumstances that have resulted in fewer and less powerful positions for women

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 48403Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 484 9/24/06 1:00:23 PM9/24/06 1:00:23 PM

Gender Equity 485

in organizations when compared to men (Staurowsky, 1996). It follows that if gender equity is a women·s issue, then it is women·s responsibility to address it, rather than the responsibility of all organizational members (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Positioning gender equity as a women·s issue also ignores the realities that some men face in the workplace (e.g., pressures to work long hours to secure career-oriented positions if they are the only or main “bread winner” in the family; Knights & Kerfoot, 2004; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). Furthermore, the women·s-only approach ignores the inequities that the men who are visible minorities, who are gay, or who have disabilities may face in the workplace. This “results in solutions that do little to broaden men·s opportunities to participate more at home or to relieve them of the burdens that they face in the traditional masculine role” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 105).

Meyerson and Kolb (2000) contributed further to these arguments when they noted that liberal feminism has dominated how gender equity in organizational research and practice has been conceptualized. Liberal feminist theory, which also permeates the sport management literature and practice, is limited because it focuses largely on increasing the numbers of women in managerial positions without changing prevailing discourses, structures, and operating norms (Mey- erson & Kolb, 2000). Alvesson and Billing (1997) defi ned discourses as socially constructed “sets of statements, beliefs and vocabularies . . . that tend to produce truth effects—certain beliefs are acted upon as true and therefore become partially true in terms of consequences” (p. 41). Research informed by liberal feminism fails to acknowledge the infl uence of gendered discourses and does not encourage a full examination of the assumptions, values, and beliefs about men and women that are deeply entrenched in organizations (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Rather, it leads to the development of policies and programs that are fundamentally fl awed because they are (re)produced by individuals who are not required to refl ect on their own discourses and positions of power. If left unchallenged over time, these discourses become institutionalized organizational truths that are diffi cult to challenge (Fou- cault, 1979). In turn, the acceptance of taken-for-granted practices leads to the “failure of organizations to change prevailing work practices” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 105). For example, some sport organizations may engage in the creation of equity policies and programs for political reasons, such as to gain government funding based on required criteria (McKay, 1997; Shaw & Penney, 2003), without valuing equitable gender relations in deeper and more meaningful ways (Hoeber & Frisby, 2001). As liberal feminism does not actively encourage refl ection and change to work practices (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a), there is little chance that gender equity policies informed by this theory will result in the critique and destabilization of dominant hegemonic and gendered discourses. Ely and Meyerson (2000a) argued that, at best, liberal feminism enables the promotion of a few White middle-class women into senior management roles and, at worst, works against the hiring and progression of most women within organizations.

As a consequence of concerns regarding the shortcomings of liberal feminism as a conceptual frame for research and policy development, some researchers have suggested that in order for gender equity to be more meaningfully supported, a shift in how it is conceptualized is required. Aitchison (2000) argued that poststructural feminist theory challenges “binary divides and dualistic thinking” (p. 133), such as viewing gender as a women·s issue, which dominates much of social theory and

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 48503Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 485 9/24/06 1:00:24 PM9/24/06 1:00:24 PM

486 Shaw and Frisby

particularly liberal feminism. Rao et al. (1999) argued that gender equity needs to be the product of changes in the “deep structure” (p. 2), or deeply held cultures of organizations, and that poststructural feminist theory provides a lens for envision- ing the substantial changes that are required. Meyerson and Kolb (2000) clarifi ed that such a conceptual shift could lead to broader structural and cultural changes to “taken for granted assumptions, values, and practices that systematically accord power and privilege to certain groups of men at the expense of women and other men” (p. 554). These assumptions, such as a belief that White, heterosexual, able- bodied men are the most capable of being organizational leaders, consciously or unconsciously dominate in many sport organizations (DeSensi, 1994; Hall, 1996; McKay, 1997; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). While the changes that are proposed by these researchers may be considered radical, their intention is not to dismiss previous work on gender equity. Rather, it is to utilize our current understandings in order to advance alternative perspectives for understanding gender relations in sport management that will be theoretically progressive as well as appealing in a practical sense to managers (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a).

Based on this premise, the aim of this paper is to propose an alternative framework for understanding and pursuing gender equity in sport management. To accomplish this aim, three existing frames for understanding gender equity are applied to sport management and critiqued in more depth using a typology offered by Ely and Meyerson (2000a). This critique indicates how dominant organizational discourses are promoted in sport through contemporary conceptualizations of gender equity that limit and undermine the potential for organizational transformation and social justice. Second, an alternative way of conceptualizing gender equity in sport management, based on poststructural feminist theory, is proposed by drawing on the fourth frame of Ely and Meyerson·s (2000a) typology and other relevant literature. Third, by considering the intersectionality of gender with other diversity issues (e.g., race, sexuality, class, and ability) and using Bauman·s (2001) concept of moral sensitivity to further deconstruct traditional managerial discourses that pit gender equity against organizational effectiveness, we offer an extension to Ely and Meyerson·s (2000a) fourth frame. The fi nal contribution of this chapter lies in the discussion of implications of this new conceptualization of gender equity for sport management education, practice, and research.

This paper is a theoretical one, written with the intent of encouraging and stimulating debate on gender equity, as well as offering a framework for applica- tion. Our arguments focus on utilizing and extending the Ely and Meyerson (2000a) framework in order to encourage our fi eld to consider alternatives to the liberal feminist paradigm. We therefore suggest that, in this case, sport is not a special fi eld that needs its own theory. Rather, in keeping with Aitchison·s (2000) comments on leisure studies, we suggest that sport management can engage with poststructuralist theory, represented in this case by Ely and Meyerson·s (2000a) work. This engage- ment articulates a dialogue “which is representative of the increasing breakdown of disciplinary boundaries within the academy” (Aitchison, 2000, p. 132). If we do not embrace this challenge, a

“reluctance to engage with poststructuralist theory renders possible a situation where the subject fi eld itself will implode with social science disciplines and other subject fi elds, where stimulating debate and theoretical development

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 48603Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 486 9/24/06 1:00:24 PM9/24/06 1:00:24 PM

Gender Equity 487

have already taken place in relation to poststructural theory.” (Aitchison, 2000, p. 131)

We will, in short, miss the boat if we ignore poststructuralist debates and their rel- evance to sport management, and risk being consigned to irrelevance with regard to research in diversity.

Gender Equity Management in Sport Organizations:

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Ely and Meyerson (2000a) outlined a typology of current approaches to gender equity research and practice that they call “frames” (p. 105). Three of the domi- nant frames they critiqued included “fi x the women,” “value the feminine,” and “create equal opportunity” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 105). Ely and Meyerson (2000a) suggested that although these frames may initially appear to be supportive of gender equity initiatives and are thus sheeplike in their appeal and seeming innocence, this disguises the wolfl ike cunning or aggression that undermines the meaningful pursuit of gender equity within organizations. Critiquing these three frames within a sport management context is an important fi rst step for envision- ing other possibilities for fundamental changes that will create more equitable work conditions for human resources including current and future sport managers, employees, and volunteers.

Frame One: Fix the Women

In this fi rst frame, gender equity is presented as an organizational reaction to the view that women are less capable of dealing with management positions than men. This stereotypical viewpoint characterizes women as caring not aggressive, good at organizing but not big picture thinkers, and domestically oriented rather than career minded (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). Meyerson and Kolb (2000) suggested that this view of women has led some managers to assume that “women lack the skills or attributes that are valuable and necessary to compete in the world of business or to assume positions of leadership” (p. 560). This viewpoint is evident in some sport organizations, as Shaw and Hoeber (2003) illustrated, where women reported having to prove themselves against their male counterparts in masculine-dominated English National Governing Bodies. Further, managers openly admitted that women were given more diffi cult interviews when applying for senior management positions, because it was already assumed that they would be less suited to those positions than their male counterparts (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). McKay (1997) reported similar fi ndings, where women were consistently told that they were not assertive enough or as psychologically suited to management positions as men. Viewing gender relations from this perspective encourages organizations to “fi x the women” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 105) by changing their perceived weaknesses or defi cits. An example of such fi xing includes sending women to assertiveness courses or other types of executive development, so they can learn to emulate men·s perceived toughness in negotiations and other managerial practices.

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 48703Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 487 9/24/06 1:00:24 PM9/24/06 1:00:24 PM

488 Shaw and Frisby

While some women may have benefi ted from such professional development programs (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000), it is not surprising that fi xing the women as a gender equity frame has largely failed to produce equitable organizations. First, this frame ignores broader diversity issues by largely focusing on the fi xing of White, heterosexual, educated, middle-class women, leaving women of “other” races, lower classes, less-educated, and lesbian women with little chance of achiev- ing higher status (Aitchison, 2000; Ely & Meyerson, 2000a). Second, fi xing the women assumes that all men express the traits of independence, networking, and toughness. There is no recognition or assistance for men who do not express these seemingly desirable traits. Finally, fi xing the women suggests special treatment for specifi c groups of women, which understandably, has left many men and some women disgruntled (Hultin & Szulkin, 1999). This fi nding is paralleled within sport management research, as special efforts to promote women were also identifi ed by Shaw and Penney (2003) and McKay (1997) as areas of frustration for many men in sport organizations.

Frame Two: Value the Feminine

Rather than viewing feminine characteristics as defi cits, this second frame holds the opposite view: perceived women·s differences should be viewed as traits to be celebrated rather than fi xed. This initially appears to be a more positive approach toward women as it values their contributions and attempts to raise awareness of the benefi ts that feminine styles might bring to organizations. It does not, however, critique the binaries created by attributing certain characteristics to all men or to all women, such as by casting women in caring roles that are not usually associ- ated with leadership positions. Rather than promoting women and their interests, Ely and Meyerson (2000a) suggested that this frame for gender equity does little more than “reinforce women·s appropriateness for performing what are essen- tially the ¶housekeeping· roles of management” (p. 109). This focus on usually undervalued private roles in organizations (Fletcher, 1999) contrasts with publicly valued traditional organizational roles for men who are “out conquering the global frontiers and exercising the real power in today·s multinational corporations” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 109).

The position outlined by the value the feminine approach reifi es gender dif- ferences by creating false binaries around male and female roles, instead of raising questions that dismantle the taken-for-granted male standard that positions feminin- ity as inferior (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Suggesting that all males and all females act in certain ways is simplistic and problematic (Aitchison, 2000), as some men are good at listening, emoting, and nurturing—attributes that are usually linked with women and femininity in this frame. Similarly, some women are skilled at directing and leading, characteristics that are usually associated with males and masculinity (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Knights & Kerfoot, 2004).

Frame Three: Create Equal Opportunities

The third frame that Ely and Meyerson (2000a) described is perhaps the most complex of the three. Rather than viewing gender inequities as problems that are due to individual defi cits or binary gender differences, the focus is on the struc- tural constraints that create glass ceilings to women·s entry and advancement in

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 48803Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 488 9/24/06 1:00:24 PM9/24/06 1:00:24 PM

Gender Equity 489

organizations (Bell & Nkomo, 2003), such as isolation from informal networks (Kerfoot & Whitehead, 1998) and marginalization through family commitments (Mills, 1988). As structural organizational constraints are perceived to infl uence women·s positions, the problem has been addressed with policies such as the UK Sex Discrimination Act (1975), affi rmative action policies, and fl exible work arrangements, to name a few examples. The goal is to create equal opportunities to participate in or to advance through organizational hierarchies by reducing structural, procedural, fi nancial, or familial impediments. These policies have been instrumental in formalizing a place for gender to be discussed; however, they have also had limited overall success. For example, Title IX has enabled the development of an average of six women·s athletics teams per American university since 1972 (Acosta & Carpenter, 2004). Further, women·s soccer, increasing 40-fold since 1977, is now available on 88.6% of university campuses in the United States. In the same time period, however, the number of female administrators of women·s programs has dropped from 90% to 18.5%, and only 8.6% of athletic directors are female in Division I of the NCAA (Acosta & Carpenter, 2004).

Where policies exist to assist women·s development in administration posi- tions, such support might not be favored by all women or their male colleagues because, once again, the implementation of policies may be perceived as special treatment. As Ely and Thomas (2001) suggested, gender- or race-related policies may also lead to perceptions of “policing” (p. 246) on behalf of a marginalized group, a function that leaves other organizational members feeling scrutinized. Such dissatisfaction with gender equity policies may lead to backlash against the very persons the policies are intended to protect (Ely & Thomas, 2001). McKay (1997) and Shaw and Hoeber (2003) discovered similar perspectives within Canadian, New Zealand, Australian, and English national governing bodies of sport, where some managers felt that the development and implementation of gender equity policies were added work chores that did little to improve gender relations.

Consequently, providing equal opportunities to compete, coach, and administer in sport refl ects a liberal feminist perspective that does little to confront the con- ditions that create and sustain gender inequities, even though these policies have resulted in some increases in the retention and recruitment of women in management positions (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Similarly to the other two conceptual frames, Meyerson and Kolb (2000) contend that policies aimed at structural barriers “do not suffi ciently challenge the systems of power that make them necessary in the fi rst place” (p. 562).

Despite these concerns, policies to address structural barriers appear to be the vehicle of choice to promote gender equity for contemporary sport management researchers. Shaw and Penney (2003), for example, suggested that equity policies should be created or modifi ed in order to overcome the structural limitations of top- down communications. In her research into the experiences of summer camp workers, Henderson (1995) promoted the development of policies to create a safe and supportive environment for lesbian and gay employees. Finally, Whisenant et al. (2002) argued for equity policies in hiring, opportunities for networking, and giving women an equal chance in all organizational practices. Each of these proposals may well lead to some improvement for women in sport and leisure management. Each, however, is hindered by the dominant premise of liberal feminism that fails to dismantle underlying power imbalances (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000; Ogbor, 2001).

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 48903Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 489 9/24/06 1:00:25 PM9/24/06 1:00:25 PM

490 Shaw and Frisby

Building on the Typology: The Fourth Frame

The above typology does much more than allow us to observe and comment on the variety of ways that gender equity has been conceptualized. It also serves as a platform upon which an alternative frame of gender equity can be developed in sport management. An alternative is needed because the above three frames “accommodate existing systems [and do] not fundamentally challenge the sources of power or the social interactions that reinforce and maintain the status quo” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 112). For example, fi xing the women serves to reiterate assumptions that women are somehow naturally less inclined to leadership roles (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Valuing the feminine allows organizational leaders to marginalize women·s contributions into housekeeping roles. Finally, the pursuit of equal opportunities does not address the complexities of gender relations that remain unresolved when women simply secure more managerial positions than in the past.

To develop the fourth frame, we drew on the work of Ely and Meyerson (2000b), who conducted action research on gender equity in organizations to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice, along with their colleagues Kolb, Acker, Coleman, and Rippin (Bresnan, 2000). We will also draw on Fletcher (1999), Knights and Kerfoot (2004), and Rao et al. (1999), who have similarly advocated new conceptual frameworks for understanding gender equity based on poststructural feminist theory. Aitchison (2000), Hoeber (2004), Hovden (2005), Shaw and Hoeber (2003), and Shaw and Penny (2003) are among the few in sport and leisure management who have adopted poststructural feminist theory to ana- lyze gender equity. With this theory, the discourses and assumptions that make gendered hierarchies and practices appear normal are disrupted with the aim of creating space for the development of new meanings and understandings to guide the implementation of alternative policies and practices (Fletcher, 1999).

One of the goals of poststructural feminist theory is to move beyond the sim- plistic assumptions and solutions offered by the fi rst three frames, typically used in organizational research and practice. Ely and Meyerson (2000b) and colleagues explicitly embraced action research by focusing on “getting out of the armchair” (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000, p. 554) by working in collaboration with organizational members. They sought to generate new possibilities for advancing gender equity, which would both broaden theoretical thinking while identifying practices that could be implemented by managers. A major obstacle that they and their colleagues had to overcome was the assumption that improving gender equity could only be accomplished at the expense of sacrifi cing organizational performance and effec- tiveness (Ely & Meyerson, 2000b). They worked with organizational members to deconstruct this assumption by arguing that improved gender equity was crucial to the effective performance of any organization (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). For example, if inequities were contributing to low morale, high absenteeism, high turnover, and groupthink, then disrupting prevailing norms could counter and offer alternatives to ineffective work relations (Ely & Meyerson, 2000).

This alternative vision of gender equity was presented in somewhat differ- ent ways as a fourth frame by Ely and Meyerson (2000a) and Meyerson and Kolb (2000). However, both approaches focused on processes of organizing by

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49003Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 490 9/24/06 1:00:25 PM9/24/06 1:00:25 PM

Gender Equity 491

conceptualizing gender as an axis of power that shapes organizational structures, identities, processes, and the dominant forms of knowledge that become truths or taken-for-granted ways of operating (Acker, 1990; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Ely and Meyerson (2000a) explained this further when they wrote that

the categories male and female, masculine and feminine, derive meaning and shape experience. These categories are situated within and grow from specifi c social, political, and historical conditions, and are infl uenced in part by all other social relations, including class, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, age, and sexual identity. Thus gender is neither static nor universal; its meaning and consequences are socially constructed. (p. 114)

Gender is therefore seen as being central to social, political, and historical practices that produce gender-based inequities (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a). Organizational prac- tices are also infl uenced by gender; thus, they must be understood as being gendered. For example, Knights and Kerfoot (2004) described masculinity as a dominant discourse that characterizes most business and noncommercial organizations:

[masculinity] is ordinarily behaviour that is technically rational, performance- oriented, highly instrumental, devoid of intimacy yet preoccupied with identity, and driven by rarely refl ected upon corporate or bureaucratic goals that are presumed inviolable. . . . Conditioned by this privileged and pervasive form of masculinity, the modern manager is ritually engaged in coordinating and controlling others in pursuit of the instrumental goals of production, produc- tivity, and profi t. (p. 436)

While Knights and Kerfoot (2004, p. 436) used the singular masculinity, their work more accurately refl ects a multiplicity of masculinities. That is, “masculinity . . . is meant merely as a shorthand . . . masculinities are constituted in and through historical and cultural practice, and thereby are contingent, always shifting with changes in context, time and place” (Knights & McCabe, 2001, p. 622). The dominance of masculine ways of conducting organizational processes limits other forms of knowledge, such as more cooperative and inclusive approaches to work (Knights & Kerfoot, 2004). Masculine practices may also contribute to ineffective- ness by ensuring that only those who can successfully express masculinities will have access to powerful positions (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). This allows those individuals to construct forms of knowledge that become taken for granted as institutionalized common sense, thus limiting possibilities for innovative alterna- tives to be voiced. For example, Hoeber (2004) found that sport administrators, coaches, and athletes used historical tradition and comments like “it·s just the way it is” (p. 185) to explain away observed inequities in the funding and promotion of male and female athletes and teams.

With the fourth frame, it is essential to undermine the dominance of masculin- ity and “continuously identify and disrupt oppressively gendered social practices” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 131). Rao et al. (1999) suggested that a way to dis- rupt the dominance of masculinities was to encourage organizational members to interpret and critique their own gendered experiences. Knights and Kerfoot (2004) developed this further by arguing that undergoing such a process could “occupy a space between [gendered] representations and the subjectivity that makes them

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49103Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 491 9/24/06 1:00:25 PM9/24/06 1:00:25 PM

492 Shaw and Frisby

possible” (p. 435). By this, they meant that the representations of gender that are expressed through the fi rst three frames become the subjectivities by which some women and men understand their experiences. Because women or men who do not express masculinities are represented as people who need fi xing because they only contribute in feminine ways to the organization, they may begin to internalize these views themselves, thus furthering the marginalization of alternative perspectives. Rao et al. (1999) and Knights and Kerfoot (2004) argued that it is necessary to occupy some conceptual space between these representations and subjectivities in order to resist this internalization process. This may be achieved by undertaking three phases that are central to the fourth frame, and which Meyerson and Kolb (2000) described as the “critique, narrative revision, and experimentation of social practices” (p. 563ï564). In the following section, we discuss how each of these phases can be conceptualized and implemented. As well, we indicate instances where each of these three phases is evident or lacking in the sport management literature. Finally, in keeping with the refl exivity that is required in a poststructur- alist approach, we outline some limitations of the fourth frame and consider two potential ways by which it could be extended and improved.

Phase One: Critique

This fi rst phase represents a self-refl exive process in which organizational members are encouraged to “identify oppressively gendered social practices in the organi- zation, especially those that appear to compromise organizational effectiveness” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 135). Knights and Kerfoot (2004) offered a useful defi nition of organizational effectiveness that is pertinent to this argument when they explained that

we do not merely mean more output at a lower cost but also [encouraging] less damaging social relations of production, where there is some sense of attentive interpersonal engagement and not just a tunnel vision focus on instrumental goals. (p. 434)

Effectiveness therefore refers not only to the creation of outputs, but also to ongo- ing social processes within the organization.

Researchers such as Acker (1990), Ely and Meyerson (2000b), Meyerson and Kolb (2000), and Rao et al. (1999) have identifi ed a number of gendered discourses, which are representative of the confl ict between gender equity and organizational effectiveness, that need to be critiqued to move toward more meaningful organiza- tional change. However, to describe and analyze each of these gendered practices is outside the scope of this chapter, even though we do allude to some of them in the upcoming discussion. Rather, we have identifi ed three overarching processes that we feel encompass the practices referred to by these researchers. The fi rst of these overarching processes is informal practices, which are the subtle yet infl uential practices that occur in organizations and “appear neutral, yet have different impacts on men and women” (Kolb & Meyerson, 1999, p. 140). Second, symbols of success, refer to what is valued and rewarded in organizations and how these symbols often place gender equity initiatives on the margins. Finally, the public face of organi- zations includes the formal values, practices, and policies communicated to the public at large that serve to reinforce dominant discourses. These three processes

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49203Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 492 9/24/06 1:00:25 PM9/24/06 1:00:25 PM

Gender Equity 493

are not discrete, as they inevitably overlap with one another, but together they do capture a more complex view of gender equity that when critiqued serve to reveal “gender as an axis of power, an organizing principle that shapes social structure, identities, and knowledge” (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000, p. 563).

Informal Practices. Many informal practices (e.g., the times at which meetings are held) appear to be gender neutral on the surface. Meetings may, however, traditionally be scheduled for early in the morning or late in the afternoon, and may preclude women and men who take responsibility for childcare (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). Exclusionary power is clearly at work here, as women and men with childcare duties become excluded from important discussions and may appear to less loyal to their organizations than other workers if they leave early or are unable to attend (Rao et al., 1999). Agenda setting power, as described by Rao et al. (1999), is also evident because if people are unable to attend meetings due to overly long, fl exible work hours, they cannot infl uence the agenda at those meetings, which may infl uence bigger picture organizational agendas.

Other informal practices include social interactions enjoyed by organizational members socializing together after hours, such as going for drinks or playing sports. They may be privy to information and network-building opportunities that are not available to others who are not invited (Woodward, 1996) or who have childcare responsibilities (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). These practices are clearly gendered by undermining those who undertake major responsibility for traditionally feminine roles and privileging those who are better able to conform to the existing culture of masculinities. Furthermore, those who question these practices may be labeled “control freaks” or “trouble makers” (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000, p. 127), so some organizational members do not complain even when they are adversely affected by these practices.

Informal work practices also include the networking that provides entry into infl uential organizational cliques, with men·s networks often being more pervasive and infl uential than women·s networks (Hultin & Szulkin, 1999; Shaw, this issue). Commonly known as old boys· networks (Brass, 1985), they play a large role in keeping women out of senior administrative positions through the exercise of exclusionary power or agenda setting power by those inside the networks (Cameron, 1996; Hovden, 2000; Rao et al., 1999).

Assumptions that people make about who are the most qualifi ed occupants of various managerial positions are also informal practices, encompassing Ely and Meyerson·s (2000a) notion of the maleïfemale identity dichotomy. Traditional male identities are fostered when men in management are encouraged to be “real men” in organizations and show few signs of femininity, such as displaying emotion or nurturing behavior (Kerfoot & Whitehead, 1998). Men who wish to apply for or work in traditionally female roles, for example, primary school or kindergarten education, may be ridiculed for being “soft” (Kerfoot & Whitehead, 1998). In contrast, women who work in traditionally male roles, such as senior management, construction, or engineering, may be ignored, rendered invisible, or defi ned as “butch” (Fletcher, 1999; J. Martin, 1994; P.Y. Martin, 2001). Therefore, they may not be considered to be “real women” within cultures of traditional masculinity and narrowly defi ned femininity that dominate organizations.

Sport, which likes its men “manly” and its women “cute,” has not surprisingly refl ected these same organizational assumptions, thus condoning acceptance of the

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49303Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 493 9/24/06 1:00:26 PM9/24/06 1:00:26 PM

494 Shaw and Frisby

maleïfemale identity dichotomy (Hoeber, 2004; McKay, 1997). For example, Frisby and Brown (1991) reported that women in management roles in leisure organizations felt that they were often segregated into roles that fi t with their presumed domestic responsibilities and had little chance for promotion. Inglis, Danylchuk, and Pastore (2000) outlined women athletic administrators· duties that required a feminine or caring approach like academic counseling. Along similar lines, Shaw and Hoeber (2003) suggested that men who were employed in the sport role of regional devel- opment offi cer, which was perceived to be a caring role with few opportunities for career development, were marginalized because they did not express stereotypical masculinities expected from men. It is likely that such fi ndings would be repli- cated in professional sport organizations, where stereotypical gender relations are blatantly expressed in a variety of situations (McDonald, 2000). McKay (1997) concluded that the tendency to allocate women to traditionally feminine jobs is an international pattern. Furthermore, he outlined how women were generally over- looked for promotions or job perks within sport organizations, in part because it was assumed that they would not question such decisions. Another barrier to women·s progression to senior positions was that women felt that they had to “work twice as hard as blokes” (McKay, 1997, p. 85) in order to receive promotion, making career advancement an unattractive proposition for some of them.

Symbols of Success. Using poststructural feminist theory, the second social practice that requires critique in the fourth frame is the way in which success is symbolized and defi ned for male and female organizational members. In many organizations, success is associated with masculine practices, specifi cally “competi- tion, control, and conquest” (Knights & McCabe, 2001, p. 619). For example, as Rao et al. (1999, p. 4) suggested, the “heroic individual” is often a person who is credited with successful work practices in organizations. Such people “work day and night against tremendous odds to solve crises. The person who manages her work smoothly, thereby avoiding such crises, is invisible and undervalued” (Rao et al., 1999, p. 4). The ideal of the heroic individual is rarely challenged, and rewarding these individuals becomes a normalized practice, whereby “power is exerted to ensure that certain ideas are accepted as normal” (Rao et al., 1999, p. 7).

In sport—a fi eld that puts great social value on individual stars—it is not surprising that the heroic individual has symbolic value. Increasingly, such stars are former high-performance athletes who are rewarded upon retirement with administrative jobs, despite having limited management experience. They are also frequently promoted over other individuals, some of which are women, who may have worked for an organization for many years (Cameron, 1996). McKay (1997) argued that women are overlooked for promotion to symbolic heroic positions because there is still a strong assumption that women will leave their organiza- tions to have children. Shaw and Hoeber (2003) found that, in a volunteer sport organization, the paid employment of a heroic male chief executive offi cer was identifi ed as a positive, successful outcome. Organizational members suggested that his appointment represented a turning point in the organization toward being “businesslike” rather than being run by a “bunch of secretaries” (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003, p. 362). The expression of this view by organizational members dismissed years of work by dedicated women (the “bunch of secretaries”). Heroes such as this CEO, who are increasingly employed to run sport organizations in a manner

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49403Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 494 9/24/06 1:00:26 PM9/24/06 1:00:26 PM

Gender Equity 495

that refl ects commercial enterprises (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003), may also implement changes to traditionally collective voluntary work, thus emphasizing the individual over the collective (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a).

Furthermore, heroic individuals often embrace a monoculture of instrumentality (Rao et al., 1999) that represents the fi nal symbol of success. This is “a focus on quantitative measures [that] tends to de-value qualitative aspects of work, including such ¶invisible· and ¶relational· activities as building teams, agreement, and part- nerships” (Rao et al., 1999, p. 1ï11). In this way, social values like gender equity are justifi ed away because they are deemed to be in confl ict with, or secondary to, more important goals like profi t maximization (Frisby, 2005).

The Public Face of the Organization. The public and private lives of individuals have often been used in the feminist literature to explain tensions between work (public) and home (private) lives (Rehman & Frisby, 2000). However, Ely and Meyerson (2000a) used the terms public and private in an organizational context to describe high-profi le public and hidden private roles. Those who are White, reasonably youthful, able-bodied, ostensibly heterosexual, and successfully express masculine discourses feature consistently in high-profi le public organizational positions (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Individuals who have a public organizational life are often identifi ed as committed workers who are loyal to their organizations and they will be rewarded accordingly as a result (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a; Martin, 1994). In contrast, private roles, such as providing technical or secretarial sup- port, are relatively hidden in organizations and receive little credit or recognition (Fletcher, 1999).

Interestingly, in sport organizations, there has been recent evidence to suggest that women are increasingly visible in public roles such as senior management positions (Acosta & Carpenter, 2004). If women are to be successful, however, they often have to either juggle parenting (if they have children) with work or focus on work exclusively (Rehman & Frisby, 2000), creating a workïfamily dichotomy (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Other researchers have argued that high-profi le women are frequently labeled as unusual in sport organizations because of their commitment to work over traditionally feminine roles such as domesticity and childcare (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). Successful women may also be labeled as lesbian or feminist, both terms that have been socially constructed as having negative connotations in sport organizations (Henderson, 1995; Lenskyj, 1999; McKay, 1997). The infl uence and prestige that should be enjoyed by these women on account of their title or positional power (Rao et al., 1999) is diluted by hurtful and stereotypical gendered assump- tions about how women, lesbians, or feminists might behave. Women who had achieved senior positions suggested that they were under more pressure than their male counterparts in McKay·s (1997) study, suggesting that they had to consider their demeanor, work activities, and appearance in senior-level meetings in order to be taken seriously. Individuals who provide the public face of sport organizations are therefore clearly viewed in a gendered manner that infl uences attitudes toward who should represent the organization and how they should act.

Formal organizational policies also represent the public face of an organiza- tion (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000) because they refl ect the endorsed and often publicly available articulations of an organization·s standpoint on specifi c issues. While seemingly gender neutral, they are “in fact, fashioned around the constraints and

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49503Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 495 9/24/06 1:00:26 PM9/24/06 1:00:26 PM

496 Shaw and Frisby

opportunities that characterize the lives of men” (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000, p. 564). For example, Meyerson and Kolb (2000) indicated how in their study, a sick leave policy was designed to ensure that workers had to explain their illnesses to male supervisors. Some young women who required sick leave to seek help for gynecological conditions were too embarrassed to explain their situations to their supervisors. Consequently, the women took unpaid and unauthorized leave, which subsequently refl ected poorly on their employment record.

Formal policies in sport organizations may also be underpinned by gendered practice. For example, organizations may have gender equity policies in place to ensure that they receive funding from public sources such as the UK·s National Lottery (Shaw & Penney, 2003). Yet these same policies often refl ect the fi rst three frames that were outlined previously, particularly the equal opportunities frame, thus undermining the potential for radical change (Shaw & Penney, 2003). How- ever, just by having those policies in place, the organizations that have completed the requirements for funding are outwardly perceived as being equitable (Shaw & Penney, 2003). The internal culture of the organization, however, may be far from equitable, with equity policies being perceived variously as a chore to imple- ment, a funding hoop, a constantly changing imposition from a funding body, or a politically correct way to create positive public relations (Hoeber, 2004; Hoeber & Frisby, 2001; Shaw & Penney, 2003). The majority of men in McKay·s (1997) study were vehement that the amount of money spent on women·s issues was proportionately too much, a view that undermined the changes that those policies were attempting to foster.

The above three overarching processes represent some of the many dominant gendered practices in organizations. They are also prevalent in sport organizations and it is important that these processes and practices are critiqued as the fi rst step in generating the alternative or fourth frame (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000; Rao et al., 1999). Critique from within empowers organizational members to make their own decisions about change, rather than having to react to an imposed external policy (Cooper, 1995). It also ensures that “organizational members develop as internal change agents who can identify those gendering pro- cesses in their organization that also detract from the organization·s performance” (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000, p. 566).

In order to set this critique phase in motion, it is necessary to encourage organi- zational members to conceptualize their own understandings of informal practices, symbols of success, and the public face of the organization. The collective critique of these social processes may take a variety of forms, from simply recognizing these processes to actively promoting alternatives to them (Coleman & Rippin, 2000). For example, Coleman and Rippin (2000) reported that in the critique phase of their research, individuals suggested that the “fi rst pre-requisite for getting ahead in this environment was to be mouthy (noisy, outspoken)” (p. 579). Clearly, the appropriation of a confrontational, aggressive style, which is most often associated with masculinities regardless of the gender of person speaking, was deemed as a necessary strategy for success in the organization they were studying. However, other individuals challenged this through their critique of this taken-for-granted practice, thus enabling the beginnings of change.

In sport management, encouraging people to critique taken-for-granted orga- nizational processes is also the fi rst step to change. In part, the key to this is to

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49603Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 496 9/24/06 1:00:27 PM9/24/06 1:00:27 PM

Gender Equity 497

develop trusting longer-term relationships between researchers and organizational members. Much of sport management research is conducted in a very short-term detached manner, where researcherïstudy participant relations are rarely developed in a way that can foster collaborative action research to promote social change (Frisby, Reid, Millar, & Hoeber, 2005).

Phase Two: Narrative Revision

This second phase builds on the critique phase by encouraging change to the domi- nant gendered narratives through which individuals interpret their organizational experiences. As Martin (2001) suggested, organizational narratives refl ect the myriad of opinions and histories along with patterns of dominance in terms of power relations. Ely and Meyerson (2000a) saw narratives, or the stories organizational members tell to make sense of their experiences, as central to organizational change because they represent how understandings of reality are socially constructed, maintained, and sometimes resisted or challenged. In particular, the fourth frame encourages refl ection on the ways in which the combination of these processes impacts on understandings of effectiveness (Ely & Meyerson 2000a; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). For example, organizational members may perceive that a very fl exible informal work environment is one in which creativity and a relaxed approach to work prevail (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). They may also sense that their behavior is effective when they exhibit symbols of success, such as the characteristics of the heroic individual (Rao et al., 1999). Further, the public face of an organization may be lauded as effective when women are able to access senior management positions, regardless of the diffi culties those few women may have encountered in their fi ght to the top and the exclusion of other women and men from these positions (Knights & Kerfoot, 2004). The fourth frame encourages organizational members to not only critique these processes but, in the narrative revision phase, “to begin to invent alternative images of work and social relations at work” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 138). If organizational members can be encouraged to conceptualize and pursue these alternatives, then inequitable gendered social practices may become less entrenched (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000).

Narrative revision has also been recommended by Ely and Thomas (2001), who proposed an integration and learning perspective to encourage discussion about different ways to approach core tasks within organizations. This encourages organizational members to learn about and integrate diversity and effectiveness by suggesting that narrative revision

can be a source of insight and skill that can be brought to bear on the organi- zation·s core tasks. This discovery enabled staff members to see their diversity not only as a resource through which they could . . . learn new ways of re- conceiving and reconfi guring their work. (Ely & Thomas, 2001 p. 242)

Rather than being a zero-sum game, in which effectiveness is thought to be adversely affected by the implementation of gender equity policies and practices, advocates of the fourth frame propose that carefully constructed versions of it can in fact enhance effectiveness. For example, Ely and Thomas (2001) have argued that women, ethnic minorities, or those with disabilities should not be considered as useful to an organization solely because they may have unique access to a niche market.

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49703Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 497 9/24/06 1:00:27 PM9/24/06 1:00:27 PM

498 Shaw and Frisby

Rather, their attitudes, ideas, and creativity should be valued equally throughout the organization to broaden perspectives, to develop new strategies and networks, and to foster innovation.

Hoeber and Frisby (2001) have gone some way toward identifying and critiqu- ing multiple and confl icting narratives in a sport organization. They focused on the narratives by which gender equity was understood within a Canadian university athletic department governed by the Canadian Interuniversity Sport policy on gender equity. Despite the appearance of a united front because interviewees saw gender equity as providing equal opportunities for women, there was evidence of value fragmentation when the researchers probed the meaning of this concept because confusion, ambiguity, and contradictions were evident in the interviewees· subsequent responses. Some managers saw it as having equal numbers of men·s and women·s teams, whereas some saw it has providing equal budgets for men·s and women·s teams, and others saw it as treating women athletes with more respect, particularly given the fact that women·s teams had consistently better win/loss records than the men·s teams. While the study participants were unable to fully articulate alternative narratives of gender equity when asked, Hoeber and Frisby (2001) suggested that “if administrators are given opportunities, along with some guidance, to refl ect on and critique the dominant logic underpinning this organi- zational value, it is possible that alternative narratives could be brought forth” (p. 199). Such changes might elevate the organizational value of gender equity from being viewed as a women·s issue (Hoeber & Frisby, 2001) to a process that encour- ages the rewriting of narratives, seeing the achievement of gender equity as the responsibility of all organizational members, contributing to, rather than detracting from, organizational effectiveness.

McKay (1997) further outlined some strategies that might be useful in desta- bilizing the taken-for-granted assumptions in sport organizations. He discussed the importance of “getting the issue of men, masculinity, sexuality, sexual harassment, and leadership on affi rmative action agendas, especially in management training programs” (p. 148). He also outlined other areas for discussion, such as pro- feminist, gay affi rmative movements, which might extend the range of acceptable narratives. In her commentary on leisure studies, Aitchison (2000) suggested that a poststructuralist framework for unearthing and discussing alternative narratives may lead to some long-overdue political changes. Adopting this perspective, in tandem with McKay·s (1997) more practical approach, could lead to the type of narrative revision that could reveal important new ways of understanding and promoting gender equity in sport organizations.

Phase Three: Experimentation

In this fi nal phase of the fourth frame, researchers are encouraged to experiment with how alternative narratives can be developed and used in a meaningful way by organizational members (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a). Meyerson and Kolb (2000) described experimentation as making “concrete changes in work practices that have the potential to interrupt gendering processes and at the same time improve work effectiveness” (p. 566). Using the word experiment to describe this phase may seem somewhat out of place in social research, but Ely and Meyerson (2000a) provided persuasive reasons for utilizing the term. First, they argue that the term

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49803Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 498 9/24/06 1:00:27 PM9/24/06 1:00:27 PM

Gender Equity 499

experiment implies a “temporary trial rather than a permanent change” and, second, can be described “as wedges that open opportunities for critical refl ection” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 139). Finally, they argued that it is important to highlight that these experiments are just that: small changes made to current work practices or “probes for learning how better to conduct the work of the organization” (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000, p. 566). The changes that are proposed, therefore, are not necessar- ily revolutionary, despite the apparently radical nature of the fourth frame. Rather, strategies were required that were “based on small wins—incremental changes that have the power to transform organizations positively for both women and men” (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000, p. 126).

In a sport context, organizational members might be encouraged to consider how the cult of heroic individualism can be addressed to enable equity in hiring or promotions. Or questions could be raised about how continued successful per- formances by women·s teams might translate into the more equitable allocation of resources without the need for legislated policies like Title IX. Additionally, can experimentation lead to organizational environments in a variety of sport contexts where gendered power relations are challenged and organizational effectiveness is enhanced as a consequence? McKay (1997) suggested ways in which sexual harassment might be challenged by adopting a code of practice for athletes, which included suggestions such as “refuse to laugh at sexist jokes in the locker room” (p. 149). Aitchison (2000) suggested more inclusive and open discussions around disability, gender, or sexuality, rather than marginalizing these topics as taboo. These examples of small incremental changes offer “opportunities for critical refl ection” (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 139) and are connected to the critique and narrative revision phases, thus illustrating the cyclical and refl exive nature of the three phases. Despite the initial efforts of researchers such as Hoeber (2004), the development of the experimentation phase of the fourth frame, to date, is very undeveloped in sport management.

Extending the Fourth Frame The fourth frame, and its potential for understanding and promoting gender-related diversity in sport management, undoubtedly offers avenues for progression in the fi eld. The frame as conceptualized by other researchers can, however, be extended by acknowledging and addressing some limitations. These can be identifi ed as two- fold: the need to acknowledge the intersectionality of gender with other aspects of diversity, and the need to incorporate notions of moral sensitivity into managerial mindsets in order to deconstruct current discourses that pit gender equity against organizational effectiveness. In the sections below, we discuss these shortcomings and engage with alternative narratives to extend the fourth frame.

Acknowledging Intersectionality

The fourth frame—while acknowledging the intersectionality of gender with other social power relations refl ected in one·s identity and social location—focuses exclu- sively on gender in its application to management. This represents a signifi cant limitation, as it can be argued that it is easier for some middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied, White women to exist successfully in organizations than it may be for

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 49903Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 499 9/24/06 1:00:28 PM9/24/06 1:00:28 PM

500 Shaw and Frisby

some indigenous, Black, Hispanic, gay, or lower-class males (Bell & Nkomo, 2003; Ely & Thomas, 2001; McKay, 1997). On this note, a criticism that could be leveled at the fourth frame is that it is dominated by the “Western parochial” (Aitchison, 2000, p. 137) and could be stronger if it engaged with postcolonial feminism that challenges the “authority and representativeness of White feminist theorizing” (Aitchison, 2000, p. 137). Research undoubtedly becomes more challenging if we attempt to acknowledge and honor the complexities that comprise social relations, which may be a reason that such research has been slow to develop (Frisby, 2005). Without this, however, we risk marginalizing those who fall outside our remit, thus reinforcing their marginalization. By acknowledging intersectionality, which is an “unstable process [that] is shaped by hegemonic constructions of race, class, and gender” (Naples, 2003, p. 79), we may explore our limited understandings of social relations within sport organizations and present a multidimensional view of our clearly complex world.

Moreover, there is no reason why the fourth frame could not be developed to analyze a broader concept that Ely and Thomas (2001) call cultural identity (p. 230), a term they use to include “race, ethnicity, social class, religion, nationality, and sexual identity” (p. 230). Other identities could be added to the list, such as age and able-bodiedness. The latter is important because it is clearly possible for those who have not been elite athletes to contribute signifi cantly in managerial capacities. This is particularly the case if they have experiences as sport participants, coaches, managers, or volunteers, providing insight into sport, along with the managerial training, education, and experience required for the positions sought.

While the number of identities within this representation of social reality might seem daunting from a research methods perspective, Ely and Thomas (2001) have offered techniques for addressing the intersectionality of cultural diversity. These include sensitive acknowledgment of the race, gender, and other identities of individuals throughout the research process, including during group and single participant interviews, and if possible refl ecting on this by having a similar repre- sentation of diversity on interview teams.

Similar strategies could be undertaken in sport organizations, where the mul- tiple identities of applicant pools and the clients/customer bases are considered in relation to the more narrow range of identities that usually characterize those in top managerial positions. Engaging in critique, narrative revision, and experimentation could help to remove the glass ceilings that restrict the entry and promotion of those who differ in these markers of identity and are unjustly considered to be less suitable for certain positions. As Alvesson and Deetz (2000) noted, senior managers often consciously or unconsciously hire people like themselves either to solidify their own power bases or because they associate these individuals with success.

Focusing more broadly on intersection between gender and other diversity areas would suggest that the very term gender equity needs to be relabeled to encompass gender and other aspects of cultural identity. We will leave this renaming challenge to others, although we caution that gender should not become invisible when this is undertaken because the depoliticizing of the term could be used to turn attention away from gender inequities that need to be addressed. In addition to addressing intersectionality, we argue next that the fourth frame can be extended further by critiquing, creating new narratives, and experimenting with new approaches to the equity-effectiveness discourse.

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50003Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 500 9/24/06 1:00:28 PM9/24/06 1:00:28 PM

Gender Equity 501

Deconstructing the Equity-Effectiveness Discourse

Deconstructing the assumption that achieving gender equity comes at the expense of achieving organizational effectiveness needs to be central to the fourth frame (Ely & Meyerson, 2000b; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Ely and Thomas (2001) provided an example of this when they proposed that organizations that are able to take gender-related diversity management to their core “seemed to foster more symmetric relations of power as well as more effective functioning” (p. 267). For these researchers, therefore, managing equity in a way that fundamentally disrupts the basis of traditional gendered power relations may lead to more effective organi- zations through enhanced communication, support, and openness (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000).

This message has become somewhat twisted in some of the management lit- erature when the reason for pursuing equity becomes to reinforce dominant unchal- lenged discourses of organizational effectiveness (Dwyer, Richard, & Chadwick, 2003). This represents gender equity as a means to an end, rather than as a process of critique, narrative revision, and experimentation. Evidence of this was expressed by Dwyer et al. (2003), who argued that

as companies enter new markets or acquire fi rms in new markets, women, particularly at the managerial level, may bring added knowledge, experience, and fl exibility, as well as cultural insight, understanding and sensitivity critical to serving the needs of the new market segments. (p. 1011)

The message in Dwyer et al.·s (2003) work that refl ects the value the feminine frame is that if organizations employ women in specifi c roles associated with femininity, then traditional organizational goals of profi t making may be fulfi lled. This con- trasts vividly with the aims of the fourth frame, which are to undermine traditional organizational practices that reinforce inequities and to destabilize dominant views of effectiveness aimed only at wealth creation, by problematizing exploitive labor practices or environmental degradation that often accompany the prioritization of profi t-oriented goals (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a; Frisby, 2005).

It is of some concern that attitudes similar to those expressed by Dwyer et al. (2003) are evident in the sport management literature. For example in some NCAA male basketball programs, the employment of female assistants as “mother fi gures” was seen as a key resource in gaining competitive advantage over other teams in recruitment drives, that also alleviated the fears held by athletes· mothers about the sexualized or violent culture of college sports (Fink, Pastore, & Riemer, 2001). While practices such as this could result in an increase in the number of women who volunteer or work in the male-dominated NCAA (Acosta & Carpenter, 2004), it clearly situates women in the valuing-the-feminine framework, thus reiterating dominant forms of organizational knowledge regarding gender equity (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a). Interpreting the basketball organizations· actions of situating women in such housekeeping or mothering roles as something that “may engender more positive beliefs” (Fink et al., 2001, p. 39) does not “examine critically the values that underlie the organization·s traditional recruitment policies and practices” (Meyerson & Kolb 2000, p. 567).

If gender equity is used solely as a tool to improve effectiveness, then its primary purpose becomes the promotion of dominant “management theories and

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50103Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 501 9/24/06 1:00:28 PM9/24/06 1:00:28 PM

502 Shaw and Frisby

practices [that] reproduce processes of privilege and prejudice” (Fenwick, 2003, p. 620). By tying equity to dominant discourses of effectiveness, it is likely that not only will the ideals of equity be lost within the organizational pursuit of win- ning athletic performances and profi t making, but also that dominant discourses of effectiveness will be reinforced (Ely & Meyerson, 2000b; Hoeber & Frisby, 2001; Kolb & Meyerson, 2000). The limitations of perceiving gender equity solely as a tool to achieve increased effectiveness also serve to divert attention away from the ideals of social justice and organizational change, which should be the dominant discourses associated with gender diversity management (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a). We now outline how the fourth frame might be extended to address this concern, thus engaging in an alternative narrative that might enhance Ely and Meyerson·s (2000a) arguments.

In keeping with the vision outlined in the fourth frame, we suggest that manag- ers have a moral duty to focus on promoting equity in the workplace, which may also lead to organizational effectiveness. The justifi cation of this duty can be explained by adopting Bauman·s (2001) work on moral sensitivity. Although Bauman is not a poststructural theorist, our choice of him over other social theorists is infl uenced by his persuasive messages about ethical duties in society. This approach can be used to complement and build on the destabilizing process undertaken through poststructural analysis. Bauman (2001) suggested that dominant managerialist discourses have enabled the development of economic individualism in the work- place. As a result, rather than making a choice to promote gender equity because it is moral (or a good thing to do), it is judged in some organizations purely on its potential economic costs and benefi ts (e.g. Dwyer et al., 2003) or its potential for providing a positive public face for the organization. According to Bauman (2001), our moral decision-making abilities have become so compromised that, if an idea such as equity is not economically viable, we ignore it. Hoeber and Frisby (2001) described a very similar situation in sport management, where, even though gender equity was identifi ed as an organizational value by sport managers, it was largely ignored because it was thought to compromise more important values like revenue generation and winning athletic performances. Shaw and Penney (2003) reported a similar case in some English sport organizations, where policies and programs were developed to obtain funding and meet other external criteria rather than as a genuine attempt to challenge dominant gender relations that have historically characterized the world of sport.

Bauman (2001) insisted that, despite this fairly gloomy picture, individuals are not entirely morally bankrupt. As economic individuals, however, our capac- ity for ethical decision making is undermined by the demands of organizational agendas that refl ect neoliberal political ideologies, such as the promotion of high performance and profi t making over equity (Frisby, 2005). Bauman suggested that a way out of this moral dilemma is to heighten awareness of each other·s status as individuals by becoming more aware of the vulnerability of others in organizations and having empathy for them. Thus, we should make decisions that assist those with less power than ourselves by “taking a moral responsibility for the Other” (Bauman, 2001, p. 57), such as those who are not White, able-bodied, heterosexual men (Aitchison, 2000). In order to increase our awareness of Others, we need to acknowledge our capacity to act as moral beings (Bauman, 2001). The develop- ment of an ethical code—designed to “give certain occurrences a higher degree of

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50203Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 502 9/24/06 1:00:28 PM9/24/06 1:00:28 PM

Gender Equity 503

probability than they otherwise would have and to reduce the probability of their alternatives to a minimum” (Bauman, 2001, p. 44)—is necessary to achieve this process. The development of such a code interlinks with Meyerson and Kolb·s (2000) call for experimentation that is needed to implement a fourth frame by replacing entrenched work practices with alternatives that more genuinely promote social justice. If we utilize Bauman·s (2001) suggestions in conjunction with the fourth frame, it may be possible to have a “higher degree of probability” (p. 44) of gender equity, rather than the reiteration of current gender relations.

The question of pursuing a moral end may seem somewhat utopian or quaint in the face of the increasingly dominant masculine discourses of corporate mana- gerialism that dictate the actions of many sport organizations. For Bauman (2001), dismissing the moral good in this way has little validity because the pursuit of morality focuses on the defeat of humiliating practices, such as inequity, stereotyp- ing, harassment, and discrimination. We can either “take responsibility or refuse to take responsibility for our responsibility” (Bauman, 2001, p. 47). More forcefully, he suggested that “morality is; it neither can nor needs to give its reasons nor must it prove its rights” (Bauman, 2001, p. 55). For Bauman, there is no escaping moral issues because, regardless of how strong competing discourses may be, we have moral obligations to each other.

But how does this tie into, and strengthen, the fourth frame? It would be naïve to dismiss effectiveness as a hook to appeal to managers in promoting gender equity. There is, however, a need within the fourth frame to strengthen, and insist on, the moral imperative of developing gender equity. Making moral sensitivity as explicit as our desire for effectiveness can complement the fourth frame. In order to move toward achieving such a potentially daunting prospect, it is necessary to turn back to Ely and Meyerson·s (2000a) and Meyerson and Fletcher·s (2000) earlier arguments. They acknowledged the need for small changes is all that can be expected in the pursuit of gender equity. Even Bauman (2001) acknowledged this by stating that “few of us are saints, and to demand that all of us be so, and daily, does not seem to be realistic” (p. 68). His perspective on how change may happen is as follows:

Our moral impulse, if we have one, has weak feet. It is not a good traveller and does not get more skilful and indefatigable as it grows older. . . . When embarking on a journey it gets weary quickly. . . . It gets lost . . . and inept when away from home. Perhaps what we mean by home is that small and cosy plot inside which our moral impulse, and the moral impulses of all the others inside, are alert and lively, eager to tell us where the line between good and evil lies.” (p. 130)

That is, we may be uncertain about challenging dominant discourses, or feel such processes are too risky, but we need to collectively and incrementally pursue this avenue if changes are to be made to current discourses of gender equity. Remem- bering that “morality is” (Bauman, 2001, p. 55) gives us a yardstick to work with and to keep it in mind when addressing powerful socially constructed organiza- tional discourses. The power associated with those discourses can be challenged (Foucault, 1984) and perhaps such a challenge may come from a combination of the arguments presented by Bauman (2001) and the fourth frame.

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50303Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 503 9/24/06 1:00:29 PM9/24/06 1:00:29 PM

504 Shaw and Frisby

By extending the fourth frame, we have shown how it can be developed to promote more equitable gender relations and diversity within organizations. We support the critique of informal practices, symbols of success, and the public face of organizations; the development of narrative revision to surface alternative truths; and the process of experimentation—all of which are central to the fourth frame. Crucially, however, we have argued that the fourth frame can provide a stronger contribution if the intersectionality of cultural diversity is acknowledged in its appli- cation. Furthermore, we have suggested that, even though presenting challenges to inequitable practices as a tool to reducing ineffectiveness might provide a useful hook to gain managers· interest in the fourth frame, there are shortcomings to this approach. Specifi cally, effectiveness may be interpreted in some organizations as the sole goal of the fourth frame, which is not the case (Knights & Kerfoot, 2004). In order to counter this, we have offered Bauman·s philosophical underpinnings of moral sensitivity, in order to strengthen the fourth frame as a vehicle for promoting diversity and social justice.

Conclusion: Accepting the Challenge in Sport Management

In order to conclude this chapter, we offer some suggestions that link the above discussion with education, practice, and research in sport management. By address- ing these important facets, we feel the application of the theoretical framework will begin to crystallize and provide avenues by which it might be applied.

Education

The approach that is offered by the fourth frame offers alternatives to current teaching modes in two broad areas. First, it encourages sport management educa- tors to refl ect on how we teach gender issues. It would be an interesting project to apply the critical process outlined in the fourth frame to the teaching context. Although a summary of university prescriptions has not yet been conducted, it may be fair to suggest that the majority of classes addressing gender are taught with a value the feminine or an equal opportunity focus. If these trends are evident in sport management curricula, it would also suggest that gender is often taught in isolation from, and in addition to, other mainstream courses, as though diversity issues occur outside other areas such as marketing, fi nance, sponsorship, strategic management, and policy making.

Second, if we refl ect on the broader themes that are outlined within the fourth frame, it is likely that the majority of sport management classes are dominated by traditional masculine practices. Who amongst us as sport management educa- tors would be likely to discourage our students from working towards traditional symbols of success and encourage them to radically critique these symbols? Who among us works in our courses to ensure that the public faces of organizations are critiqued? Who ensures that, rather than promoting the need to network, our students are encouraged to challenge exclusionary networking as a practice? Using narrative revision, it may be possible to alter our own and our students· values regarding these issues.

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50403Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 504 9/24/06 1:00:29 PM9/24/06 1:00:29 PM

Gender Equity 505

While curriculum challenges are rare in sport management, such alternatives are evident in the work of Parks and Roberton (2002), who offered critique and insight into the use and meanings of gendered language by sport management stu- dents. Their fi ndings suggested that students are frequently unaware of the power relations that are implicit in gendered language but are quite receptive to learning about and critiquing them. Parks and Roberton (2002) concluded by suggesting that “sport management educators [should] follow the advice of Cronin and Jreisat (1995) by modelling inclusive language . . . we further suggest that instruction in sexist/nonsexist language be part of a comprehensive academic program” (p. 205). Parks and Roberton·s (2002) study provides a clear example of a critique of an informal practice, in this case sexist language; possible revised narratives; and then a way by which experimentation, in the form of embedding discussions of sexist language in academic programs, might be pursued.

Practice

By putting the fourth frame into practice, it is important to understand the type of change that is being advocated. The fourth frame does not advocate a revolutionary change in practice with a utopian end. Indeed, it is impossible to visualize a work environment where gender is not an organizing factor because

we cannot anticipate what precisely a transformed end-state looks like, and instead suggest that the process of transformation—of resistance and learning—continues indefi nitely and itself constitutes the gender equity goal. (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a, p. 132)

It is only by emphasizing the importance of the process of change and therefore developing incremental shifts that we can alter our sport organizations. For example, rather than praising the heroic individual, it may be possible to challenge this work practice and encourage more collaborative forms of work (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). Equally, it is important to address other forms of diversity in sport manage- ment, such as assumptions that important coaching and administration positions should be held by White middle-class male or female employees (DeSensi, 1994). It is also necessary to encourage sport management practitioners to enter into a collaborative process of critique, narrative revision, and experimentation to chal- lenge some of the taken-for-granted assumptions regarding gender and effectiveness that dominate our industry. If sport management practitioners can be encouraged to refl ect on their practices (Edwards, 1999), and change their perspectives, then sport management will progress and will become more accessible to the increas- ingly diverse student body who are pursuing careers in this fi eld.

Research

One of the contributions of the fourth frame is to challenge assumptions that inform our research questions and analyses of data, and this has tremendous potential for research in sport management. Rather than singling out categorical variables for analysis, such as gender, race, ethnicity, or sexuality, studies should focus more on the intersectionality of cultural identities and how they are socially constructed and acted upon. This style of research, in which taken-for-granted assumptions and their

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50503Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 505 9/24/06 1:00:29 PM9/24/06 1:00:29 PM

506 Shaw and Frisby

inconsistencies are revealed, refl ects the application of narrative critique proposed within the fourth frame. Similar calls for new theoretical approaches are being made by researchers such as Hoeber (2004) in sport management and Aitchison (2000) in leisure studies. The application and development of postcolonial feminism, which works to destabilize the assumptions of White-dominated, Western feminist principles may be of value in this endeavor (Aitchison, 2000). Further research in these areas, based on and extending Ely and Meyerson·s (2000a) framework, would provide valuable insights to inform sport management research. Our extension of the fourth frame has already opened up some further possibilities for research. It is also necessary to examine whether moral sensitivity has a place within modern organizations. By destabilizing further our understandings of effectiveness, and working toward a situation in which moral sensitivity plays an integral part in our everyday understandings of effectiveness, avenues for alternative views, policies, and practices may be developed.

The main challenge that is offered by the fourth frame, however, links to “get- ting out of the armchair” (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000, p. 554) and conducting research with not on sport managers and other organizational members. In this way, managers become coresearchers who have input into the objectives, methods, and outcomes of the research (Frisby et al., 2005). As Frisby et al. (2005) suggested, developing and strengthening such an approach will enhance research and strengthen its repu- tation with, and application by, practitioners. In keeping with Cuneen and Parks· (1997) arguments, such research does not have to, and probably should not have, a purely applied focus. Rather, as Ely and Meyerson (2000a, 2000b) and colleagues have demonstrated, well-developed theory will assist in the development and pro- gression of practice, just as observations of practice generate the need for more comprehensive theories and approaches to education. In our fi eld, this means the advancement of poststructural and critical research in sport management (Cuneen & Parks, 1997; Frisby, 2005), which will open new research avenues and may change our approaches to analyzing diversity-related issues.

References Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender &

Society, 4(2), 139-158. Acker, J. (2000). Gendered contradictions in organizational equity projects. Organization,

7, 625-632. Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L.J. (2004). Women in intercollegiate sport. A longitudinal

study—twenty seven year update. West Brookfi eld, MA: The project on women and social change of Smith College and Brooklyn College of the City University of New York.

Aitchison, C. (2000). Poststructural feminist theories of representing Others: A response to the “crisis” in leisure studies· discourse. Leisure Studies, 19, 127-144.

Alvesson, M., & Billing, Y.D. (1997). Understanding gender and organizations. London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage. Bauman, Z. (2001). Conversations with Zygmunt Bauman/Zygmunt Bauman and Keith

Tester. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bell, E.L.J.E., & Nkomo, S.M. (2003). Our separate ways: Barriers to advancement. In

R.J. Ely, E.G. Foldy, & M.A. Scully (Eds.), Reader in gender, work, and organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50603Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 506 9/24/06 1:00:29 PM9/24/06 1:00:29 PM

Gender Equity 507

Brass, D.J. (1985). Men·s and women·s networks: a study of interaction patterns and infl u- ence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 327-343.

Bresnan, M. (2000). Symposium (Special issue). Organization, 7(4). Cameron, J. (1996). Trailblazers: Women who manage New Zealand sport. Christchurch:

Sports Inclined. Coleman, G., & Rippin, A. (2000). Putting feminist theory to work: Collaboration as a means

towards organizational change. Organization, 7(4), 573-587. Cooper, D. (1995). Power in struggle. Buckingham: Open University Press. Cuneen, J., & Parks, J.B. (1997). Should we serve sport management practice or sport

management education? A response to Weese·s perspective. Journal of Sport Manage- ment, 11, 125-132.

DeSensi, J.T. (1994). Multiculturalism as an issue in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 8, 63-74.

Dwyer, S., Richard, O.C., & Chadwick, K. (2003). Gender diversity in management and fi rm performance: The infl uence of growth orientation and organizational culture. Journal of Business Research, 56, 1009-1019.

Edwards, A. (1999). Refl ective practice in sport management. Sport Management Review, 2, 67-81.

Ely, R.J., & Meyerson, D.E. (2000a). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22, 103-151.

Ely, R.J., & Meyerson, D.E. (2000b). Advancing gender equity in organizations: the challenge and importance of maintaining a gender narrative. Organization, 7, 589-608.

Ely, R.J., & Thomas, D.A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity per- spectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229-273.

Fenwick, T.J. (2003). Emancipatory potential of action learning: A critical analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16, 619-632.

Fink, J.S., Pastore, D.L., & Riemer, H.A. (2001). Do differences make a difference? Manag- ing diversity in Division 1A intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 10-50.

Fletcher, J.K. (1999). Disappearing acts. Gender, power, and relational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Foucault, M. (1979). The will to knowledge: The history of sexuality, Volume 1 (R. Hurley, Trans.). London: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1984). What is an author? In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader: An introduction to Foucault·s thought (pp. 101-121). London: Penguin.

Frisby, W., & Brown, B.A. (1991). The balancing act: Women leisure service managers. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 16(4), 297-321.

Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly. Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 1-12.

Frisby, W., Reid, C., Millar, S., & Hoeber, L. (2005). Putting ¶participatory· in participatory forms of action research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4).

Hall, M. A. (1996). Feminism and sporting bodies: Essays on theory and practice. Cham- paign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Henderson, K.A. (1995). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees in the workplace: Ethical implications for leisure service organizations. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 20(2), 141-156.

Hoeber, L. (2004). Putting organizational values into practice: Gender equity for athletes in a Canadian university. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Hoeber, L., & Frisby, W. (2001). Gender equity for athletes: Rewriting the narrative for this organizational value. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1, 179-209.

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50703Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 507 9/24/06 1:00:30 PM9/24/06 1:00:30 PM

508 Shaw and Frisby

Hovden, J. (2000). Gender and leadership selection processes in Norwegian sporting orga- nizations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35, 75-82.

Hovden, J. (2005). Paradoxes of gender in sport leadership in Norway. Paper presented at the International Association of Physical Education and Sport for Girls and Women, Edmonton, Canada, 10ï13 August.

Hultin, M., & Szulkin, R. (1999). Wages and unequal access to organizational power: An empirical test of gender discrimination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 453- 472.

Inglis, S., Danylchuk, K.E., & Pastore, D.L. (2000). Multiple realities of women·s work experiences in coaching and athletic management. Women in Sport and Physical Activ- ity Journal, fall(9), 1-14.

Kelso, P. (9 August, 2004). Jowell urges women hopefuls to claim gold, glory and headlines in Athens. Guardian Newspaper. Retrieved, 15 November, 2004, http://sport.guardian. co.uk/print/0,3858,4988813-114058,00.html.

Kerfoot, D., & Whitehead, S. (1998). “Boys own” stuff: Masculinity and the management of further education. Sociological Review, 46(3), 436-458.

Knights, D., & Kerfoot, D. (2004). Between representations and subjectivity: Gender bina- ries and the politics of organizational transformation. Gender, Work and Organization, 11, 430-454.

Knights, D., & McCabe, D. (2001). ¶A different world·: Shifting masculinities in the transi- tions to call centres. Organization, 8, 619-645.

Kolb, D.M., & Meyerson, D. E. (1999). Keeping gender in the plot: A case study of the body shop. In A. Rao, R. Stuart, & D. Kelleher (Eds.), Gender at work: Organizational change for equality (pp. 129-153). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian.

Lenskyj, H.J. (1999). Women, sport and sexualities: Breaking the silences. In P. While, & K. Young (Eds.), Sport and gender in Canada. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. (1994). The organization of exclusion: Institutionalization of sex inequality, gendered faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organizational theory and research. Organization, 1, 401-431.

Martin, P. Y. (2001). Mobilizing masculinities: Women·s experiences of men at work. Organization, 8, 587-618.

McDonald, M.G. (2000). The marketing of the Women·s National Basketball Association and the making of postfeminism. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35, 35-47.

McKay, J. (1997). Managing gender: Affi rmative action and organizational power in Austra- lian, Canadian, and New Zealand sport. New York: State University of New York.

Meyerson, D.E., & Fletcher, J.K. (2000). A modest manifesto for shattering the class ceiling. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 126.

Meyerson, D.E., & Kolb, D.M. (2000). Moving out of the “armchair”: Developing a framework to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice. Organization, 7, 553-571.

Mills, A. (1988). Organization, gender and culture. Organization Studies, 9, 351-369. Naples, N.A. (2003). Feminism and method: Ethnography, discourse analysis, and activist

research. London: Rutledge. Ogbor, J.O. (2001). Critical theory and the hegemony of corporate culture. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 14, 590-608. Parks, J.B., & Roberton, M.A. (2002). The gender gap in student attitudes toward sexist/

nonsexist language: Implications for sport management education. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 190-209.

Rao, A., Stuart, R., & Kelleher, D. (Eds.). (1999). Gender at work: Organizational change for equality. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian.

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50803Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 508 9/24/06 1:00:30 PM9/24/06 1:00:30 PM

Gender Equity 509

Rehman, L., & Frisby, W. (2000). Is self employment liberating or marginalizing? The case of women consultants in the fi tness and sport industry. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 41-63.

Shaw, S. (2006). Scratching the back of “Mr X.” Analyzing gendered social processes in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 510-534.

Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). “A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch”: Analyzing discourses of masculinity and femininity and their impact on employment roles in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 347-376.

Shaw, S., & Penney, D. (2003). Gender equity policies in National Governing Bodies: An oxy- moron or a vehicle for change? European Sport Management Quarterly, 3, 78-102.

Staurowsky, E.J. (1996). Blaming the victim: Resistance in the battle over gender equity in college athletics. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 22, 194-210.

Whisenant, W.A., Pederson, P.M., & Obenour, B.L. (2002). Success and gender: Determining the rate of advancement for intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles, 47, 485-491.

Woodward, A.E. (1996). Multinational masculinities and European bureaucracies. In D.L. Collinson, & J. Hearn (Eds.), Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Studies on Men, Masculinities and Managements (pp. 167-187). London: Sage.

03Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 50903Shaw&Fisby(483).indd 509 9/24/06 1:00:30 PM9/24/06 1:00:30 PM

View publication statsView publication stats