Category: Unit 8

By taking the Gender-Leader Implicit Association test I was surprised to learn that even though I consider myself to have progressive views with regards to women in leadership, I still have gender biases since I received a positive score. Evidently, the beliefs about women are culturally entrenched in society and they are subliminal because they remain unnoticed below our conscious threshold. Due to its indeterminate nature, it is unsurprising that women experience this subtle bias in the corporate sphere while trying to rise to positions of leadership in a company. According to Nugent and colleagues (2016), many women across all regions have reported that they have felt undervalued, excluded, or dismissed because of their gender (largely as a result of stereotypes and cultural norms) (Nugent, Pollack, & Travis, 2016: p.7).

Although many companies are now becoming a visibly diverse workforce, the inclusion to participate fully within the workplace and corporate culture is still problematic (Nugent et al., 2016: p. 5). Inclusion entails that a company embraces employees for their “uniqueness and belongingness” (Nugent et al., 2016: p. 5). Many organizations believe that if they have achieved visible diversity then they question as to why they need to emphasize inclusion as well. However, this ideology is what reinforces the problem that is being sought to eliminate. In order to facilitate workplace inclusion, it is important for employees and leaders to be able to “see” or describe inclusion, otherwise the problem will not be alleviated (Nugent et al., 2016: p.6). I believe that this is the case many women face while trying to achieve elite positions of leadership within the corporate sphere: senior management mistakes visible diversity for inclusion. As such, many women find it increasingly difficult to explain the glass ceiling that prevents them from moving up.

There are a couple ways that leaders can reinforce inclusive behaviour within the workforce: creating a shared understanding by establishing clarity of what inclusion would look like and visibly rewarding inclusive behaviours (Nugent et al., 2016: p.7). Firstly, a large part of the issue with inclusion in the workplace is that it is grossly undefined and indeterminate. Therefore, establishing clarity and creating dialogue with employees about what inclusion looks like and how it differs from diversity (Nugent et al., 2016: p.7). A leader should talk to employees and inquire about a time they felt valued and included, and another time where they felt dismissed (Nugent et al., 2016: p.7). It is important for the leader to listen and validate the employees’ feelings and varying experiences to fully grasp a conclusive picture of the organization. Secondly, a leader should use positive reinforcement to illustrate desirable behaviour and ultimately broadcast to the organization a shared vision of inclusion (Nugent et al., 2016: p.7). Management should develop a rewards system to further reinforce, promote, and encourage inclusive behaviours (Nugent et al., 2016: p.7). Leaders should promote richly diverse and inclusive work environments “will not only help make societal institutions, businesses, and governments more representative, but it can also contribute to more ethical, productive, innovative, and financially successful organizations” (Northouse, 2017: p.414). Evidently, promoting inclusive behaviours for women will have a beneficial outcome for the organization.

Have you personally seen or experienced exclusion in the workforce?

Christina

 

References

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice (Eighth ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nugent, J., Pollack, A. & D. Travis, (2016). The Day to day experiences of workplace inclusion and exclusion. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/the_day_to_day_experiences_of_workplace_inclusion_and_exclusion.pdf

Society has longstanding beliefs towards women in elite leadership positions that are so subtle and ingrained that it is almost undetectable. Women, such as the situation Lisa Weber faced, frequently face the glass ceiling effect while attempting to move into a leadership position. The glass ceiling is a metaphor, which means that women face an invisible, impassable barrier as women attempt to rise to positions of leadership within organizations (Northouse, 2017: p. 404). The media reinforces longstanding beliefs that are entrenched within society. It has a powerful role in shaping our perceptions by creating a strategic frame, which means to highlight or promote certain aspect of an event or issue in order to convey an intended interpretation or solution (Murphy, 2010: p.212). Therefore, one can understand the prevailing ideology in society by analyzing how the media portrays various scandals through the use of language in the coverage. I would like to pose that the media is reinforcing the glass ceiling effect through strategic framing. I would like to further exemplify my argument by analyzing the gender contrast between the coverage of Martha Stewart and a more important corporate scandal that was committed by the Enron executives (Stabile, 2004: p.315).

The Case of Martha Stewart

Martha Stewart was a highly successful businesswoman who acquired fame and status by building a billion-dollar empire out of her cooking business and TV show (Stabile, 2004: p.316). Stewart had essentially transcended her traditional gender role and became a wealthy, independent woman. Stewart did not conform to heteronormative models of female behaviour and thus women like Stewart are not tolerated for long as they deviate from societal androcentric norms (Stabile, 2004: p. 317). Therefore, it came as no surprise that the media latched onto the story when Stewart was caught insider trading. Stewart was charged with obstruction of justice and lying to investigators about the sale of her ImClone stock, a deal that netted her approximately $51,000 (Stabile, 2004: p.318). Once the media caught wind of her impeding downfall, she was a hit story. According to Murphy’s (2010) study that looked at themes over a 25 year period related to Stewart’s media coverage, the predominate language that was used in the media had moral blameworthiness undertones such as “corporate scandal,” “corporate survival,” “out of the kitchen,” and “the business of domesticity” (Murphy, 2010: p.226). One article described her downfall by stating, “Martha Stewart may be the diva of domesticity, but there’s one New York judge who think she’s the queen of lies” (Stabile, 2004). The tone depicts a spiteful gleefulness at her demise (Stabile, 2004: p.324). According to Stabile (2004), the majority of the media coverage attacked Stewart’s appearance, emotions, and personality (Stabile, 2004: p.326) Unfortunately, Stewart’s case was minor in comparison to the widespread corporate misconduct that was taking place (Murphy, 2010: p.210).

The Case of Enron

In contrast, the corporation Enron, which was rated as the “most innovative company in America” by Fortune magazine, filed for what was the largest bankruptcy in US history in 2002 (Healy & Krishna, 2003: p. 3). Enron had committed a classic pump and dump scheme at the height of the deregulation period. This is where executives give the illusion that the company is thriving to artificially pump the stock up. In addition, Enron encouraged employees and their families to invest their retirement savings so that they would have part ownership. In reality, the company was going bankrupt and losing money and the executives hid the losses in offshore companies, claiming that they were unaware of the company’s financial position. Therefore, when the stock value was at its peak (pump) all the executives sold their stock (dump) and consequently, shares dropped from $86 to $0.26 (Healy & Krishna, 2003: p. 3). The executives sold off over $1 billion worth of their stock while the accounts were frozen for the average shareholder.

In contrast to Stewart’s $51,000, CEO Kenneth Lay walked away with $200.7 million from Enron. The estimated loses totalled to approximately $72 billion (CNN library). Employees who had invested in Enron’s retirement plan lost about $2.07 billion and retirees lost $2 billion in their pension fund (Stabile, 2004: p.318). However, the language in the media was vastly different in Enron, which referred to the situation and the executive using little adjectives to describe the facts: “former Enron executive,” “an altruistic corporate giant,” “Kenny boy,” and the common theme describing the “cozy relationship” between auditors and corporate clients” or the de-regulatory climate; there was little recognition of moral blameworthiness (Stabile, 2004). The Enron executives were described merely in regards to their employment status.

Although, there are differences between the two cases as Stewart’s case was individualistic whereas the Enron case was largely systemic. When it comes to men involved in a corporate scandal, the issue is delivered as facts. However, when it comes to women, a double standard emerges in reporting where the women are demonized for transcending the societal role. There was a nation wide Schadenfreude when it came to Stewart’s misfortunes – that is, the guilty joy one feels at the misfortunes of the high and mighty (Huget, 2004 & Hu, 2011). As Margaret Atwood states, “We still think of a powerful man as a born leader and a powerful woman as an anomaly” (Northouse, 2017: p. 404). Stewart violated normative codes of femininity because the private sphere is a male-dominated arena. So when a successful woman breaks the law, the woman’s entire life is under scrutiny and contempt (Stabile, 2004: p.326). Evidently, the amount of attention devoted to Stewart was disproportionate to the newsworthiness of the case in comparison to corporate scandals that merit a greater amount of moral blameworthiness as depicted in Figure 1 (Stabile, 2004: p.319). These two examples not only show a large discrepancy in societal gender perceptions of leadership but also that the media heavily influences our beliefs and arguably reinforces the glass ceiling effect.

 

Do you know any examples of women in power that have experienced disproportionate coverage from the media?

 

Christina

 

Reference

 

Baykal, L., McAlister, D. & Sawayda, J. (n.d.). Martha Stewart’s Insider Trading Scandal. Retrieved on November 16, 2018, from https://danielsethics.mgt.unm.edu/pdf/martha%20stewart%20case.pdf

Healy, P. & Krishna P. (2003). The Fall of Enron. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17:2, pp. 3-26.

Huget, J. (2004, August 24). Pardon Me, Your Schadenfreude is Showing. Retrieved on November 16, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/wellness/2004/08/24/pardon-me-your-schadenfreude-is-showing/5ce2d927-5f81-49ee-a1bf-55afda02dee1/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.807875c3f5c1

Hu, J. (2011, October 11). A Joyful & Malicious History Of ‘Schadenfreude.’ Retrieved on November 16, 2018, from https://www.theawl.com/2011/10/a-joyful-malicious-history-of-schadenfreude/

Murphy, P. (2010). The Intractability of Reputation: Media Coverage as a Complex System in the Case of Martha Stewart. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(2), 209–237. https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca:2420/10.1080/10627261003601648

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice (Eighth ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stabile, C. A. (2004). Getting What She Deserved: The News Media, Martha Stewart, and Masculine Domination. Feminist Media Studies, 4(3), 315–332. https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca:2420/10.1080/1468077042000309964