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\u2019s (2010) study that looked at themes over a 25 year period related to Stewart\u2019s media coverage, the predominate language that was used in the media had moral blameworthiness undertones such as \u201ccorporate scandal,\u201d \u201ccorporate survival,\u201d \u201cout of the kitchen,\u201d and \u201cthe business of domesticity\u201d (Murphy, 2010: p.226). One article described her downfall by stating, \u201cMartha Stewart may be the diva of domesticity, but there\u2019s one New York judge who think she\u2019s the queen of lies\u201d (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\u2019s appearance, emotions, and personality (Stabile, 2004: p.326) Unfortunately, Stewart\u2019s case was minor in comparison to the widespread corporate misconduct that was taking place (Murphy, 2010: p.210).<\/p>\n
The Case of Enron<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n In contrast, the corporation Enron, which was rated as the \u201cmost innovative company in America\u201d by Fortune <\/em>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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n In contrast to Stewart\u2019s $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\u2019s 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: \u201cformer Enron executive,\u201d \u201can altruistic corporate giant,\u201d \u201cKenny boy,\u201d and the common theme describing the \u201ccozy relationship\u201d between auditors and corporate clients\u201d 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.<\/p>\n Although, there are differences between the two cases as Stewart\u2019s 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\u2019s misfortunes \u2013 that is, the guilty joy one feels at the misfortunes of the high and mighty (Huget, 2004 & Hu, 2011). As Margaret Atwood states, \u201cWe still think of a powerful man as a born leader and a powerful woman as an anomaly\u201d (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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Do you know any examples of women in power that have experienced disproportionate coverage from the media?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Christina<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Reference<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Baykal, L., McAlister, D. & Sawayda, J. (n.d.). Martha Stewart\u2019s Insider Trading Scandal. Retrieved on November 16, 2018, from https:\/\/danielsethics.mgt.unm.edu\/pdf\/martha%20stewart%20case.pdf<\/p>\n Healy, P. & Krishna P. (2003). The Fall of Enron. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17:2, pp. 3-26.<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n Hu, J. (2011, October 11). A Joyful & Malicious History Of \u2018Schadenfreude.\u2019 Retrieved on November 16, 2018, from https:\/\/www.theawl.com\/2011\/10\/a-joyful-malicious-history-of-schadenfreude\/<\/p>\n Murphy, P. (2010). The Intractability of Reputation: Media Coverage as a Complex System in the Case of Martha Stewart.\u00a0Journal of Public Relations Research<\/em>,\u00a022<\/em>(2), 209\u2013237. https:\/\/ezproxy.student.twu.ca:2420\/10.1080\/10627261003601648<\/p>\n Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice<\/em> (Eighth ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.<\/p>\n Stabile, C. A. (2004). Getting What She Deserved: The News Media, Martha Stewart, and Masculine Domination.\u00a0Feminist Media Studies<\/em>,\u00a04<\/em>(3), 315\u2013332. https:\/\/ezproxy.student.twu.ca:2420\/10.1080\/1468077042000309964<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 … <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/create.twu.ca\/ccbeau\/files\/2018\/11\/Screen-Shot-2018-11-17-at-11.12.49-AM-1024x764.png\")
<\/p>\n