GENDER: STEREOTYPES
Diversity straining on its leash
Gender inequities encoded into organisational
cultures and professional stereotypes lead
to less effective organisations.
How well do institutions at the
heart of ‘representational
democracies’ actually
represent citizens? It’s a
question that fascinates Karen Johnston,
Professor of Organisational Studies. Her
recent publication, ‘Women in public policy
and public administration?’, questions the
extent to which a government is democratic
if it doesn’t reflect the population it
serves. Inevitably she is drawn to ask why
governments are not representative, and
what are the consequences.
Born in South Africa during apartheid,
Professor Johnston has seen up close the
abuse that stems from inequality and
divisive government policies. “It focused my
mind,” she says with understatement.
Professor Johnston has a particular
interest in gender equality in institutions and
in the impact of public sector reforms. “For
all the advances made, gender is still baked
into professional stereotypes,” she says.
In exploring this issue, one of her pivotal
findings demonstrated organisations
that better reflect the communities they
serve are not just achieving an important
democratic principle – they improve
the organisation’s performance. This
phenomenon was highlighted in seminal
research undertaken, with Professor Rhys
Andrews of Cardiff University, on the effect
on domestic violence arrest rates when
there are more female police officers.
“We showed that where there is a higher
representation of female police officers,
there was a higher rate of domestic violence
arrests,” she says. “So, female officers were
acting – more actively – in the interests of
women as victims of domestic violence.”
The benefits work two ways: better
representation builds community trust and
the institution itself better understands
the community. The outcome is greater
progress in addressing community issues.
With such potential gains in effectiveness
and efficiency on offer, Professor Johnston
turned her attention to understanding
the barriers for women in public sector
organisations. On the surface, the UK is more
progressive than countries where social,
cultural and religious views inhibit women
from entering paid employment, but there’s
still no shortage of hurdles.
“For one, we have some of the highest
childcare costs in Europe, and a culture in
which mothers are more likely than fathers
to step back from their careers and raise
children,” she says.
Glass walls
The UK is also stymied by both ‘glass
ceilings’ and ‘glass walls’. Glass ceilings stop
women from rising to the more senior,
better-paid roles in an organisation. The NHS
is an example where women make up 70
per cent of the workforce, but only 43 per
cent of NHS executives. Glass walls are the
invisible barriers that keep both women and
men in occupations that defer to gender
stereotypes, such as more women being
found in care professions like nursing.
Professor Johnston sees this
compartmentalising as the residue of
cultural and gender norms still woven into
organisational cultures.
“We are born into biological categories,
male and female. Society attaches gender
norms to those categories, and those values
create identities,” she says.
“Women are supposed to be ‘feminine’,
which means being nurturing and caring.
“Conversely, if the organisational
culture values ‘masculinity’ – supposedly
decisive, competitive, task-orientated and
direct – these values are rewarded, and the
assumption is you need to espouse them to
be a leader.”
Professor Johnston believes there are,
however, ways to effect change. In her
research, she has identified how government
can be more innovative in solving complex
cultural problems by including and
collaborating with the ‘third sector’ – valuesdriven
bodies such as charities, voluntary
and community organisations, social
enterprises and cooperatives.
“Involving the third sector in innovative
solutions, being inclusive in decision-making,
and implementing this in practice holds
solutions to more effectively engaging
the community.”
Community partnering
“Bringing communities on board is a
pathway to more innovatively addressing
complex social problems,” she says. “But if
an institution doesn’t represent or mirror
its population, then its legitimacy is open
to challenge.”
In 2018 – a landmark year that marked
both the centenary of the women’s suffrage
in Britain and the rise of the #MeToo
movement – Professor Johnston reached out
to scholars around the world to brainstorm
ways to increase female representation in
policymaking areas: “Introducing legislation
and ticking a box doesn’t necessarily mean
it’s going to introduce change,” she says. “The
Equal Pay Act, for example, was passed in
1970 but in 2018 we still had a gender pay
gap of almost 20 per cent in the UK.”
Professor Johnston refers to an
‘implementation deficit’. For example, more
women are now graduating from medical
school, but are entering general practice as
opposed to specialist or surgical careers.
“General practice offers more flexible
working arrangements, which helps with
personal childcare but results in a shortage
of [women] surgeons.”
The solution she advocates lies in
innovation: by restructuring jobs – including
the duty roster for surgeons – so they are
gender inclusive and facilitate better work–
life balance.
“We need, as a society, to look at the
profile of the workforce and ask ‘what are
its real needs?’.”
It’s a question with deep ramifications
for communities and for economies, but
it is one that Professor Johnston argues all
organisations need to ask.
� ‘Women in public policy and public administration?’ is
available at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0954096
2.2018.1534421
ISSUE 1 / 2020
35