by Srilatha Batliwala
16 December 2007

Change is a Slow Dance is one of the most appropriately named documents I have ever read.  The title reflects precisely the feeling, as you read it, of moving in slow, gradual steps with the three participating organizations as they struggle to improve the gender equality strategies and outcomes within their structures, and within the constituencies with whom they work in South Africa.  The dance leads us through the intensely personal movements of an individual’s experience with trying to catalyze change within The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR), to the more purposive and determined tempo of the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS), and finally, the passionate whirl of the change process in Justice and Women (JAW).

The concept of “resonance patterning” that was used by the facilitators in all the three settings sounds somewhat mystical and new age, and yet is somehow quite compelling because experience shows that sustained and profound changes in human behavior are ultimately located somewhere beyond the realm of logic and rationality. It is an approach that is quite convincing because it’s built around the notion that shifts in the “deep structure” of organizations and their behavior – the hidden dynamics of power, hierarchy and influence – require something more than the usual palliatives of changes in policies and practices.  They are influenced, as the CSVR case shows so poignantly, by our own histories, and need an intensely deep, tectonic shift in our sense of identity and security and hence our relationships with others; they need the blocked pathways of our sense of empathy and justice to be cleared from both hearts and minds.

Two of the cases – of CALS and CSVR – are fairly typical.  Founded by progressive human rights activists and advocates as social justice organizations / units within larger organizations during the anti-apartheid struggle, they were male-led and enculturated.  Despite having strong and multiple programs of research and advocacy focused on women’s rights, the subtle, deeply embedded patriarchal biases in their internal structures and strategies went unaddressed. It was their participation – or rather, the participation of some of their key staff – in Gender at Work’s Action Learning Program – that pushed real confrontation with these issues in new ways.  In both cases, contiguous opportunities (such as strategic planning exercises and reviews) were seized to gain broader ownership for the change process.

What is less typical, though, is the process through which these organizations struggled to achieve change. The individual catalyst who took the onus of leading change in CSVR, while simultaneously battling and confronting the ways in which her own history of abusive treatment shaped her engagement with peers and supervisors is a profound and rare tale of understanding the links between individual and organizational identities.  Although the change she triggered was limited, the exploration of processes through which others could grapple with hidden resistance are fascinating – maintaining personal diaries and the use of photography, for instance. The nuances of racial politics in an originally anti-apartheid centre in a post-apartheid era also provide deep food for thought.

In CALS, we see the challenges that remain even when a once-male-dominated organization is now staffed and led primarily by women, but has developed other disfunctionalities – the “silo” mentality, fragmentation, little coherence or collective identity.  But we also see once again the possibilities for change when the key leader is deeply committed to and takes responsibility for driving a change process. The CALS case is particularly absorbing for the manner in which it deals with several internal contradictions and tensions – between activists and academics, and between those programs that challenge government and those that work closely with it.  For many of us who have grappled with similar divergence, this is an insightful journey of change.

The JAWS case was my personal favorite – perhaps because it’s the most uplifting, and the one where the deep structure changes were the most profound.  Set up as a “project” or “service” by several NGOs, but run by victims of violence, it was the site of power struggles between its founding organizations for many years, reinforcing the power vs. powerlessness dynamic that its staff were all too familiar with.  Gradually, through predictably unpredictable circumstances, JAWS staff begin to take control of their program and lead the quest for its autonomy.  But rather than asserting independence and recreating a flawed and oppressive governance structure, they decide to search for a way to transform their own self-image and that of the organization at the same time. This is an extraordinary process of confronting how their own experience of victimhood and subordination informed and shaped their internal and external relationships, and learning  both. As the protagonists move from the stance of victimhood to power, agency, and autonomy, we feel it is our triumph too, and it is hard not to cheer!

And so the dance ends in an exhilarating waltz, and you feel energized and ready to take on the challenges of your own self and contexts with new insight and strength….

GENDER AT WORK: “Change is a slow dance’. Editors: Michel Friedman and Shamim Meer (2007). Review by Penny Plowman

Introduction

‘Change is a slow dance’ makes an important contribution to the quest for understanding how change happens and why organisational change for gender equality is so difficult. Explored through three organisational case studies, this Gender at Work monograph provides significant insights into what it means to build development organisations for gender equality. From the outset the reader is made well aware of the complexity of the task at hand. Working at the interface of the personal and professional, lessons from Gender at Work’s Action Learning Programme in South Africa reveal that to do development differently i.e. engage with women’s rights and gender issues across all programmes and not just the ‘women’s programme’, organisations need to reflect at two levels: personal and group. By doing this, the findings from each organisation together with the insights of Friedman and Meer, demonstrate not only the ‘what’ of change i.e. examining personal/organisational values, practice and vision but also the ‘how’ i.e. steps for meaningful reflection. In addition, three clear messages stand out about the importance of 1) external support over time, 2) strong guidance and 3) trust. Without each of these ‘ingredients’ change is unlikely.

Located in the interface of feminist critiques of organisational theory, development studies and theories of change, participants grapple with the concepts of gender, power and difference and what these mean inside organisations. The framework for analysis examines the influence of individual subjectivities, shaped by patriarchy, race, gender and class, on the structure, function and practice of organisations. Drawing on a range of literatures and disciplines about how change happens and who does the changing, the case studies engage with the concept of organisational culture and ideas about women and power, women and leadership, women and management. Examining questions about power, powerlessness and empowerment, moves the discussion into other areas of interest, for example the study of emotion and the unconscious. The Gender at Work framework grounded in the feminist dialectic, ‘the personal is political and political is personal’, therefore allows for a deep examination of feminist thinking on gender, power and change, and opens the way for organisational change theorists and practitioners to engage with the ‘psychology’ of organisations, as a critical dimension of the change conundrum.

The case studies plus Friedman and Meer’s introduction, which includes a description of their methodology, and the conclusion with its analysis of key learnings, contribute to theory and practice in a number of ways. What follows are four areas which stand out.

First, the findings demonstrate why the study of organisations through a gender lens makes sense for development. Interrogating organisational principles, values, practice and accountability are keys to understanding why women’s voices and accountability to women’s interests are silenced inside organisations. Far from being a ‘naval gazing’ exercise, Gender at Work’s approach, beginning with each organisation reflecting on its own history and early leadership, is found to contribute to a greater understanding of why women’s interests and gender equality work are marginalised in the present. For example, early imprints of white male leadership and masculine notions of working in ‘silos’ continue to impress years later, making change difficult even when women are in leadership/management positions (CALS and CSVR).

Taking organisations through a rigorous process of unearthing the past to give meaning to the present brings life to the theory of gendered organisation and gendered outcomes (e.g. Goetz, 1999). ¹ This process of careful investigation builds an understanding that the very construct of organisation is rooted in the idea that organisations serve male interests i.e. male power at the top, gendered hierarchy and the exclusion of the private. The result, as each case study demonstrates, helps to reveal why changing organisations is such a tough call and also, why women’s personal and group experiences inside organisations are bruising.²

Second, the personal reflections on ‘power’ and ‘powerlessness’ contribute to why there is no easy route to changing power relations. Examining the complexities of power e.g. the ‘power line workshop’ (JAW) helps to make sense of different experiences of power e.g. women feeling powerless in positions of power (e.g. manager) and powerful when able to influence and bring about changes through individual agency. The realisation that “power expands, contracts and is never fixed” (JAW p. 61) holds the possibility of change. Recognition of power as ‘doing’ (agency), releases new energy and creativity, as witnessed most strikingly in the reading of the JAW case when staff and director move out of “victimhood” into empowerment, acknowledging that they are not “powerless”.

Third, each case study demonstrates the significance of examining gender, power and change in context. Reflecting on the recent changes in South Africa draws attention to the possibilities for development organisations to advance women’s rights and gender equality principles on the inside and the outside:

“As the 1990s unfolded, CALS found itself in a very different opportunity structure for its work in promoting human rights and justice. This shaped important changes in the nature of its work (from opposition to engagement), its organisational form (from individuals to projects) and its internal culture (reflecting growing diversity and change).” (CALS p. 36)

The study of context also provides important insights into understanding, as much as South Africa is charged with possibilities, why there is also resistance. Just as in other countries, the concept of ‘gender equality’ is contested and much work lies ahead in creating an enabling environment for women’s rights in practice, part of which is changing notions of what it means to be a man (Reid & Walker 2005; Morrell 2001). This finding also raises the importance of defining what organisations and individuals mean by ‘gender’, a concept that for many in development remains just another word for women, leaving men and the feminist intent of transforming unequal gender power relations out in the conceptual cold!

Fourth, the findings contribute to the importance of giving special attention to gender as the lens which unlocks power relations, whilst recognising the interface of gender with other signifiers of difference and what these mean for understanding and eradicating inequality. Holding onto ‘gender’ in the South African context where organisational change is commonly viewed through a ‘race’ lens, presents particular difficulties. This is especially difficult when affirmative action and employment equity strategies tend to deal with ‘diversity’ issues one at a time e.g. goal of employing more blacks without thinking about the intersections of gender and race. Black feminist theory has long challenged this notion of working with oppressions one at a time and yet acting on the intersectionality of oppressions across different domains of power remains elusive in practice (Collins 2000).

Fifth, the monograph contributes to what it means to apply participatory methods using a feminist methodology. The careful construction of learning spaces for personal reflection and group dialogue and the use of personal healing methods such as Capacitar and the Resonance Repattening System, highlights the importance of how practice for change is conducted and once again reinforces the significance of support and the building of relationships among participants over time. Also, it is evident from the personal write ups that writing is a powerful tool for reflection. Whilst this stage of the process is typically handed over to an external consultant i.e. to write the ‘report’, each case study demonstrates how important and new insights happen in the writing process and therefore it needs to be resourced and built in as part of any change programme.

Reflecting on the outcomes of the content and process generate a number of questions for future work.

1. Why gender and organisational change?

Assumptions about NGOs being “… ‘fine’ on issues of race and gender equality..” (CALS p. 41) make the focus on gender all the more difficult. Assumed to be caring, loving, fair and open and already employing lots of women and putting women in management positions, NGOs are often resistant to even entering the internal politics of gender and change because ‘gender’ is not seen as a problem. Lessons from organisational theory coupled with the experiences of women inside organisations tell a very different story. Understanding organisations as ‘gendered’, whether populated by women or not, and understanding organisations as ‘ raced’, whether black people are there or not, provides the key to why Gender at Work and others are interested in organisations. Readings on feminist approaches to organisational studies help to develop arguments for why an internal focus is critical (see for example Acker 1990, 1992; Calas & Smirich 1996; Newman 1995).

For example, Acker’s (1992) use of the concept of ‘gendered processes’ brings to light the way gender as a power relation is integral to organisations. These processes include ordinary organisational practices which produce gendered hierarchies in jobs, work divisions and wage differentials as well as sexist and stereotypical symbols and images. Without questioning, patterns of domination and subordination are endorsed and individuals adapt to fit the expectations of the gendered organisation. For women, as the CSVR chapter highlights, such adaptation manifests in particular ways. Unable to bring our ‘whole’ selves to work, women’s interests and perspectives remain marginal to the political process of defining organisational values and strategic direction, knowledge production and choice of research agendas, projects and programmes.

2. How and where does change happen?

Accepting that change is not only about formal change strategies and formal positions of power, means finding ways to engage with the ‘informal’ and this thing called ‘organisational culture’. Also the ‘how’ question brings attention to the challenge of finding creative and innovative processes to attract organisational participants into the process e.g. photographs and diaries.

Recognised as one of the keys to transformation in mainstream management/business literature and popular approaches to organisational change in the development sector, examining organisational culture brings attention to deeply held organisational beliefs, attitudes, symbols and practices which shape ‘how we do things around here’. Working out what these mean for building ‘inclusive cultures’ requires an engagement with sub-cultures as well as the dominant culture. Applying a mix of perspectives allows organisations to see and thereby examine meanings of division, difference and dissent and how these are gendered (Alvesson 1995; Martin 1992; Newman 1995).

For example, applying a ‘differentiation’ perspective, which recognises the dispersal of power, opens up space for investigating conflict and inconsistencies and helps to question the dominant assumption that searching for one shared vision and set of values is best. ‘Consensus’ from a differentiation perspective is found in sub-cultures, constituted by people with shared personal and professional interests. Similarly, applying a ‘fragmentation’ perspective, which holds ‘ambiguity’ as the key to understanding organisational cultures, helps to unearth the inconsistencies and the particular ways in which organisational cultures are gendered. For example, a fragmentation perspective makes conscious the ways in which women juggle different roles and responsibilities at work, as well as what happens when organisational culture separates work from home (Newman 1995).

Working with a ‘consensus’ or ‘integration’ perspective which assumes the importance of a shared vision, values and beliefs, together with the differentiation and fragmentation perspectives thereby holds the possibility of getting to grips with the everyday experiences of women and men, and different women and men. Also and most critically applying all three perspectives, challenges mainstream management approaches which tend to automatically prioritise a ‘consensus’ or ‘integration’ perspective for ease of control and maintaining the ‘status quo’.

3. What stops change on the inside?

Reflections on women and power and feelings of powerlessness take the analysis of gender and organisational change into the study of ‘emotions’ and ‘psycho-analysis’ in the workplace. This opens up ‘new’ ways thinking about what needs to change inside organisations and also why work on women’s rights and gender and development meets resistance. The monograph uses various concepts, such as ‘parent-child’, ‘victim- perpetrator’ and ‘shadow side’ as ways to explain for example, experiences of self-distancing from internal organisational change processes and reasons for behaving badly. Drawing on ideas from psychoanalysis and tapping into the psychological study of organisations (Nicolson 1996) raises important questions about the place of ‘emotions’ inside organisations (Fineman 1993) and how experiences of violence against women on the outside influence women’s exercise of power and authority inside organisations. Also the case studies raise important questions about the role of ‘trust’ in organisations and change processes (Kramer & Tyler 1996).

Pursuing these areas of enquiry suggests that as a group of change practitioners we need to continue to expand our engagement with ideas coming from other disciplines and literatures which are also concerned with organisations and change. So for example, as we seek to deepen our understanding of power and organisational culture, learning about the workings of the ‘unconscious’ within and across different interest groups inside organisations suggests engaging with the psychoanalytic. For example, a review of work by the Tavistock Clinic addressing change in service organisations highlights the important contribution to be made by the Group Relations Tradition in the study and practice of organisational change (Hoggett 2007). Such a contribution accompanied by a feminist analysis of power and politics holds the potential for both approaches i.e. psychoanalytic and feminist to add to each other and so deepen the way we think about organisations and change, and how we carry out our practice.

In conclusion, ‘Change is a slow dance’ has therefore generated a whole number of thoughts about the theory and practice of organisational change for gender equality. In particular by linking ideas about personal transformation to organisational change, the case studies and methodology have brought to life what it means to participate in the feminist project and whilst the process has clearly been tough in many respects, the final write up demonstrates how everyone got something out and important personal and organisational shifts happened.

References

Acker, J. (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organisations. Gender and society 4, 139-158.

Acker, J. (1992) Gendering Organisational Theory. In: Mills, A.J. and Tancred, P., (Eds.) Gendering Organisational Analysis, pp. 248-60. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Alvesson, M. (1995) Cultural Perspectives on Organisations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Calas, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1996) From The Woman’s Point of View: Feminist Approaches to Organisation Studies. In: Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W., (Eds.) Handbook of Organisation Studies, pp. 218-245. London: Sage

Collins, P.H. (2000) Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment, London and New York : Routledge.

Fineman, S. (1993) Emotion in Organisations, London: Sage.

Ferguson, K.E. (1984) The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Goetz, A.M. (1997) Getting Institutions Right for Women in Development, London and New York: Zed Books.

Hoggett, P. Review of Obholzer, A. and Zagier Roberts, V. (Eds). The Unconscious at Work: Individual and Organisational Stress in the Human Services, London: Routledge, 1994. (http://human-nature.com/free-associations/hogg.html Accessed 20/11/07)

Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (1996) Trust in organisations: Frontiers of theory and research , London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Martin, J. (1992) Cultures in Organisations. Three Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morrell, R. (2001) Changing men in Southern Africa, Natal South Africa: University of Natal Press.

Newman, J. (1995) Gender and cultural Change. In: Itzin, C. and Newman, J., (Eds.) Gender, Culture and Organisational Change: Putting Theory into Practice, pp. 11-29. London and New York: Routledge

Nicolson, P. (1996) Gender, power and organisation, A psychological perspective, London and New York: Routledge.

Reid, G. and Walker, L. (2005) Men behaving differently, Cape Town: Double Storey Books.

1 Goetz’s idea of a ‘gendered archaeology’ uncovers gendered organisation and gendered outcome. The framework for analysis covers eight dimensions: 1) Institutional and organisational history; 2) Ideologies and disciplines which shape the organisation’s approach to ‘gender equality; 3) Organisational culture; 4) Gendered participants; 5) Gendered space and time; 6) Sexuality of organisations, 7) Gendered authority structures and Gendered incentive and accountability systems.

2 See, The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy, Ferguson 1984.

Welcome to Gender at Work Dialogues! We hope this blog will serve as an interactive and productive space where colleagues and friends of Gender at Work can converse and collaborate on working towards gender equality through organisational change.