Reworking Gender: A Feminist Communicology of Organization
Publication Year: 2004
Reworking Gender: A Feminist Communicology of Organization examines the place of gender and feminist scholarship in contemporary critical organization studies. Departing from the common view of gender as a specialized branch of organization scholarship, authors Dennis K. Mumby and Karen Lee Ashcraft reposition feminism in a communication-centered model that integrates recent developments in feminist, critical, and postmodern organizational studies. Linking theory to practical projects, the authors address many of the complex and often contradictory concerns of critical organizational scholarship, including issues of discourse, subjectivity, power, race, and class.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Feminist Organization Studies in the Wake of the Discursive Turn
- Common Ways of Framing the Relationship among Discourse, Gender, and Organization
- Frame 1: Gender Organizes Discourse
- Frame 2: Discourse (Dis)Organizes Gender
- Frame 3: Organizing (En)Genders Discourse
- Frame 4: Discourse (En)Genders Organization
- Across the Frames: Threads of Alliance and Tension
- Chapter 2: Feminism and the Discourses of Modernism: Articulating an Organizational Voice
- Feminism and the Modernist Project: Recapping the Usual Interpretation
- Feminism and the Discourses of Modernism: Developing an Organizational Voice
- Feminism and Post-Positivism: A Discourse of Explanation
- Feminism and Interpretivism: A Discourse of Understanding
- Feminism and Critical Modernism: A Discourse of Suspicion
- Chapter 3: Postmodernism and Organization Studies: Complicating the Conversation
- Postmodern Anxiety
- Postmodernism as a Discourse of Vulnerability
- Discourses of Vulnerability in Organization Studies
- Theorizing the Subject of Postmodern Organization Studies
- Theorizing Power in Postmodern Organization Studies
- Discourse and Postmodern Organization Studies
- Postmodern Limitations for: Understanding Gendered Organization
- Chapter 4: Organizing at the Intersection of Feminism and Postmodernism
- Feminism and Postmodernism: Convergences and Divergences
- Postmodern Feminism
- Feminism Contra Postmodernism
- Organizing Gender: A Postmodern Feminist Perspective
- Postmodern Feminist Critiques of Mainstream Organization Theory
- Power, Discourse, and Organizational Identity
- Chapter 5: A Feminist Communicology of Organization
- Organizational Communication and Gendered Organization
- Articulating a Feminist Communicology of Organization: Initial Premises
- Communication and Gendered Subjectivity
- A Dialectic of Power and Resistance
- Historical Context
- A Dialectic of Discourse and Materiality
- A Dialectic of Gender Relations
- Communicology as a Feminist Ethic
- Chapter 6: A Feminist Communicology of the Airline Pilot: Gender and the Organization of Professional Identity
- The Birth of Aviation and the Aviator: Early Vulnerabilities of Significance and Safety
- Selling Aviation Safety, Emasculating the Pilot: The Discourse of the Lady-Flier
- Selling Aviator Safety, Securing Occupational Privilege: The Discourse of the Professional Airline Pilot
- Closing the Cockpit, Opening the Cabin: Lady-Flier Meets Professional Pilot (and Becomes a Stewardess)
- Cracks in the Cockpit Door? The Airline Pilot's Gendered Dialectic of Class
- Chapter 7: Conclusion: Reworking Gender in Critical Organization Studies
- A Feminist Communicology of Organization: Elaborating the Premises
- Premise 1: Communication Constitutes Subjectivity but Does Not Work Alone
- Premise 2: The Dialectic of Discourse-Materiality Lends Communication its Constitutive Force
- Premise 3: The Historical Context—and, Especially, Political Economy—of Communication is Crucial to Understanding the Discourse-Materiality Dialectic
- Premise 4: The Power-Resistance Dialectic Marks Communication as Ironic, but the Discourse-Materiality Dialectic Marks the Limits of Irony
- Premise 5: Discourses of (Gender) Difference Emerge (and are Best Understood) in Relation to One Another
- Premise 6: Feminist Communicology Pursues Provisional Praxis by Taking an Ethical Stand on Admittedly Shifting Ground
- Reworking the Conversation
Copyright © 2004 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Sage Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
Sage Publications Ltd.
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B-42, Panchsheel Enclave
Post Box 4109
New Delhi 110 017 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ashcraft, Karen Lee.
Reworking gender : a feminist communicology of organization / by Karen
Lee Ashcraft and Dennis K. Mumby
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7619-5354-X-ISBN 0-7619-5355-8 (pbk.)
1. Organizational sociology. 2. Communication in organizations. 3. Sex role in the work environment. 4. Feminist theory. I. Mumby, Dennis K. II. Title.
Printed on acid-free paper
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Acquiring Editor: Todd R. Armstrong
Editorial Assistant: Veronica Novak
Production Editor: Claudia A. Hoffman
Copy Editor: Jamie Robinson
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Indexer: Molly Hall
Cover Designer: Janet Foulger
Like most scholarly projects, this book evolved through a number of unforeseen turns. Although it is the result of our collaboration (and our names appear on the book in alphabetical order in recognition of our coauthorship), we did not begin this book together. Originally, Dennis conceived of the book as a way to productively explore the burgeoning scholarship on postmodern feminism and to assess its potential contribution to radical organization studies in light of the“discursive turn.” In this sense, the book began as a largely metatheoretical project—an effort to position feminist scholarship within a larger set of disciplinary discourses that had arisen in organization studies around questions of epistemology, ontology, methodology, and axiology. It asked what femini—and, in particular, postmodern feminism—could contribute to these discussions. As the project took shape, however, it became clear that such a metatheoretical focus inadequately captured the myriad ways in which feminist scholarship was beginning to influence the project of radical organization studies. Dennis's concerns about the inadequacy of this frame led to his inviting Karen to collaborate with him in “reworking”the project. Her research on feminist alternatives to conventional organizational forms explores the relationship between theory and practice and, in addition, suggests directions for an explicitly communication-based conception of feminist organizing.
Once Karen signed on, a joint vision for the book began to develop. Several shifts in emphasis emerged from the meeting of our respective orientations to, and frustrations with, the scholarship we read and practice. We decided to integrate the original agenda for the book with these concerns, expanding the book's focus to include matters of disciplinary identity (that of organizational communication and feminist organization studies), as well as empirical and pragmatic considerations, particularly those related to feminist politics and praxis. After much conversation, the following themes came to focus our thinking.
[Page x]A first point of interest involved tensions in the relationship between feminism and critical organization studies. For the most part, feminism has existed as an “outsider within” radical organization theory and research. Even today, it is still often framed as derivative from, or as a corrective to, critical scholarship and its neglect of gender. Our own field of organizational communication was particularly slow to engage feminist approaches to organizing, with published research appearing only in the early 1990s. Despite that sluggish start, we have seen the virtual explosion of gender and organizational communication research over the past decade. We hoped to build on this momentum by positioning feminism as more central to the critical project than it is typically assumed to be, both in terms of what it has already contributed and as a guide for the future. We also wanted to articulate a distinctively communicative feminist approach to the study of organization, which led us to a second theme—the place of communication in organization studies.
It is our sense that, in the face of the discursive turn that has defined much critical organization scholarship in the last 20 years or so, our own field of organizational communication continues to hover at the margins of this body of work, despite our focus on the communicative constitution of organizing. To be clear, we are referring here to the (in)visibility of our disciplinary community, not that of individual scholars. This book thus represents an effort to not only develop a communicative feminist perspective on organizing but also to articulate organizational communication as a recognizable and relevant voice in the scholarly conversation about organization, discourse, and power.
Of course, calling for such a shift requires reasons for doing so, and it was in spirited discussions of such reasons that we began to truly redefine the project. We started by spinning the matter less defensively and, we thought, more productively. Rather than presume that communication studies ought to be central because so many organization scholars now care about discourse, we asked ourselves a different question: What are communication's distinctive contributions, given that so many organization scholars already address discourse? Exploring this question took us down several paths. For one, it pushed us to be more precise about the term discourse. In particular, we wanted to elucidate varied meanings and applications of discourse across the gender and organization literature—thus Chapter 1 is an adaptation of Karen's chapter in the Handbook of Organizational Discourse(in press, Sage). The question also led us to specify and delimit our conception of [Page xi]communication and to clarify the relationships we envision among discourse, communication practice(s), materiality, temporality, and so forth—groundwork that shaped the way we present and refine our communicative feminist “model” in Chapters 5 and 7. Finally, discussing our field's distinctiveness led us to characterize our model as one template for communicology. With this term, we mean to parallel other disciplinary approaches (for example, the sociology of gendered organization). While the term may strike some as an unnecessary neologism, we see it as a useful way to capture the contributions of a communication approach in a language at once familiar and curious to broader audiences.
Third, we wanted to explore gender as one important discourse of difference that necessarily intersects with others. Given recent turns in both of our research agendas, we initially expected to focus the book on masculinity and organizing. And yet, as Karen began to sift through some data from her airline pilot project in preparation for the analysis in Chapter 6, it became apparent that masculinity alone provided an insufficient explanatory frame—that, in fact, masculinity became a much more visible and sensible force when she simultaneously considered the role of femininity. Put simply, certain forms of masculinity played against certain forms of femininity to engender particular outcomes. And the “certain forms” clause here is crucial, for all constructions of gender summoned other discourses of difference—in particular, race, sexuality, and class—and relied on these discursive affiliations to accomplish multiple forms of privilege and exclusion at once. Consequently, we tried to do more than merely issue another call for further attention to gender relations and intersectionality—we aimed to illuminate how gender becomes central and how it never works alone.
Finally, we wanted to stay mindful of the relationship between metatheoretical issues and mundane practice—to show that philosophical debates carry significant implications for organizational life. This point seemed imperative, in part, because of an abiding feminist commitment to praxis and ambivalence about “high theory.” Relatedly, one of our goals gradually became to disabuse readers of an idea often aligned with a social constructionist bent—namely, the notion that to focus on how discourse constitutes organization is to abandon “the real world.” In this book, we are at pains to theorize and demonstrate the connections between discursive processes and their material consequences for human beings.
[Page xii]The development of what we call a feminist communicology of organization represents our efforts to address these themes. In doing so, we hope to “rework gender” in several ways—among them, (a) to situate organizational communication as central to the discursive turn and, specifically, to understanding gendered organization; (b) to show how feminism can model scholarly practices (such as balancing multiple discourses of difference or embracing ambiguity and mediating irony instead of claiming incommensurability) that are vital to the critical project in organization studies; and (c) to connect theoretical conversations to empirical and practical projects.
As with any scholarly endeavor, we have been helped along the way by numerous people, and we wish to recognize a few of them here. Many thanks to Patrice Buzzanell, George Cheney, Charley Conrad, and Cynthia Stohl for their invaluable feedback and support at various stages of the project. We would also like to thank the Department of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a few agencies at the University of Utah— the Department of Communication, the University Research Committee, and the Tanner Humanities Center—for providing us with research leaves that enabled the completion of this project. We are additionally grateful to the 99s Museum of Women Pilots in Oklahoma City for granting Karen access to the archival materials that ground the analysis in Chapter 6; we owe particular gratitude to Saundra Lapsley, the museum manager who gave generously of her insight, time, and energy as Karen gathered this material. We also want to thank the airline pilots whose reflections are featured in Chapter 6. Karen is most grateful to Ken Davis not only for his unqualified support of the book project, but also for his priceless stints as “research assistant” on the ongoing airline pilot study. We both wish to thank Todd Armstrong at Sage for his enthusiasm, editorial expertise, and willingness to take on this project at a relatively late stage in its development. As we honed the final draft, Jamie Robinson's copyediting skills were invaluable. We are indebted to Lisa Flores, Marouf Hasian, Helga Shugart, Stephanie Wahab, and Greg Holles for their inventive book title suggestions, all of which we clearly and stubbornly ignored. Finally, we owe a considerable debt to Thoney (a.k.a. Catherine Ashcraft), who kept us sane throughout the project.
Introduction: Situating Gender in Critical Organization Studies[Page xiii]
The history of gender studies in organization scholarship is, at best, patchy and discontinuous. Twenty years ago, Jeff Hearn and Wendy Parkin provided “a selective review and critique of a neglected area” (Hearn & Parkin, 1983). Five years later, Albert Mills (1988) confirmed that “gender is a crucial, yet neglected, aspect of organizational analysis” and characterized that neglect as “inexcusable in the face of a growing concern with the experiential aspects of organizations” (p. 351). In 1990, Joan Acker observed (in a special issue of Gender & Society devoted to organizations), “Writers on organizations and organization theory now include some consideration of women and gender, but their treatment is usually cursory, and male domination is, on the whole, not analyzed and not explained” (p. 140). Six years later—and a full thirteen years after Hearn and Parkin's landmark article—Fiona Wilson (1996) inveighed against a state of affairs in which “organizational theory is tenaciously blind and deaf to gender” (p. 825). Most recently, Patricia Martin and David Collinson (2002) bemoaned the fragmentation of gender and organization research across the United States and Europe, inviting gender scholars to “strike out” on their own to establish a field of “gendered organization” studies.
Has the neglect of gender as a cohesive domain of organization studies really been as sweeping and systematic as these authors claim? Sylvia Gherardi (1995) wonders if they protest too much: “It is extremely difficult to take seriously the contention that ‘gender and organization’ is truly a neglected area, given that so many articles have been written to make precisely this point” (p. 25). So where does the truth lie? Not surprisingly, both positions can stake claims to validity.[Page xiv]The Status of Gendered Organization Studies
Over the past 30 years of organization scholarship, gender has been visible and invisible, subject to intense focus yet ignored. On the one hand, scholars have vigorously investigated gender as an important independent variable affecting such factors as leadership or conflict style (e.g., Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Monroe, DiSalvo, Lewis, & Borzi, 1990; Todd-Mancillas & Rossi, 1985). Yet in most of these studies, gender remains marginalized—a binary factor pertinent to specific interpersonal practices, not a basic pillar of organizing. Other researchers have examined gender as a key aspect of work and family matters; predictably, much of this scholarship is addressed to the concerns or consequences of working mothers (Belsky & Eggebeen, 1991; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Milkie & Pelotal, 1999; Scarr, Phillips, & McCartney, 1989; Vogel, 1993). To date, the most prolific work on gender and organization has stressed the plight of women in management, exploring barriers that range from sexual harassment to discriminatory policy to exclusionary interaction patterns (Burke & McKeen, 1992; Fagenson, 1993; Reardon, 1997; Staley, 1988). Notably, the work-and-family and women-in-management literatures expand the variable-analytic view by calling attention to gender as a political and systemic matter. Across these studies, however, gender becomes relevant to organizations only when (white) women enter them. Put simply, women appear as visibly gendered “others,” while men are erased as the genderless norm.
Challenging the view that gender is a special concern limited to women, scholars have begun to consider gender as a deep-seated organizing principle:
To say that an organization … is gendered means that advantage and disadvantage, exploitation and coercion, action and emotion, meaning and identity, are patterned through and in terms of a distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine. Gender is not an addition to ongoing processes, conceived as gender neutral. Rather, it is an integral part of those processes, which cannot be properly understood without an analysis of gender. (Acker, 1990, p. 146)
The claim that organization is fundamentally gendered suggests several radical premises, which together form a foundation for this [Page xv]book. First, gender is constitutive of organizing; it is an omnipresent, defining feature of collective human activity, regardless of whether such activity appears to be about gender. Second, the gendering of organization involves a struggle over meaning, identity, and difference; this ongoing, discursive struggle occurs amid, and acts upon, gendered institutional structures. Third, such struggle (re)produces social realities that privilege certain interests. It follows that gender is inextricably linked with power; it is medium and outcome of the vested interests of organizational life. This implies, finally, that the struggle for gendered meaning is a deeply material matter, for it produces not only preferred truths, selves, and courses of action but also tangible systems of “advantage and disadvantage, exploitation and coercion.”
The notion of “gendered organization” has been taken up by numerous scholars in organization studies. In particular, feminist authors have investigated the politics of organizing to illuminate “the ways in which gendered subjectivity is constituted within relations of dominance” (Hegde, 1998, p. 277). Over the past decade or so, sustained programs of feminist research have examined the intersection of gender, organizing, identity, and power. In our own field of organizational communication, for example, a “critical mass” of feminist scholarship has emerged (e.g., B. J. Allen, 1996; Ashcraft, 2000; Buzzanell, 1994; Clair, 1998; Gregg, 1993; Holmer Nadesan, 1996; Jorgenson, 2002; Mumby, 1996; A. G. Murphy, 1998; Trethewey, 1997). This trend is particularly striking, for it was not so long ago that Judi Marshall (1993) strained to hear any feminist voices in the field. The management and organization studies literatures have seen a similar, and slightly earlier, emergence of feminist perspectives. Scholars have deconstructed the gendered foundations of organization theory (Calás & Smircich, 1992a; Holvino, 1997; Mumby & Putnam, 1992), developed alternative forms of theorizing (Acker, 1992; K. Ferguson, 1994; Gherardi, 1995; Jacques, 1992), and commenced empirical study of gendered organizing processes (J. K. Fletcher, 1998; Gherardi, 1995; Gottfried & Hayashi-Kato, 1998; Kondo, 1990; J. Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman, 1998; Pringle, 1989). A growing strand of work on masculinity and organizing further challenges the view that gender is a matter made for women. Recently, an interdisciplinary cluster of scholars has converged in an attempt to “make the one the other” (Hearn, 1996) and interrogate the social construction of masculinities at work (e.g., Cheng, 1996; Collinson, 1992; Collinson & Hearn, 1996a, 1996b; Hearn, 1994; Knights & McCabe, 2001). Their efforts expand the terrain of [Page xvi]gendered organization studies well beyond “the woman question.” In this book, we seek to do the same, giving life to our theoretical model with an empirical emphasis on the organization of masculinity.
Masculinity theory and research has generated pivotal insights that inform our project. For one, masculinity is not a stable or unified phenomenon; its meanings shift over time and in relation to culture, context, person, age, and so forth (Spitzack, 1998a). Multiple narratives of manhood circulate concurrently, offering versions of self and social relations that, when practiced, yield differential, consequential access to power and resistance (Corey, 2000; Mechling & Mechling, 1994; Nakayama, 2000). In particular, feminist theories of intersectionality push us to recognize that masculinities, like all gender identities, are inevitably raced and classed (C. Crenshaw, 1997; K. Crenshaw, 1991; Dace, 1998; Orbe, 1998). In other words, talk of “men” and “the masculine”—however generalized—always refers to a specific form of masculinity (Dines, 1998; Eng, 2001; Wiegman, 1993). Scholars emphasizing gender are increasingly accountable to these insights, for to study gender in isolation is to risk furthering the normalization of partial (e.g., white, middle-class, heterosexual) identities, relations, and interests. Accordingly, our theoretical model of gendered organization and empirical analysis of professional masculinity share a guiding interest in the historically, culturally and politically specific nature of gender discourse.
In addition, most masculinity scholars coalesce around a concern shared with feminists: the need to mark masculinity and men as gendered subjects. Scholars especially challenge the invisibility of dominant masculinities, since all forms of manhood do not enjoy similar privilege. Perhaps ironically, however, studies of dominant masculinity run the risk of recentering the white, heterosexual, middle-class, male subjects they seek to deconstruct (e.g., Penley & Willis, 1993; Robinson, 2000).1 Not oblivious to such danger, many masculinity scholars assume the risk to shatter illusions of homogenous, indelibly privileged male selves (e.g., Eng, 2001; Spitzack, 1998b) and to unearth the institutionalization of particular masculine forms (e.g., Mumby, 1998). This book shoulders a similar risk, for to illustrate the theoretical model we build, we examine the social construction of “airline pilot” as an elite, romanticized professional identity. Potentially, our focus could be read as reinscribing this figure in the popular imagination. To minimize this risk and to develop the lens of masculinity studies, we attend to the coevolution, or dialectical interplay, of specific masculinities and femininities. In other words, our analysis demonstrates how the [Page xvii]formation of airline pilot identity entailed weaving an intricate and precarious web of gender, race, and class symbolism—with immense contemporary consequences.
In sum, our efforts in this book are informed by a vast and growing literature that explores the meeting of gender and organization. Particularly, three recent themes in that literature begin to focus our interests: (a) organization as fundamentally gendered, (b) the social construction of masculinity and work, and (c) the inevitably partial character of any gender identity. We argue that, while gender and feminist research can hardly be described as part of “mainstream” organization studies, there has been a noticeable shift in scholarly sensibilities about the gendered character of organizing. Attesting to this trend are recently developed journals like Gender, Work and Organization and several anthologies of feminist viewpoints on organizing (e.g., Buzzanell, 2000; Cheng, 1996; Mills & Tancred, 1992; Savage & Witz, 1992). Given this shift, we think it time to move beyond general debates of legitimacy and toward examining the implications of specific feminist perspectives for enhancing understanding. For us, the central question then becomes, “Out of the many possibilities that feminism offers, which approaches best enable us to map the complexities of gendered organization?”
Nonetheless, authors continue to ponder, “Can one legitimately study gender in organizational life?” or “Why isn't feminist scholarship published more frequently in organization studies?” We see these persistent anxieties over credibility as an outgrowth of current relations between feminist and critical organization studies; namely, that feminist perspectives are typically viewed as a recent offshoot of a larger, more sophisticated body of radical organization scholarship.Feminism and Critical Organization Studies: Rereading the Relationship
By radical or critical organization studies, we refer broadly to a tradition of theory and research that analyzes the social construction of organizations and, specifically, the ways in which institutional(ized) meanings mold power relations and identity (Alvesson, 1985; Clegg, 1989; Deetz, 1992a; Huspek & Kendall, 1991). Critical approaches to organization emerged in the wake of the so-called linguistic turn in philosophy and social theory (Rorty, 1967), which situated language as the [Page xviii]basic ontological condition of being and experience. Applied to the study of organization, this paradigmatic shift took human communication not simply as one element of organizational life, but as the essential process—that which calls organization into being, crafting actuality from possibility. Communication produces, not merely expresses, the realities of organization (Grant, Keenoy & Oswick, 1998; Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1982; Putnam & Pacanowsky, 1983). In this sense, the linguistic (or discursive) turn transformed the way we can see organizations as objects of study.
The discursive turn generated a wave of research concerned with organizational language and symbolism, and the critical approach represents a particular intervention in such studies. Drawing on 19th and 20th century developments in hermeneutics (Gadamer, 1989; R. Palmer, 1969), phenomenology (Heidegger, 1977; Merleau-Ponty, 1960), and humanist Marxism (Gramsci, 1971; Horkheimer & Adorno, 1988; Lukács, 1971), critical scholars articulate a “discourse of suspicion” (Mumby, 1997a; Ricoeur, 1970). Thus, where interpretive or cultural scholars look to understand the ways in which organizational actors create shared, collective meaning through interaction (M. H. Brown, 1990; Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1982; Putnam, 1983), critical scholars explore the “underbelly” of organizational life, arguing that apparent harmony and consensus hides underlying structures of domination, resistance, and interest-driven discourse strategies (Deetz, 1992a; Hardy & Phillips, 1999; Mumby, 1987). In other words, organizational reality is not constructed spontaneously or consensually; negotiating meaning is a political process that is both constrained by and constitutive of power structures. From a critical perspective, then, organizations are sites where various organizational actors and groups strive to fix meaning in ways that will serve particular interests (Deetz, 1982; Mumby & Clair, 1997).
Central to understanding the politics of organizing through a critical lens are the concepts of ideology and hegemony, which we briefly introduce here. In radical organization scholarship, the term discourse is invoked liberally yet with various meanings, which range from mundane communication to language or text to abstract societal narrative. One common premise that cuts across this variation is that discourse—in all its forms—does ideological work that shapes our relationships to the world in ways that are not always apparent to us. Here, ideology is more than ideational; it entails systems of representation that construct identity, securing and obscuring structural [Page xix]inequalities and contradictions. Furthermore, these systems of representation do not float above social practice; they are materially grounded in the practices of everyday life. As Althusser (1971) states, “Disappeared: the term ideas. Survive: the terms subject, consciousness, beliefs, actions. Appear: the terms practices, rituals, ideological apparatus” (p. 169). While ideology predisposes people toward certain ways of making sense, it by no means exhausts the interpretive possibilities at their disposal. Consequently, attempts to ideologically fix meaning are always contested processes. As Hall (1985) states, ideology “sets limits to the degree to which a society-in-dominance can easily, smoothly, and functionally reproduce itself” (p. 113). Criticisms notwithstanding, this formulation of ideology has significantly influenced the agenda of critical organization scholars—namely, their guiding interest in explicating discursive processes of ideological struggle (Collinson, 1992; Graham, 1993; Huspek & Kendall, 1991; Markham, 1996).
Gramsci's notion of hegemony has also become integral to critical accounts of ideological struggle. Although hegemony has been widely read to capture ideological domination of one class by another, it is more appropriately interpreted to theorize power as a noncoercive, dialectical struggle between competing groups in the realm of civil society (Mumby 1997b). In short, hegemony explains “the ability of one class to articulate the interests of other social groups to its own” (Mouffe, 1979, p. 183). Gramsci's work is particularly vital insofar as it marks a shift from viewing power as simply coercive, or as the imposition of some fixed ideology on subordinate groups, to a dynamic conception of lived social relations, wherein various tensions constantly unfold among groups. For Gramsci, political struggle is less a “war of maneuver” (i.e., the direct confrontation of state power) and more a “war of position” (i.e., the struggle of classes to diffuse their worldview via the institutions of civil society). Hence, hegemony involves the cultivation of a “collective will” through “intellectual and moral reform” (Gramsci, 1971, pp. 60–61). Guided by such claims, critical scholars conceive of organization as a primary domain for the enactment of hegemonic struggle in contemporary civil society (e.g., Deetz, 1992a; Mumby, 1988).
Traditionally, critical organization scholarship rests on at least some modernist principles. Most pertinent to our project are (a) the emancipatory interest that guides critique of power relations, (b) an associated view of power as a dialectic of control and resistance, and (c) confidence (however qualified) in the rational subject from whose [Page xx]consciousness emancipatory possibilities can spring. Postmodern organization theory, based initially on the work of Cooper and Burrell (Burrell, 1988; R. Cooper, 1989; Cooper & Burrell, 1988), has begun to pose serious questions about these premises. A first challenge concerns the moral imperative of emancipation (Deetz, 1992a). Although critical scholars reject narrow, technical visions of enlightenment and progress through scientific knowledge (such as those embedded in positivism and empiricism), social transformation remains the primary impetus for analyzing organizational forms and articulating alternatives (M. Parker, 1995). Simply put, critical theorists tend to criticize the dominant path to, not the very notion of, emancipation. Postmodernists are much less sanguine about the emancipatory potential that critical scholars argue is latent in contemporary institutions. Indeed, some argue that “emancipation” is one more modernist, totalizing discourse that disciplines people, reproducing institutional mechanisms that create docile subjects (e.g., Foucault, 1979, 1980a). Speaking generally, postmodern authors refuse any kind of normative base from which to critique social processes, maintaining that such bases lead to imposed consensus and, thus, to more forms of terror (Lyotard, 1984). Hence, they urge multiple, local ways of explaining dominance and representing resistance, with particular attention to the possibilities of play, parody, and pastiche for deconstructing relations of power.
Second, the dispute over the desirability and possibility of emancipation reflects contrastive accounts of power. Critical modernists often define power as domination and harbor utopian possibilities of coercion-free contexts for social interaction and knowledge production. For example, even Gramsci's conception of hegemony, while it illuminates the dialectical processes of consent and domination, ultimately holds that a ruling bloc retains power by controlling such repressive apparatuses as law enforcement and the military. Postmodernists, however, tend to view power and truth as inevitable partners, with power as an inescapable, defining element of human identity (Foucault, 1979, 1980a). The distinction is perhaps best exemplified in the debate between Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault. Habermas (1971, 1979) articulates a theory of truth that excludes the exercise of power. Indeed, his ideal speech situation is predicated on the possibility of a communication context, free from domination and its inevitable distortions, in which validity claims can be tested. In contrast, Foucault depicts power as endemic to everyday life and argues for an intrinsic and dialectical (although not isomorphic) relationship between [Page xxi]knowledge and power (1979, pp. 27–28). From this view, power does not forbid; it enables. The question becomes how it enables, and what and whom it makes possible. In several projects, Foucault (1979, 1980a, 1986) traces the ways in which specific power-knowledge formations facilitate and normalize certain ways of being. Such works reflect the premise that power-knowledge relations articulate systems of possibility—resources from which social actors fashion coherent senses of identity. Characterizing the matter broadly, then, critical modernists tend to promote a “sovereign,” top-down, negative account of power, whereas postmodernists put forth a disciplinary, productive, positive conception.
A third challenge posed by postmodernism concerns the reasoning subject to which modernity clings as a fount of knowledge and emancipatory potential. Postmodernists (in particular, Derrida) are perhaps most (in)famous for “decentering” a humanist conception of identity, which they fault for reifying metaphysical notions of “the mind.” Certainly, many critical theorists also attempt to undermine metaphysical accounts of reason. Habermas, for example, replaces a transcendental notion of consciousness with a linguistic one. Yet there remains a tendency among critical scholars to hypostatize critical self-reflection as the primary means through which relations of domination are interrogated and overcome. Despite their unyielding rejection of subject-centered models of knowledge, postmodernists by no means reject the construct of subjectivity entirely. Instead, they treat the subject as an effect (rather than as the origin or author) of numerous discourses and disciplinary practices. In short, the subject is decentered, not discarded. As hinted above, postmodern scholars often “recenter” the subject, asking “who” is called into being by various discourses of truth and power.
It is worth noting that, while both critical modernists and postmodernists conceive of discourse as constitutive of social reality, critical modernists are much more prepared to recognize the material world as impinging on that reality. For postmodernists, Derrida's (1976) claim that “there is nothing outside of the text” (p. 157) is a rallying point for articulating an isomorphic relationship between discourse/text and reality. Indeed, many of the deconstructive analyses in management studies make little or no reference to “the world” in which particular discourses are situated (Calás, 1992; Calás & Smircich, 1991; Kilduff, 1993). A critical perspective, on the other hand, explores discourse as a communicative accomplishment that exists dialectically [Page xxii]with the political economy of the workplace (Burawoy, 1979). It might make sense, therefore, to consider what we have called “critical modernist” and “postmodernist” positions as part of an emerging and potentially useful dialogue about tensions in critical organization studies.
For roughly 30 years, then, radical organization scholarship has centered attention on the complex relationships among power, ideology, identity, and discourse. The linguistic turn facilitated the study of organizations as pivotal sites of political struggle to secure meaning and identity. More recently, and within the context provided by the linguistic turn, postmodern insights have begun to challenge—we think, productively—conventional critical models of organized discourse, power, and subjectivity.
Against this conceptual backdrop, feminist scholars of organization appear like latecomers, borrowing critical insights to assess one specialized dimension of organizational discourse, power, and identity: gender. The following rationale for the absence of feminism from an anthology on critical management studies encapsulates the prevalent view: “Most if not all phenomena involve a gender aspect, but it would be reductionist to capture most aspects of management, production and consumption basically in feminist terms, although we recognize that critical feminism provides an invaluable complement to, as well as critique of, Critical Theory” (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992b, p. 9). Such justifications may appear tortured, if not patronizing, particularly in light of the above feminist claim that organizations are fundamentally gendered. Simultaneously, the notion that feminist research is a specialized area of critical organization inquiry is not without merit. As we explain in subsequent chapters, much feminist organization scholarship overtly appropriates critical concepts—such as hegemony, ideology, and so on—to explain the gender relations of organizational life (e.g., Clair, 1993b).
Yet, although there is a sense in which feminist studies is a subsidiary arm of radical organization scholarship, other possible readings spin the relation differently and, we argue, constructively. One such reading acknowledges that feminist scholars of organization draw on more than critical perspectives. In fact, they bring to the table their own long-standing, independent tradition of conceptualizing societal relations of power: feminist theory. Given this foundation, one might muse with Fine (1993) that
researchers who espouse the utility of a feminist perspective in communication are frequently asked how their ideas differ from [Page xxiii]those of critical theorists. (Both feminists and critical theorists should be interested in exploring why the reverse question is never asked). (p. 143)
Moreover, although fairly new to the scene, feminist organization theories have already demonstrated the centrality of gender to radical accounts of organizing. Specifically, feminists have compellingly argued that critical and mainstream organization studies can prove unwitting allies in the tacit assumption of men as universal working subjects. From this vantage point, critical scholars who wish to deny the relevance of gender to analyses of organizing power and identity ignore a primary way in which difference and subjectivity are configured and thus obscure the gendered subtext of such analyses. Long before rendering such critique, however, feminists pursued an organizational agenda distinct from, and more pragmatically radical than, that of many critical theorists. This contribution comes into view only if we cast our eyes beyond the exclusive domain of academic activity.
The interpretation of feminist approaches as derivative of critical perspectives remains viable—albeit tenuously—only when we spotlight the scholarly exercise and overlook other arenas of social practice. For example, if we include political activism as part of our discussion, we are compelled to recognize that feminists were busy experimenting with alternative organizational forms just as critical scholars were beginning to envision them. Guided by the assertion that bureaucracy serves as a structural arm of male domination, many feminist movement groups (variously focused on consciousness raising, domestic violence, rape crisis, reproductive health, and so forth) developed functional communities that strove to minimize hierarchy and maximize egalitarian relations, to enact group authority via consensual decision making, and to value emotions and other “private” matters as relevant political and organizational concerns (Ahrens, 1980; Iannello, 1992; Maguire & Mohtar, 1994; Morgen, 1994; Reinelt, 1994; Ristock, 1990; Rodriguez, 1988; V. Taylor, 1995). Certainly, many other activist groups also implemented democratic, collectivist, and other participatory alternatives to bureaucracy (Kanter & Zurcher, 1973; Mansbridge, 1973; Newman, 1980; Rothschild-Whitt, 1976, 1979). Arguably, at least in the United States, feminist organizations have negotiated considerable institutional staying power, and they remain one of the longest-standing social movement forms designed around counter-bureaucratic empowerment ideals (Ferree & Martin, 1995; Maguire & Mohtar, 1994; [Page xxiv]P. Y. Martin, 1990; Reinelt, 1994). With this claim, we do not mean to paint idyllic images of triumphant social transformation. Rather, the struggles, failures, ironies, and innovations of feminist communities have produced (and continue to generate) a wealth of empirical insight about the pitfalls and potential of alternative organizational practices; we consider such matters in more detail as we survey relevant literature in Chapter 1
For now, the point we are making is that these “grassroots” endeavors reflect an entrenched feminist commitment to do more than talk within the walls of an ivory tower; they embody the desire to create tangible forms of social change that enhance equality and justice in the lives of real people. Whereas critical organization scholars prioritized emancipation through ideology critique, feminists literally grounded their emancipatory interest in the trenches of practice. This observation prompts two claims. First, the contrast suggests that feminist approaches to organization exemplify a different sort of maturity—one that Fine (1993) calls “revolutionary pragmatism”—which critical organization scholarship has yet to develop and from which it could learn a great deal. Second, that feminist experiments with practice largely preceded feminist theories of organization (while the reverse typifies critical organization studies) signifies an abiding ambivalence among many feminists about philosophical debate and, specifically, about the simultaneous importance and impotence of such reflection. Indeed, the larger history of feminist studies is rich with ambivalence— struggles between epistemological and political imperatives, between symbolic and material realities, between deconstructive and reconstructive impulses, between conceptions of power as imposed and self-policed, between stable and fragmented accounts of “woman,” and so forth. Importantly—and, of course, not coincidentally—this second claim implies that feminist approaches to organization have long embodied tensions akin to those between critical modernism and postmodernism. With its experience in juggling such tensions, feminism can serve as a model for or means of productively mediating them.
To clarify, we acknowledge the partial validity of both readings offered here: “feminism as offshoot” of and “feminism as central” to radical organization scholarship. Undeniably, however, the “feminism as central” position gets much less play in the reigning narrative of (critical) organization studies. By assuming that position throughout this book, we hope to underscore the pivotal place of feminist approaches in organizational theory and praxis.[Page xxv]Communication as the Organizing Process
In this book, we seek to develop a feminist communicology of organization, which centers human communication as the basic, constitutive activity of organizing. In other words, it is as people engage in communicative action that identity, action, and structure—individual and collective—become possible and meaningful. Given our roots in organizational communication theory and research, our interest in a communication-centered account of power, identity, and organization is not surprising. Yet we take this stance for more than disciplinary reasons; we believe it has much to contribute at this moment in feminist and radical organization studies.
To begin with, the above sketch of the discursive and postmodern turns in organization scholarship suggests the need to foreground communication while revising dominant conceptions of it. Specifically, many radical organization theorists take seriously the notion that communication lies at the nexus of what counts as truth—that communication is the fundamental ontology of human existence. This notion requires a radical shift from the traditional view of communication as self-expression, or as an intentional act in which the speaker verbalizes an already formed subjectivity. This “commonsense” lens sees communication as a medium or conduit for the transmission of ideas fully realized in the speaker's mind (Axley, 1984). Shepherd (1993) captures well the consequences of this Cartesian model for the study of interaction:
Disciplines forward unique ontological views; they tell us what matters about Being and they represent essentialist ideas. From modernity's point of view, then, how can there be a discipline of communication? Nullius in Verba [Words are nothing]. How can one be a disciple of nothing? As a mere vehicle, communication has no existential status in modernity. In a sense, communication may carry Being, but in and of itself, communication is Being-less. What unique view of Being can a Being-less idea forward? Modernity said of communication what Gertrude Stein said of Oakland: There is no there there. (p. 87)
As this excerpt suggests, the conventional model of communication tends to reify the subject as a fixed entity who engages in cognition, then encodes these cognitions through the interaction process. This stance precludes precisely that which interests scholars shaped by [Page xxvi]the linguistic turn and the subsequent insights of critical modernist and postmodernist perspectives—namely, the ways in which realities and selves are produced, not merely expressed, through communication.
Deetz (1992a) argues against the commonsense view when he declares that “communication is not for self-expression but for self-destruction” (p. 341). This counterintuitive claim articulates a nonessentialist relationship between the self and communication. From a postmodern perspective, as noted above, we are the effect of various and often-competing discourses. In Hall's (1985) terms, “There is no essential, unitary ‘I’—only the fragmentary, contradictory subject I become” (p. 109). In opposition to the traditional, representational view, communication as self-de(con)structive stresses the productive character of interaction. Deetz (1992a) continues, “The point of communication as a social act is to overcome one's fixed subjectivity, one's conceptions, one's strategies, to be opened to the indeterminacy of people and the external environment” (p. 341). This claim recognizes that our sense of identity is “subject” to the pull of other discursive possibilities that challenge who we are.
Crucially, a revised perspective on communication does not mean that we are always constituted anew in every interaction. We are all, to a greater or lesser degree, products of sedimented, institutionalized meaning systems that provide a frame for our ongoing, everyday experience. However, it is this very sedimentation of experience that predisposes us to adopt an unreflective stance toward self, world, and other. It is because we are at least partially sutured to certain dominant, institutionalized senses of ourselves and others that it becomes possible— even easy—to conceive of communication as simply the expression of what is in our heads. It therefore takes a fundamental shift in perspective to see communication as a self-de(con)structive phenomenon that, in its ideal form, challenges comfortable, preconceived conceptions of self as the Archimedian point of origin of meaning and experience. Such a shift allows and directs us to examine the communicative processes through which identities and organizations are (re)produced. In sum, centering communication means that reason and rationality, community and identity, must be placed within an intersubjective context, where organization entails the linguistic construction of shared assumptive grounds about what is real and meaningful. The matter of how such interactively constructed worlds measure up to the court of reality then becomes moot, for reality itself is destabilized, residing in the ongoing process of communication.
[Page xxvii]This is not to say that there is nothing real outside of discourse. A significant aim of this book is to step beyond such text positivism and to capture the ways in which communication is at once constrained by and generative of material conditions. We mean that in at least three senses. First, communication arises in response to (perceived) political and material exigencies. Second, communication takes the material world as its material. Thus discursive formations are inscribed on the body and performed in concrete practices; as such, discourse and communication generate ways of being, seeing, feeling, and acting in the world. Third, communication can produce material circumstances beyond lived subjectivities. By this, we mean to say more than that communication lends meaning to an existing material world. Taking a step further, we suggest that discourse and communication can literally create lasting institutional and economic arrangements.
On its face, the claim to communication's centrality may seem like a truism, but the extent to which it is neglected in organization studies (and in many other fields that profess to study human behavior) is astounding. Scholars study power, leadership, network structures, information processing, routines, and so forth, while paying little attention to the “real time” practices that give life to these phenomena. Often, even some who identify as interpretivists (or critical-interpretivists) do not draw the link between meaning and actual communication processes. We seek to illuminate that link and, specifically, to elaborate the connection between “micro” communication practices and “macro” systems of symbolic and material power. Our preceding claims about the materiality of communication begin to speak to the micro-macro connection. More broadly, we intend to engage the hotly contested “agency-structure” relationship, guided by an interest in unpacking the mechanisms by which mundane moments of interaction affiliate with enduring structures and institutions.
In these ways, we hope to expand extant notions (within and beyond our home discipline) of what counts as organizational communication, as well as why organizational communication counts. The feminist approach we develop investigates how communication across often-severed domains of symbolic activity—public and private, mediated and interpersonal, and so forth—organizes gender and genders organization toward tangible effects. Beyond the aims of our own project, we believe that such a perspective can enrich radical organization studies by strengthening the connection between criticism and the “real” world, where the privilege of certain interests means the experience of palpable consequences.[Page xxviii]Toward a Feminist Communicology of Organization
Principally, then, we seek to articulate a communicological approach that can enrich conceptual, empirical, and practical understanding of the processes that organize gendered selves and institutions. Chapter 1 commences this effort by providing a fresh review of feminist organization studies. The aim of this chapter is, first, to ground our later theoretical discussion by establishing key themes that characterize empirical studies of gender and organization and, second, to situate that research in terms of the discursive turn. We argue that the literature reflects four tacit ways of framing the relationship among organization, discourse, power, and gender; and we link these perspectives to the critical modernist and postmodernist debates outlined above, demonstrating how empirical projects reflect metatheoretical tensions that generate partial insights and constraints.
The next three chapters explore these metatheoretical tensions in greater depth. Chapter 2 considers feminism in relation to modernist logics, Chapter 3 explores the emergence of postmodern thought in organization studies, and Chapter 4 delves into the relationship between feminist and postmodern analytics and its possibilities for radical organization studies. Reviewing the varied ways in which feminist theorists have engaged and struggled with modernism and postmodernism, we characterize feminist perspectives as critical of and sympathetic to both. Ultimately, our purpose is to demonstrate how this ambivalent posture positions feminism to mediate or navigate crucial dilemmas in contemporary critical organization scholarship. It is in these chapters that we develop more extensively the argument that feminism is not an offshoot or afterthought—and gender not a peripheral or specialized concern—of radical organization studies. Rather, feminism represents a useful place from which to negotiate conceptual fissures and to simultaneously pursue deconstructive and activist agendas.
Emerging from this theoretical context, Chapter 5 articulates a feminist communicology of organization. Among other implications, centering communication means that gender is neither merely an individual trait, nor a structural feature of organizational life; rather, it is an ongoing interactive accomplishment that creates possibilities for and limitations to the process of organizing. Feminism at the intersection of modernism and postmodernism facilitates a communicative [Page xxix]perspective by destabilizing self and organization and directing attention to the mundane interactions wherein we consume, echo, and (re)invent institutional discourse. All the while, such a perspective retains a guiding interest in both deconstructing and reconstructing organization toward productive social change. Thus, a feminist communicology hinges on several premises, such as the communicative constitution of subjectivity; dialectical relationships between power and resistance, discourse and the material world, and masculinities and femininities; the historical specificity of gendered organizational formations; and normative, ethical commitment to the exploration of lived consequences and possibilities for praxis.
Chapter 6 demonstrates the empirical potential of this feminist approach. We apply the communicology model to data drawn from Karen's ongoing study of gender, race, and class relations among U.S. commercial airline pilots. The data include historical and contemporary discourse, which spans occupational, organizational, and popular culture, as well as individual experience. We chronicle how commercial aviator identity became symbolically and materially attached to the male body, yielding unprecedented professional standing in the process. Our analysis tracks the strategic institutional formation of two discourses—that of the “lady-flier” and the “pilot-as-professional”— and contends that their interplay engendered the requisite masculinity of airline pilots, which anchored the class status of the occupation. As explained above, gender identities are never generic or universal, though they may masquerade as such. Likewise, communication of and about airline pilots invoked a particular form of white, heterosexual masculinity, laced with class contradictions. We consider how contemporary pilots navigate such tensions and, specifically, how many cling to the emotional and material pleasures of white masculinity, even as they embrace efforts to increase diversity in the race and gender profile of their occupation. In these ways, Chapter 6 foregrounds the diachronic, dialectical, and material character of the communication processes that organize gendered labor. In Chapter 7, we conclude our efforts by stepping back from the empirical study to consider its implications for our project, as well as for the larger projects of feminist and critical organization studies.[Page xxx]
1. This concern is shared among many scholars of whiteness, for whom the parallel fear of reinscribing white dominance exists in tension with the desire to render it visible (e.g., Flores & Moon, 2002; Projansky & Ono, 1999).
2. In this usage, “the erotic” is loosened from strictly sexual connotations and redefined broadly as joy, playfulness, sensuality, and embodied feeling and pleasure.
3. Such neglect is especially evident in feminist critiques of traditional organizational forms. The research on feminist organization, for example, offers notable exceptions (e.g., Morgen, 1988; Scott, 1998; West, 1990).
4. While the term post-positivism is sometimes used to describe a social constructionist perspective, we use it here to designate the efforts of mainstream social science to move beyond correspondence theories of truth and to recognize the contingent, perspectival character of all research.
5. See Ashcraft and Mumby (in press) for an earlier version of this analysis.
6. Arguably, this organization initiated the discursive basis for the formation of the Women's Air (Force) Service Pilots (WASPs), Women's Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron (WAFS), and similar efforts of WWII.
7. Pancho Barnes, a popular woman flier around this time, represents an important exception to this ideal. Yet even she ended up honoring heterosexual obligations, albeit in an unconventional way, by operating a brothel for male pilots.
8. We do not mean to imply that women of the time did not experience or express doubt; our point is simply that the attribution serves a useful rhetorical function.
9. A parallel pattern occurred again with the WASP fliers and other “Rosie-the-Riveter” figures of WWII. Calás & Smircich (1993) argue that the feminization of clerical work and the recent fervor for “feminine” managers reflect a similar pattern—namely, the temporary promotion of women in nontraditional work roles, based on fleeting, instrumental logics.[Page 194]
References[Page 195][Page 232]1998). Male managers as fathers? Contrasting management, fatherhood, and masculinity. Human Relations, 51, 121–136., & (1982). Historical sociology. Somerset, UK: Open Books.(1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002(1992). Gendering organizational theory. In A. J.Mills & P.Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (248–260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1974). Differential recruitment and control: The sex structuring of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 152–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393886, & (1942). Heroines of the sky. New York: Doubleday Doran., & (1931, June 7). Woman makes good her claim for a place in the skies. New York Times Magazine. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1992). Sexual work and the employment of women in the service industries. In M.Savage & A.Witz (Eds.), Gender and bureaucracy (207–229). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.(1980). Battered women's refuges: Feminist cooperatives vs. social service institutions. Radical America, 14, 41–47.(1997). Communication in complex organizations: A relational approach. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace., & (1932, June 26). The first meeting of the “ninety-niners.”Allentown Morning Call. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1995). “Diversity” in organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 143–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909889509365420(1996). Feminist standpoint theory: A black woman's (re)view of organizational socialization. Communication Studies, 47, 257–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979609368482(1998). Black womanhood and feminist standpoints. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 575–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318998114004(Difference matters: Communicating social identity in organizations. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.(in press). [Page 196]1981). The epic of flight: The airline builders. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books.(1971). Lenin and philosophy. New York: Monthly Review.(1985). A critical framework for organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 6, 117–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068500600202(1995). The meaning and meaningless of postmodernism: Some ironic remarks. Organization Studies, 16, 1047–1075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600606(1998). Gender relations and identity at work: A case study of masculinities and femininities in an advertising agency. Human Relations, 51, 969–1005.(1992). Gender and organization: Toward a differentiated understanding. Organization Studies, 13, 73–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069201300107, & (1997). Understanding gender and organizations. London: Sage., & (1996). Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organizational studies. In S.Clegg, C.Hardy, & W.Nord (Eds.), The handbook of organization studies (191–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030, & (2000a). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 136–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886300362002, & (2000b). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125–1149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726700539002, & (1992a). On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 17, 432–464., & (Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (1992b). Critical management studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.1998a). Assessing alternative(s): Contradiction and invention in a feminist organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Communication, University of Colorado, Boulder.(1998b). “I wouldn't say I'm a feminist, but … ”: Organizational micropractice and gender identity. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 587–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318998114005(1999). Managing maternity leave: A qualitative analysis of temporary executive succession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 240–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2666996(2000). Empowering “professional” relationships: Organizational communication meets feminist practice. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 347–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318900133001(2001). Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1301–1322. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069402(Gender, discourse, and organizations: Framing a shifting relationship. In D.Grant, C.Hardy, C.Oswick, N.Phillips, & L. L.Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608122(in press). [Page 197]2003). The racial foundation of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 13, 5–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ct/13.1.5, & (“Slaves with white collars”: Persistent performances of masculinity in crisis. Text and Performance Quarterly., & (in press).Organizing a critical communicology of gender and work. International Journal of the Sociology of Language., & (in press).1996). “A woman's worst enemy”: Reflections on a narrative of organizational life and female identity. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 217–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909889609365452, & (Aviation urged as career for girls. (1929, August 7). New York Journal. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.1984). Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428–437.(1960). Language, truth, and logic. London: Gollancz.(1966). Airline industrial relations: Pilots and flight engineers. Boston: Harvard University Press.(1982). The problem of authority in radical movement groups: A case study of a lesbian-feminist organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 323–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002188638201800307(1987). Un-wrapping the postmodern: A feminist glance. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 11, 64–72.(Banks, A., & Banks, S. P. (Eds.). (1998). Fiction and social research: By ice or fire. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.1993). Taylored lives: Narrative production in the age of Taylor, Veblen, and Ford. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1993). Understanding organizations: Interpreting organizational communication cultures. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.(1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393374(1999). The discipline of teamwork: Participation and concertive control. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452220383(1994). The concept and practices of discipline in contemporary organizational life. Communication Monographs, 61, 19–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376321, & (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18, 93–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106, & (1988). Women's oppression today: The marxist/feminist encounter ((2nd ed.). London: Verso.1994). Shatter the glass ceiling: Women make better managers. Human Resource Management, 33, 549–560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930330405, & (1988). Communication and the sexes. New York: Harper & Row.(Bate, B., & Taylor, A. (Eds.). (1988). Women communicating: Studies of women's talk. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.[Page 198]1973). The second sex (E. M.Parshley Trans.). New York: Random House., (1995). Manliness and civilization: A cultural history of gender and race in the United States, 1880-1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books., , , & (1994). Office folklore in the academic paperwork empire: The interstitial space of gendered (con)texts. Text and Performance Quarterly, 14, 181–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10462939409366082, & (1991). Early and extensive maternal employment and young children's socioemotional development: Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 1083–1110. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353011, & (1990). Epistemologies of postmodernism: A rejoinder to Jean-Francois Lyotard. In L.Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge.(1991). Feminism and postmodernism: An uneasy alliance. Praxis International, 11, 137–150.(1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.(1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391741(1992). “The clerking sisterhood”: Rationalization and the work culture of saleswomen in American department stores, 1890-1960. In A. J.Mills & P.Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (167–184). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1992). The postmodern organization: Mastering the art of irreversible change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(1992). The new constellation: The ethical-political horizons of modernity/postmodernity. Cambridge: MIT Press.(1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. New York: Guilford., & (1997). The postmodern turn. New York: Guilford., & (Betsy Ross Corps News. (1931, August). 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.1998). Gender, managers, and organizations. New York: Walter de Gruyter., & (Bingham, S. G. (Ed.). (1994). Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice. Westport, CT: Praeger.1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 106–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393432([Page 199]1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land.…. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 997–1035. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256618(1999). Hegemonic stories and encounters between storytelling organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, 340–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105649269984002, , & (1990). Feminism, postmodernism and gender-scepticism. In L. J.Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (133–156). New York: Routledge.(1992). Postmodern subjects, postmodern bodies. Feminist Studies, 18, 159–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3178218(1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1999). The male body: A new look at men in public and private. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.(1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review.(1989). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256439, , & (1998). Who do you think you are? Feminism, work, ethics, and Foucault. In M.Parker (Ed.), Ethics and organizations (53–75). London: Sage.(1994). Re-eroticizing the organization: An exegesis and critique. Gender, Work and Organization, 1, 67–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.1994.tb00007.x, & (1997). Unpacking Priscilla: Subjectivity and identity in the organization of gendered appearance. Human Relations, 50, 1275–1304., , & (1989). Masculinity and power. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.(1997). Gendered organizational logic: Policy and practice in men's and women's prisons. Gender & Society, 11, 796–818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124397011006005(2000). The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender & Society, 14, 418–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124300014003004(1994). Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243627, & (1992). Nothing mat[t]ers: A feminist critique of postmodernism. Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex.(1998). Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 35–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00083(1990). Defining stories in organizations: Characteristics and functions. In J. A.Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 13 (162–190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1993). At least it is a start. In S. A.Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (144–154). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.([Page 200]1989). The forest ranger revisited: A study of control practices and identification. Communication Monographs, 56, 287–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390266, & (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1985). The politics of production: Factory regimes under capitalism and socialism. London: Verso.(1992). Women in management. In C. L.Cooper & I. T.Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7, 245–283). New York: John Wiley., & (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203299968(1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 2: The contribution of Michel Foucault. Organization Studies, 9, 221–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900205(1992). The organization of pleasure. In M.Alvesson & H.Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies (66–89). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann., & (1996). Technocracy, patriarchy, and management. In D.Collinson & J.Hearn (Eds.), Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinities and managements (61–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.(1991). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of “postmodernism.…. Praxis International, 11, 150–165.(1999). “Re-viewing” gender, leadership, and managerial behavior: Do three decades of research tell us anything? In G. N.Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (223–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231365, & (1994). Gaining a voice: Feminist organizational communication theorizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 339–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318994007004001(1995). Reframing the glass ceiling as a socially constructed process: Implications for understanding and change. Communication Monographs, 62, 327–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759509376366(Buzzanell, P. M. (Ed.). (2000). Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from feminist perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/97814522254941997). Leadership processes in alternative organizations: Invitational and dramaturgical leadership. Communication Studies, 48, 285–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979709368509, , , , , , , , & (1995). Terminating the postmodern: Masculinity and pomophobia. Modern Fiction Studies, 41, 5–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mfs.1995.0008(1992). An/other silent voice? Representing “Hispanic woman” in organizational texts. In A. J.Mills & P.Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (201–221). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.([Page 201]1993). Deconstructing charismatic leadership: Re-reading Weber from the darker side. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 305–328.(1988). Reading leadership as a form of cultural analysis. In J. G.Hunt, R. D.Baliga, H. P.Dachler, & C. A.Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (201–226). Lexington, MA: Lexington., & (1991). Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies, 12, 567–602., & (1992a). Re-writing gender into organizational theorizing: Directions from feminist perspectives. In M.Reed & M.Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking organization: New directions in organization theory and analysis (227–253). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1992b). Using the “F” word: “Feminist theories and the social consequences of organizational research. In A. J.Mills & P.Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (222–234). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1993). Dangerous liaisons: The “feminine-in-management” meets “globalization.…. Business Horizons, 36, 71–81., & (1996). From “the woman's point of view”: Feminist approches to organization studies. In S. R.Clegg, C.Hardy & W. R.Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (218–257). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030, & (1990). Against postmodernism. New York: St. Martin's.(1988). What really distinguishes and/or ought to distinguish feminist scholarship in communication studies. Women's Studies in Communication, 11, 4–5.(1989). Man cannot speak for her: A critical study of early feminist speakers. Westport, CT: Greenwood.(1993). Is there any reason to study sex differences in communication. Communication Quarterly, 41, 129–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369874, & (1999a). Airline pilot 101. Upside, 11, 40.(1999b). When good pilots turn bad. Upside, 11, 60.(1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles, 39, 887–902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018880706172(1998). Organizational communication and cultural studies. Communication Theory, 8, 337–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00224.x, & (Carter, K., & Spitzack, C. (Eds.). (1989). Doing research on women's communication: Perspectives on theory and method. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.1984). The practice of everyday life (S.Rendall, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press., (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758309390174([Page 202]1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.(1999). Values at work: Employee participation meets market pressure at Mondragon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(2000a). Interpreting interpretive research: Toward perspectivism without relativism. In S. R.Corman & M. S.Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (17–45). New York: Guilford.(2000b). Thinking differently about organizational communication: Why, how, and where. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 132–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318900141006(Cheng, C. (Ed.). (1996). Masculinities in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. Organization, 7, 513–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050840073009(1995). Follett: Constructive conflict. In P.Graham (Ed.), Mary Parker Follett—prophet of management: A celebration of writings from the 1920s (87–96). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.(1993a). The bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization of sexual harassment through institutional discourse. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 123–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318993007002001(1993b). The use of framing devices to sequester organizational narratives: Hegemony and harassment. Communication Monographs, 60, 113–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376304(1994). Resistance and oppression as a self-contained opposite: An organizational communication analysis of one man's story of sexual harassment. Western Journal of Communication, 58, 235–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319409374499(1996). The political nature of the colloquialism, “A real job”: Implications for organizational socialization. Communication Monographs, 63, 249–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376392(1998). Organizing silence: A world of possibilities. Albany: State University of New York Press.(1975). Power, rule, and domination. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.(1989). Frameworks of power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1990). Modern organizations: Organizations in a postmodern world. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1988). The predicament of culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.2001). Laboring under the sign of the new: Cultural studies, organizational communication, and the fallacy of the new economy. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 268–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318901152006(1984). Brothers. London: Verso.([Page 203]1995). Symposium: On West & Fenstermaker's “Doing Difference.…. Gender & Society, 9, 491–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124395009004006, , , , , & (1988). “Engineering humor”: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization Studies, 9, 181–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900203(1992). Managing the shop floor: Subjectivity, masculinity, and workplace culture. New York: Walter de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110879162(1989). Sexuality in the workplace: The domination of men's sexuality. In J.Hearn, D.Sheppard, P.Tancred-Sheriff, & G.Burrell (Eds.), The sexuality of organization (91–109). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1994). Naming men as men: Implications for work, organization and management. Gender, Work and Organization, 1, 2–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.1994.tb00002.x, & (1996a). “Men” at “work”: Multiple masculinities/multiple workplaces. In M.Macan Ghaill (Ed.), Understanding masculinities: Social relations and cultural arenas (61–76). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press., & (Collinson, D., & Hearn, J. (Eds.). (1996b). Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinities and managements. London: Sage.Communication Studies 298. (1997). Fragments of self at the postmodern bar. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 26, 251–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891241970260030011970). Introduction to positive philosophy (F.Ferre, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1830-1842).(1989). The rhetorical limits of polysemy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 103–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295038909366739(1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.(1993). The big picture: Masculinities in recent world history. Theory and Society, 22, 597–623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00993538(1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1991). Rethinking ethnography: Toward a critical cultural politics. Communication Monographs, 58, 179–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376222(1994). Homeboys and hoods: Gang communication and cultural space. In L.Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context (23–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(1991). Communication in conflict: Style-strategy relationships. Communication Monographs, 58, 135–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376219(Conrad, C. (Ed.). (1993). Ethical nexus. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.1989). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 3: The contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 10, 479–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068901000402(1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction. Organization Studies, 9, 91–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900112, & (1997). Homophily or the Queen Bee syndrome: Female evaluation of female leadership. Small Group Leadership, 28, 483–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496497284001([Page 204]2000). The organizing property of communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.(1997). Organization as an effect of mediation: Redefining the link between organization and communication. Communication Theory, 7, 219–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1997.tb00151.x, & (2000). Masculine drag. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 108–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295030009388380(Corman, S. R., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground. New York: Guilford.1979). Making flying “unthinkable”: Women pilots and the selling of aviation, 1927-1940. American Quarterly, 31, 556–571. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2712272(1935, March 30). Ladybird. Collier's, 15, 16, 40, 43.(1996). Personal ethnography. Communication Monographs, 63, 158–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376384(1997). Women in the Gulf War: Toward an intersectional feminist rhetorical criticism. Howard Journal of Communications, 8, 219–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10646179709361756(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1229039(1994). Good novels, better management: Reading organizational realities in fiction. New York: Gordon & Breach., & (1998). “Had Judas been a black man …”: Politics, race, and gender in African America. In J. M.Sloop & J. P.McDaniel (Eds.), Judgment calls: Rhetoric, politics, and indeterminacy (163–181). Boulder, CO: Westview.(2001). Anatomising embodiment and organisation theory. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.(1978). Gyn/ecology: The metaethics of radical feminism. Boston: Beacon.(1986). Power in the organisation. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.(1935). She flies like a man. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(circa1973a). An understanding of science and a hermeneutic science of understanding. Journal of Communication, 23, 139–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1973.tb00939.x(1973b). Words without things: Toward a social phenomenology of language. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 40–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637309383152(1978). Conceptualizing human understanding: Gadamer's hermeneutics and American communication research. Communication Quarterly, 26, 12–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463377809369288(1982). Critical interpretive research in organizational communication. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 131–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570318209374073(1985). Critical-cultural research: New sensibilities and old realities. Journal of Management, 11(2), 121–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920638501100219(1992a). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.([Page 205]1992b). Disciplinary power in the modern corporation. In M.Alvesson & H.Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies (21–45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1994). Future of the discipline: The challenges, the research, and the social contribution. In S.Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 17 (565–600). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.(1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7, 191–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.2.191(1983). Critical models of interpretive research. In L. L.Putnam & M.Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (147–171). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage., & (1990). Power, discourse, and the workplace: Reclaiming the critical tradition. In J.Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 13 (18–47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1997). Makeup at work: Negotiating appearance rules in the workplace. Gender & Society, 11, 151–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124397011002002, & (1976). Of grammatology (G.Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1987). The potential contribution of feminist scholarship to the field of communication. Journal of Communication, 37, 107–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1987.tb01011.x(Diamond, I., & QuinbyL. (Eds.). (1988). Feminism and Foucault. Boston: Northeastern University Press.1995). Comments on “what theory is not.…. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393790(1998). King Kong and the white woman: Hustler magazine and the demonization of Black masculinity. Retrieved from http://ehostvgw3.epnet.com/ehost1.asp.(1985). In defence of organization theory: A reply to the critics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1988). In successful defence of organization theory: A routing of the critics. Organization Studies, 9, 28–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900108(1994). The liberal revolution and organization theory. In J.Hassard & M.Parker (Eds.), Towards a new theory of organizations (190–208). London: Routledge.(1995). American anti-management theories of organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1993). What is hegemonic masculinity. Theory and Society, 22, 643–657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00993540(2000). In praise of bureaucracy: Weber, organization, ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446217580([Page 206]1997). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage/Open University Press., , , , & (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.(1995). Where do postmodernists come from?Monthly Review, 47(3), 59–70.(2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00241, & (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233, & (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3, , & (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 203–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00792.x, , & (1996). Ludic feminism and after: Postmodernism, desire, and labor in late capitalism. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.(2000). Discursive essentializing in a woman-owned business: Gendered stereotypes and strategic subordination. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 271–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318900142003(Egendorf, K. L. (Ed.). (2000). Male/female roles: Opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven.1993). Cultural narratives and the therapeutic motif: The political containment of Vietnam veterans. In D. K.Mumby (Ed.), Narrative and social control (77–96). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197(1998). Flirting with meaning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 97–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X980171005(1997). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (, & (2nd. ed.). New York: St. Martin's.2001). Racial castration: Managing masculinity in Asian America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(An engineering interpretation of the economic and financial aspects of American industry: Volume 1. The aviation industry. (circa 1940). New York: George S. Armstrong.1981). Women in law. New York: Basic Books.(Fagenson, E. A. (Ed.). (1993). Women in management: Trends, issues, and challenges in managerial diversity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Fair play for women fliers. (1927, November 22). New York Times. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376316(1998). Stiffed: The betrayal of the American man. New York: William Morrow.([Page 207]1988). In pursuit of the postmodern. Theory, Culture & Society, 5, 195–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276488005002001(Fenstermaker, S., & West, C. (Eds.). (2002). Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power and institutional change. New York: Routledge.1999). The color and culture of gender in organizations: Attending to race and ethnicity. In G. N.Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (17–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231365(1991). Managing without managers: Crisis and revolution in a collective bakery. In M.BurawoyA.Burton, A. A.Ferguson, H. J.Fox, J.Gamson, N.Gartrell, L.Hurst, C.Hurzman, L.Salzinger, J.Schiffman, & S.Ui (Eds.), Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis (108–132). Berkeley: University of California Press.(1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1993). The man question: Visions of subjectivity in feminist theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1994). On bringing more theory, more voices and more politics to the study of organization. Organization, 1, 81–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050849400100112(1997). Postmodernism, feminism, and organizational ethics: Letting difference be. In A.Larson & R. E.Freeman (Eds.), Women's studies and business ethics: Toward a new conversation (80–91). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.(Ferree, M. M., & Martin, P. (Eds.). (1995). Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women's movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.1988). What makes it feminist. Women's Studies in Communication, 11, 18–19.(1993). New voices in organizational communication: A feminist commentary and critique. In S.Bowen & N.Wyatt (Eds.), Transforming visions: Feminist critiques in communication studies (125–166). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.(2000). Walking the high wire: Leadership theorizing, daily acts, and tensions. In P. M.Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from feminist perspectives (128–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452225494(1997). (In)secure times: Constructing white working class masculinities in the late 20th century. Gender & Society, 11, 568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124397011001004, , , & (1983). Effective interpersonal communication for women of the corporation: Think like a man, talk like a lady. In J.Pilotta (Ed.), Women in organizations: Barriers and breakthroughs (73–84). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.(1990). Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary West. Berkeley: University of California Press.([Page 208]1992). The end of innocence. In J.Butler & J.Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political (445–463). New York: Routledge.(1994). Castrating the female advantage: Feminist standpoint research and management science. Journal of Management Inquiry, 3, 74–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105649269431012(1998). Relational practice: A feminist reconstruction of work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7, 163–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105649269872012(1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work. Cambridge: MIT Press.(2002). Rethinking race, revealing dilemmas: Imagining a new racial subject in Race Traitor. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 181–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570310209374732, & (Flying supermen and superwomen. (1936, November 14). Literary Digest, 122, 22.1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings. Academy of Management Review, 22, 257–282.(1992). Fieldwork in a Habermasian way. In M.Alvesson & H.Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies (46–65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.(1994). Particularities and possibilities: Reconceptualizing knowledge and power in sexual harassment research. In S. G.Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (159–172). Westport, CT: Praeger., & (1973). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Random House.(1977). Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews (D.Bouchard & S.Simon, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A.Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Random House.(1980a). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1, R.Hurley, Trans.). New York: Random House.(1980b). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 (L. M. C.Gordon, J.Mepham, & K.Soper, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.(1982). The subject and power. In H. F.Dreyfus & P.Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (202–226). Brighton, UK: Harvester.(1986). The use of pleasure (R.Hurley, Trans.). New York: Random House.(1988a). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom. In J.Bernauer & D.Rasmussen (Eds.), The final Foucault (J. D.Gauthier, Trans.; 1–20). Cambridge: MIT Press.(1988b). Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984 (A.Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Routledge.([Page 209]1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1990/91). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/466240(1990). Social criticism without philosophy: An encounter between feminism and postmodernism. In L.Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (19–38). New York: Routledge., & (1989). Truth and method ((2nd ed., J. W. D. G.Marshall, Trans.). New York: Continuum.1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.(1992). Organization theory in the postmodern era. In M.Reed & M.Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking organization: Rethinking organization theory and analysis (207–226). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1994). The gender we think, the gender we do in our everyday organizational lives. Human Relations, 47, 591–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700602(1995). Gender, symbolism and organizational cultures. London: Sage.(1996). Gendered organizational cultures: Narratives of women travellers in a male world. Gender, Work and Organization, 3, 187–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.1996.tb00059.x(2000). The mud, the blood, and the beer guys: Organizational osmosis in blue-collar work groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 68–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880009365554, & (2000). Shifting meanings in a blue-collar worker philanthropy program: Emergent tensions in traditional and feminist organizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 189–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318900142001, & (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1998). Disciplinary violation as gender violation: The stigmatized masculine voice of performance studies. Communication Theory, 8, 203–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00218.x(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.(1976). Gender display. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication, 3, 69–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/var.19188.8.131.52(1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory & Society, 4, 301–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00206983(1994). Learning the score: The duality of control and everyday resistance in the temporary-help service industry. In J. M.Jermier, [Page 210]D.Knights, & W. R.Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (102–127). London: Routledge.(1993). Constructing difference: The making of gendered subcultures in a Japanese automobile assembly plant. Sociology, 27, 611–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038593027004004, & (1998). Gendering work: Deconstructing the narrative of the Japanese economic miracle. Work, Employment & Society, 12, 25–46., & (1994). A compound feminist organization: Purdue University's Council on the Status of Women. Women and Politics, 14(2), 23–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.1994.9970699, & (1993). Inside a Japanese transplant: A critical perspective. Work and Occupations, 20, 147–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0730888493020002002(1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q.Hoare & G. N.Smith, Trans.). New York: International Publishers.(Grant, D., KeenoyT., & Oswick, C. (Eds.). (1998). Discourse and organization. London: Sage.1992). A feminist perspective on state bureaucracy. In A. J.Mills & P.Tancred-Sheriff (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (112–128). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N.Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231365, & (1993). Politics of identity/politics of location: Women workers organizing in a postmodern world. Women's Studies in Communication, 16(1), 1–33.(1912, September). Women's record in aviation. Good Housekeeping, 55, 316–319.(2001). Putting our own house in order: Whiteness, change and organization studies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14, 132–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810110388054(2002). Challenging the status quo? Whiteness in the diversity management literature. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 381–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318902153003(2000). Between the generalized and the concrete other: Approaching organizational ethics from feminist perspectives. In P. M.Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from feminist perspectives (24–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452225494, & (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J.Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.(1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T.McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.(1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1, T.McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.([Page 211]1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures (F.Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.(1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post-structuralist debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 91–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295038509360070(1991). Brave new world. Socialist Review, 21(1), 57–64.(1997). The work of representation. In S.Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (13–64). London: Sage/Open University Press.(1996). Unwrapping Euro-American masculinity in a Japanese multinational corporation. In C.Cheng (Ed.), Masculinities in organizations (160–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(2001a). Managing subjectivity and the dialectic of self-consciousness: Hegel and organization theory. Organization, 8, 565–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050840184002, & (2001b). Work, postmodernism and organization: A critical introduction. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446218365, & (1996). A comparison of leadership practices used by male and female communication department chairpersons. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 1, 40–55.(1997). Comment on Hekman's “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Whose standpoint needs the regimes of truth and reality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 382–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495163(1999). No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20, 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840699201001, & (1979). The unhappy marriage of marxism and feminism: Towards a more progressive union. Capital & Class, 8, 1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030981687900800102(1996). Theoretical bases for coalition building: An assessment of postmodernism. In H.Gottfried (Ed.), Feminism and social change: Bridging theory and practice (256–274). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.(1997). Comment on Hekman's “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Truth or justice. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 367–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495161(1998). The feminist standpoint revisited and other essays. Boulder, CO: Westview.(1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.(1992). The organizational woman: Power and paradox. Norwood, NJ: Ablex., , & (1993a). Postmodernism and organizational analysis: An overview. In J.Hassard & M.Parker (Eds.), Postmodernism and organizations (1–24). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1993b). Sociology and organization theory: Positivism, paradigms and postmodernity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557651([Page 212]Hassard, J., & Holliday, R. (Eds.). (1998). Organization representation: Work and organizations in popular culture. London: Sage.Hassard, J., Holliday, R., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2000). Body and organization. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/97814462183031997). Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management team. Organization Science, 8, 275–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.3.275(1977). Toward a hermeneutic phenomenology of communication. Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 30–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463377709369261(1989). Exposing masculine science: An alternative feminist approach to the study of women's communication. In K.Carter & C.Spitzack (Eds.), Doing research on women's communication: Perspectives on theory and method (40–64). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.(1994). The organization(s) of violence: Men, gender relations, organizations, and violences. Human Relations, 47, 731–754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700608(1996). Deconstructing the dominant: Making the one(s) the other(s). Organization, 3, 611–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050849634017(1994). Theorizing unities and differences between men and between masculinities. In H.Brod & M.Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (97–118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243627, & (Hearn, J., & Morgan, D. (Eds.). (1990). Men, masculinities, and social theory. London: Unwin Hyman.1983). Gender and organizations: A selective review and critique of a neglected area. Organization Studies, 4, 219–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068300400302, & (Hearn, J., Sheppard, D., Tancred-Sheriff, P., & Burrell, G. (Eds.). (1989). The sexuality of organization. London: Sage.1998). A view from elsewhere: Locating difference and the politics of representation from a transnational feminist perspective. Communication Theory, 8, 271–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00222.x(1977). Basic writings. New York: Harper & Row.(1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 935–942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.935, , , & (1990). Gender and knowledge: Elements of a postmodern feminism. Boston: Northeastern University Press.(1997). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 341–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495159(1990). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday.(1993). Storytelling in the creation and maintenance of organizational tension and stratification. The Southern Communication Journal, 59, 34–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417949309372920(Higginbotham, E., & Romero, M. (Eds.). (1997). Women and work: Exploring race, ethnicity, and class. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.[Page 213]1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.(1997). Comment on Hekman's “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Where's the power. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 375–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495162(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1996). Organizational identity and space of action. Organization Studies, 17, 49–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069601700103(1997). Constructing paper dolls: The discourse of personality testing in organizational practice. Communication Theory, 7, 189–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1997.tb00150.x(1999). The discourses of corporate spiritualism and evangelical capitalism. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 3–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318999131001(2001). Post-Fordism, political economy, and critical organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 259–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318901152005(2000). Performing the enterprising subject: Gendered strategies for success (?). Text and Peformance Quarterly, 20, 223–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10462930009366299, & (1997). Reading organizational development from the margins: Outsider within. Organization, 3, 520–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050849634009(hooks, b. (1981). Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston: South End.hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End.hooks, b. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston: South End.1998). The airline pilots: A study in elite unionization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1990, November-December). Why women sometimes talk themselves out of success and how managers can help. Performance & Instruction, 20–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4160291006(1988). Dialectic of enlightenment (J.Cumming, Trans.). New York: Continuum., & (1993). “Their logic against them”: Contradictions in sex, race, and class in Silicon Valley. In P. S.Rothenberg (Ed.), Feminist frameworks: Alternative theoretical accounts of the relations between women and men (346–358). New York: McGraw-Hill.(1995). Ideological positioning in organizational change: The dialectic of control in a merging organization. Communication Monographs, 62, 110–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759509376352, & (1991). On withholding political voice: An analysis of the political vocabulary of a “nonpolitical” speech community. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 77, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639109383939, & (1992). Decisions without hierarchy: Feminist interventions in organizational theory and practice. London: Routledge.([Page 214]1985). This sex which is not one. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(2000). Exploring genderspeak: Personal effectiveness in gender communication (, & (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.1989). Paths toward a clearing: Radical empiricism and ethnographic inquiry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.(1992). Critique and theory building: Producing knowledge “from the kitchen.…. Academy of Management Review, 17, 582–606.(1996). Manufacturing the employee: Management knowledge from the 19th to 21st centuries. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221938(1991). Feminist ethics: Projects, problems, prospects. In C.Card (Ed.), Feminist ethics (78–104). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.(1984). Foreword to J-F Lyotard. In The postmodern condition (vii–xi). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.(1998). Introduction: Critical perspectives on organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 235–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393852(Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). (1994). Resistance and power in organizations. London: Routledge.1989). Women's culture and communication: An analytic perspective. In C. M.Lont & S. A.Friedley (Eds.), Beyond boundaries: Sex and gender diversity in communication (301–316). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.(1929). Sky-riding in skirts. The Texaco Star, 29–31. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(2002). Engineering selves: Negotiating gender and identity in technical work. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 350–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318902153002(1989). The psychology of women and conservatism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 417–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1989.tb01011.x, & (1975). Women and the structure of organizations: Explorations in theory and behavior. In M.Millman & R. M.Kanter (Eds.), Another voice: Feminist perspectives on social life and social science (34–74). New York: Doubleday.(1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.(1973). Concluding statement: Evaluating alternatives and alternative valuing. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 9, 381–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002188637300900219, & (1991). Feminist facts: Interview strategies and political subjects in ethnography. Communication Theory, 2, 187–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00038.x(2000). The discourses of organizing. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 133–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886300362001, , , & (1997). Organizational discourses: Text and context. Organization, 4, 147–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050849742001, , & ([Page 215]1993). Management, masculinity and manipulation: From paternalism to corporate strategy in financial services in Britain. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 659–677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00320.x, & (1978). Helen Richey: First lady of the airlines. The Ninety-Nine News, 17-18, 34. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1983). Does anybody out there remember Helen Richey?The Almost Journal, 54(5), 160–166.(1988). Propeller Annie: The story of Helen Richey: The Kentucky Aviation History Roundtable.(1991a, March). The story of Helen Richey—The real first lady of the airlines. Newsletter of the International Society of Women Airline Pilots.(1991b, October). The story of Helen Richey—the real first lady of the airlines (continued). Newsletter of International Society of Women Airline Pilots.(1993). Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management Review, 18, 13–31.(1997). Postmodernism and organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 22, 453–481., & (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: Free Press.(1996). Opposing ambitions: Gender identity in an alternative organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1990). Subjectivity, power and the labor process. In D.Knights & H.Willmott (Eds.), Labour process theory (297–335). London: MacMillan.(1997). Organization theory in the age of deconstruction: Dualism, gender and postmodernism revisited. Organization Studies, 18, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800102(2001). “A different world”: Shifting masculinities in the transition to call centres. Organization, 8, 619–646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050840184004, & (1991). Strategic discourse and subjectivity: Towards a critical analysis of corporate strategy in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 251–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069101200205, & (1994). Foucault, power, resistance and all that. In J. M.Jermier, D.Knights, & W. R.Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (167–198). London: Routledge., & (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1981). Women and men speaking: Frameworks for analysis. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.(1992). Harassment in everyday life. In L. F.Rakow (Ed.), Women making meaning: New feminist directions in communication (100–120). New York: Routledge, Chapman, & Hall.(1981). Women can never be defined. In E.Marks (Ed.), New French feminisms. New York: Schocken.([Page 216]1992). Goodbye old friend: A son's farewell to Comiskey Park. Omega, 25(2), 87–93.(1953, May). Secure in our memory. The Air Line Pilot, 22, 6–7.(1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1929). Personal letter inviting “Miss Brown” to join the 99s. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1930). Girls are learning to fly. The Guidon: A Political Review, 1. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1953). The common man up in the air. The Air Line Pilot, 22, 18–21.(1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso., & (Ladybirds down with powdered noses and a brand-new record. (1932, September 3). Literary Digest. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.1941). Airman. Fortune, 23, 122–123.(2002). Organizing gender? Looking at metaphors as frames of meaning in gender/organizational texts. Gender, Work and Organization, 9, 60–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00149(1997). Abjection and organization: Men, violence, and management. Human Relations, 50, 1115–1145.(1953, December). The air line pilots heritage. The Airline Pilot, 22, 18–21.(1985). Feminine leadership, or how to succeed in business without being one of the boys. New York: Times Books.(1992). The battered woman and shelters: The social construction of wife abuse. Albany: State University of New York Press.(1929). Throngs at air races cheer as Mrs. Thaden leads women pilots in. Cleveland Plain Dealer. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1989). Feminism and postmodernism. New Left Review, 178, 5–28.(1971). History and class consciousness: Studies in marxist dialectics (R.Livingstone, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.(1996). Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership ability: Autocratic vs. democratic managers. Sex Roles, 35, 337–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01664773(1973). The executive suite—feminine style. New York: AMACOM.(1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G.Bennington & B.Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1987). Women vs. women: The uncivil business war. New York: AMACOM.(1994). Performance and the celebration of a subaltern counterpublic. Text and Performance Quarterly, 14, 238–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10462939409366086, & ([Page 217]1999). On the gendered substructure of organization: Dimensions and dilemmas of corporate masculinity. In G. N.Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (69–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231365(1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J.Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (196–216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press., & (1973). Time, emotion, and inequality: Three problems of participatory groups. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 9, 351–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002188637300900217(1996). Designing discourse: A critical analysis of strategic ambiguity and workplace control. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 389–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318996009004002(1989). Re-visioning career concepts: A feminist invitation. In M. B.Arthur, D.Hall, & B.Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (275–291). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625459.016(1993). Viewing organizational communication from a feminist perspective: A critique and some offerings. In S. A.Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (122–141). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1982). Feminism, criticism and Foucault. New German Critique, 27, 3–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/487982(1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1, 339–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.4.339(1992). Culture in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.(1994). The organization of exclusion: Institutionalization of sex inequality, gendered faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organizational theory and research. Organization, 1, 401–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050849412011(2000). Hidden gendered assumptions in mainstream organizational theory and research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 207–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105649260092017(1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 429–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393858, , & (1990). Rethinking feminist organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 182–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002004(1993). Feminist practice in organizations: Implications for management. In E. A.Fagenson (Ed.), Women in management: Trends, issues, and challenges in managerial diversity (274–296). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(2001). “Mobilizing masculinities”: Women's experience of men at work. Organization, 8, 587–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050840184003(2002). “Over the pond and across the water”: Developing the field of “gendered organizations”. Gender, Work and Organization, 9, 244–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00159, & (1929, August 27). Women find a place among the fliers. New York Times. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1930, August 10). Women fliers of the uncharted skies. New York Times.([Page 218]1997, November). Silencing the feminine in managerial discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.(1995, May). Feminism-in-practice: Implications for feminist theory. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago.(1990). Text, context, and the fragmentation of contemporary culture. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 274–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319009374343(McKinlayA., & StarkeyK. (Eds.). (1998). Foucault, management, and organization theory: From panopticon to technologies of self. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/97814462216861996). The student as consumer: The implications and limitations of a metaphor. Communication Education, 45, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379028, & (1992). Foucault and feminism. Boston: Northeastern University Press.(1981). Settling accounts with subcultures: A feminist critique. In T.Bennett, G.Martin, C.Mercer, & J.Woolacott (Eds.), Culture, ideology, and social process (111–124). London: Open University Press.(1994). The Jung and the restless: The mythopoetic men's movement. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 97–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417949409372929, & (Men, planes, and faith. (1953, December). The Air Line Pilot, 22, 8–17, 22–23.1960). Phenomenology of perception (C.Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.(1983). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In G.Bowles & R. D.Klein (Eds.), Theories of women's studies (117–139). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.(1991). Women's research or feminist research? The debate surrounding feminist science and methodology. In M. M.Fonow & J. A.Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research (60–82). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.(1999). Playing all the roles: Gender and the work-family balancing act. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 476–490. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353763, & (2000). Common ground from the post-positivist perspective: From “straw person” argument to collaborative co-existence. In S. R.Corman & M. S.Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (46–67). New York: Guilford.(1988). Organization, gender and culture. Organization Studies, 9, 351–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900304(1995). Man/aging subjectivity, silencing diversity: Organizational imagery in the airline industry—the case of British Airways. Organization, 2, 243–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050849522009(2002). Studying the gendering of organizational culture over time: Concerns, issues and strategies. Gender, Work and Organization, 9, 286–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00161(1991). Organization as gendered communication act. Canadian Journal of Communication, 16, 381–398., & ([Page 219]Mills, A. J., & Tancred, P. (Eds.). (1992). Gendering organizational analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.1963a, January-February). Pancho Barnes: A legend in our lifetime. Antelope Valley Spectator, 2, 7–9, 30–31.(1963b, July-August). Pancho Barnes: A legend in our lifetime. Hi-Desert Spectator, 2, 14–24.(2001). Emergence of communication networks. In L. L.Putnam & M.Pacanowsky (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (440–502). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., & (1990). Conflict behaviors of difficult subordinates: Interactive effects of gender. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 12–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417949009372812, , , & (1996). The gender of bureaucracy. In D.Collinson & J.Hearn (Eds.), Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinities and managements (61–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(1988). The dream of diversity, the dilemma of difference: Race and class contradictions in a feminist health clinic. In J.Sole (Ed.), Anthropology for the nineties (370–380). New York: Free Press.(1990). Contradictions in feminist practice: Individualism and collectivism in a feminist health center. In C.Calhoun (Ed.), Comparative social research supplement 1 (9–59). Greenwich, CT: JAI.(1994). Personalizing personnel decisions in feminist organizational theory and practice. Human Relations, 47, 665–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700605(1988). The pirate's fiancee: Feminism, reading, postmodernism. London: Verso.(1979). Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci. In C.Mouffe (Ed.), Gramsci and Marxist theory (168–204). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.(1995). Feminism, citizenship, and radical democratic politics. In L. J.Nicholson & S.Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism (315–331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520792.013(1999, May). Constructive criticisms of co-workers by male and female managers and professionals: Strategies and outcomes. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco., , & (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Communication Monographs, 54, 113–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758709390221(1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology, and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.(1993). Feminism and the critique of organizational communication studies. In S.Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (155–166). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.([Page 220]1996). Feminism, postmodernism, and organizational communication: A critical reading. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 259–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318996009003001(1997a). Modernism, postmodernism, and communication studies: A rereading of an ongoing debate. Communication Theory, 7, 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1997.tb00140.x(1997b). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 343–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319709374585(1998). Organizing men: Power, discourse, and the social construction of masculinity(s) in the workplace. Communication Theory, 8, 164–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00216.x(1997). Organizational discourse. In T. A.van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (Vol. 2, 181–205). London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884, & (1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17, 465–486., & (1992). Power and discourse in organization studies: Absence and the dialectic of control. Discourse & Society, 2, 313–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926591002003004, & (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 50–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318996010001004, & (1929/1930). The ninety-nines. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(circa1998). Hidden transcripts of flight attendant resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 499–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318998114001(1996). Gendered interaction in professional relationships. In J. T.Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships (213–232). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield., & (1988). The unhappy marriage of theory and practice: An analysis of a battered women's shelter. NWSA Journal, 1, 75–92.(2000). The significance of “race” and masculinities. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 111–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295030009388381(1996). Gendered issues in the workplace. In J. T.Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships (253–274). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.(1988). Women's ways: Interactive patterns in predominantly female research teams. In B.Bate & A.Taylor (Eds.), Women communicating: Studies of women's talk (199–232). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.(1980). Incipient bureaucracy: The development of hierarchies in egalitarian organizations. In G. M.Britan & R.Cohen (Eds.), Hierarchy and society (143–163). Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.(1998). Theorizing subjectivity in organizations: The failure of Foucauldian studies. Organization Studies, 19, 415–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069801900303(Nicholson, L. (Ed.). (1990). Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge.1994a). Feminism and the politics of postmodernism. In M.Ferguson & J.Wicke (Eds.), Feminism and postmodernism (69–85). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1994b). Interpreting gender. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 20, 79–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494955([Page 221]1992). The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting “race in organizations.…. Academy of Management Review, 17, 487–513.(1993). The truth about postmodernism. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.(1947). Collective bargaining by airline pilots. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 61, 533–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1885049(1997). Discourse at our disposal: Stories in and around the garbage can. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 395–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318997104001(1999). The politics of management thought: A case study of the Harvard Business School and the human relations school. Academy of Management Review, 24, 117–131.(1998). Constructions of reality on MTV's “The Real World”: An analysis of the restrictive coding of black masculinity. Southern Communication Journal, 64, 32–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417949809373116(2000). Discourse, organizations and organizing: Concepts, objects and subjects. Human Relations, 53, 1115–1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726700539001, , & (1988). Slouching towards Chicago. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 74, 453–467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638809383853(1982). Communication and organizational cultures. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 115–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570318209374072, & (1985). Refuges for battered women: Ideology and action. Feminist Review, 19, 25–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/fr.1985.3(1938, October). Crusading wings. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1969). Hermeneutics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.(1995). Dialectic of control and emancipation in organizing for social change: A multitheoretic study of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Communication Theory, 5, 189–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00106.x, , & (1995). Critique in the name of what? Postmodernism and critical approaches to organization. Organization Studies, 16, 553–564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600401(Parker, M. (Ed.). (1998). Ethics and organizations. London: Sage.1999). Capitalism, subjectivity and ethics: Debating labour process analysis. Organization Studies, 20, 25–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840699201002(2000). “The less important sideshow”: The limits of epistemology in organizational analysis. Organization, 7, 519–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050840073010(2002). African American women's executive leadership communication within dominant-culture organizations: (Re)conceptualizing notions of collaboration and instrumentality. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 42–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318901151002(2003). Control, resistance, and empowerment in raced, gendered, and classed work contexts: The case of African-American women. In P.Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 27 (257–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.([Page 222]1929, September 7). I want to be a transport. Liberty, 18-20, 22, 24.(1991). Gender and communication (, , & (2nd. ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.Penley, C, & Willis, S. (Eds.). (1993). Male trouble. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.1986). Complex organizations ((3rd ed.). New York: Random House.1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row., & (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620.(1995). Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory. Organization Science, 6, 681–686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.6.681(1990). Postpositivistic science: Myths and realities. In E. G.Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (31–45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1995). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1992, December 28). Marooned on Gilligans' Island: Are women morally superior to men?The Nation, 799–807.(2000). Reflections on finding common ground. In S. R.Corman & M. S.Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (211–223). New York: Guilford., & (1997). Organizational communication in the 21st century. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 127–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318997111006, , & (1993). Women and men in management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1999). Reflections on the glass ceiling: Recent trends and future prospects. In G. N.Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (325–346). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231365(1989). Secretaries talk: Sexuality, power and work. London: Verso.(1999). Strategic whiteness as cinematic racial politics. In T.Nakayama & J. N.Martin (Eds.), Whiteness: The communication of social identity (149–174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., & (1983). The interpretive perspective: An alternative to functionalism. In L. L.Putnam & M.Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (31–54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.(1993). Organizations, emotion, and the myth of rationality. In S.Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (36–57). London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446219850, & (Putnam, L. L., & Pacanowsky, M. (Eds.). (1983). Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.[Page 223]1935, October 26). The Literary Digest. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1912, September). American bird women. Good Housekeeping, 55, 315–316.(1991). Philosophical events: Essays of the 1980s. New York: Columbia University Press.(1992). Gender, bureaucracy and organizational culture. In M.Savage & A.Witz (Eds.), Gender and bureaucracy (Vol. 39, 253–276). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell/The Sociological Review., & (1992, April 20). L.A. scene: Then and now. Los Angeles Times, p. B3.(1999). Hunks, history, and homophobia: Masculinity politics in Braveheart and Edward II. Film & History, 29, 22–31.(1997). Dysfunctional communication patterns in the workplace: Closing the gap between men and women. In D.Dunn (Ed.), Workplace/women's place: An anthology (165–180). Los Angeles: Roxbury.(1996). Ethics and the study of organizational communication: When will we wake up? In J. A.Jaksa & M. S.Pritchard (Eds.), Responsible communication: Ethical issues in business, industry, and the professions (17–40). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.(1988). Organizational communication: Past and present tenses. In G.Goldhaber & G.Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (5–33). Norwood, NJ: Ablex., & (1988). The problem of human agency in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 9, 33–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900109(2000). The limits of discourse analysis in organizational analysis. Organization, 7, 524–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050840073011(1994). Fostering empowerment, building community: The challenge for state-funded feminist organizations. Human Relations, 47, 685–705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700606(1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.(2000). Chaos theory and the glass ceiling. In P. M.Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from feminist perspectives (236–253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452225494, & (1970). Freud and philosophy: An essay on interpretation (D.Savage, Trans.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1994). Challenges of success: Stages of growth in feminist organizations. Feminist Studies, 20, 275–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3178153(1990). Canadian feminist social service collectives: Caring and contradictions. In L.Albrecht & R. M.Brewer (Eds.), Bridges of power: Women's multicultural alliances (172–181). Philadelphia: New Society.(2000). Marked men: White masculinity in crisis. New York: Columbia University Press.([Page 224]1988). Transcending bureaucracy: Feminist politics at a shelter for battered women. Gender & Society, 2, 214–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124388002002006(1996). “Seduction and succession”: Circuits of homosocial desire in management. In D.Collinson & J.Hearn (Eds.), Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinities and managements (210–226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(Rorty, R. (Ed.). (1967). The linguistic turn: Recent essays in philosophical method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1987). Moral/analytic dilemmas posed by the intersection of feminism and social science. In P.Rabinow & W. M.Sullivan (Eds.), Interpretive social science: A second look (280–310). Berkeley: University of California Press.(1985). “Breakfast at Spiro's”: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management, 11(2), 31–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920638501100205(1988). You asked for it: Christmas at the bosses' expense. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 463–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00710.x(1992). Postmodernism and the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, 119–125.(1976). Conditions for facilitating participatory-democratic organizations. Sociological Inquiry, 46, 75–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1976.tb00752.x(1979). The collectivist organization: An alternative to rational bureaucratic models. American Sociological Review, 44, 509–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094585(1993). American manhood: Transformation in masculinity from the revolution to the modern era. New York: Basic Books.(1992). Biographic and personal characteristics of women in management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 89–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791%2892%2990041-W, , & (1994). Representations of the intellectual. New York: Pantheon.(1960). Course in general linguistics. London: Peter Owen., (Savage, M., & Witz, A. (Eds.). (1992). Gender and bureaucracy. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell/The Sociological Review.1991). Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, power, and the body. New York: Routledge.(1989). Working mothers and their families. American Psychologist, 44, 1402–1409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.11.1402, , & (1992). Faking identity in clubland: The communicative performance of “fake ID.…. Text and Performance Quarterly, 12, 160–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10462939209359644(1996). Appropriating bodies: Organ(izing) ideology and cultural practice in medical school. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 310–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909889609365459(1992). Organizational culture and leadership (([Page 225]2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.1973). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037128(1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076637(1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 439–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130502, & (1986). Communicative praxis and the space of subjectivity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.(1997). The self after postmodernity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1998). Creating partnerships for change: Alliances and betrayals in the racial politics of two feminist organizations. Gender & Society, 12, 400–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124398012004003(1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Feminist Studies, 14, 33–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3177997(1986). The rise and fall of feminist organizations in the 1970s: Dayton as a case study. Feminist Studies, 12, 321–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3177971, & (1988). Ideology, contradiction, and change in a feminist bookstore. In B.Bate & A.Taylor (Eds.), Women communicating: Studies of women's talk (251–276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.(1990). Slow motion: Changing masculinities, changing men. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.(1989). Rediscovering masculinity: Reason, language and sexuality. New York: Routledge.(1994). Unreasonable men: Masculinity and social theory. New York: Routledge.(Seidman, S. (Ed.). (1994). The postmodern turn: New perspectives on social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805115709401998). The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 397–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393857(1992). “Someone to watch over me”: Surveillance, discipline, and the just-in-time labor process. Sociology, 26, 271–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038592026002009, & (Sex held reason for pilot's loss. (1935, November 7). The Evening Star, p. A2.1993). Building a discipline of communication. Journal of Communication, 43, 83–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01279.x(1989). Organizations, power and sexuality: Image and self image of women managers. In J.Hearn, D.Sheppard, P.Tancred-Sheriff, & G.Burrell (Eds.), The sexuality of organization (139–157). London: Sage.([Page 226]2000, November). Breaking through the glass ceiling without breaking a nail: Portrayal of women executives in the popular business press. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.(1970). The theory of organizations. London: Heinemann.(1976). Administrative behavior ((3rd. ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392246(1987). Organizational culture: A critical assessment. In F.Jablin, L. L.Putnam, L.Porter, & K.Roberts (Eds.), The handbook of organizational communication (228–263). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1997). Comment on Hekman's “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited.…. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 392–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495164(2001). Organizational storytelling: Metaphors for relational power and identity struggles. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 149–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318901152001, & (1942). Airways: The history of commercial aviation in the United States. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.(1994). The feminization of leadership. Training and Development, 48, 43–46., & (1987). Conflict at Disneyland: A root metaphor analysis. Communication Monographs, 54, 367–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758709390239, & (1999). The ambivalent dynamics of secretarial “bitching”: Control, resistance, and the construction of identity. Organization, 6, 57–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050849961003, & (1998a). The production of masculinity in interpersonal communication. Communication Theory, 8, 143–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00215.x(1998b). Theorizing masculinity across the field: An intradisciplinary conversation. Communication Theory, 8, 141–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00214.x(1987). Women in communication studies: A typology for revision. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 401–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638709383816, & (1988). Feminist communication: Rethinking the politics of exclusion. Women's Studies in Communication, 11, 28–31., & (1998). The price of “passing”: A lesbian perspective on authenticity in organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 598–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318998114006(1995). Postmodernism, feminism, and Marx: Notes from the abyss. Monthly Review, 47(3), 89–107.(1988). The communicative power of women managers: Doubts, dilemmas, and management development programs. In C. A.Valentine & N.Hoar (Eds.), Women and communicative power: Theory, research, and practice (36–48). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.([Page 227]Stecopoulos, H., & Uebel, M. (Eds.). (1997). Race and the subject of masculinities. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.1987). Feminist theories and media studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4, 95–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295038709360121(1988). What distinguishes feminist scholarship in communication studies. Women's Studies in Communication, 11, 12–17.(1984). Styles of conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 115–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206, & (1991). A postmodern look at traditional communication postulates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 354–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319109374393(1992). Philosophical dimensions of social approaches to interpersonal communication. Communication Theory, 2, 337–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00049.x(1993). Communication in corporate settings. In L. P.Arless & D. J.Borisoff (Eds.), Women and men communicating. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich., & (1992). Understanding “how things work”: Sexual harassment and academic culture. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 391–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909889209365345(1990). You just don't understand: Men and women in conversation. New York: Ballantine.(1994). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and men in the workplace: Language, sex and power. New York: Avon Books.(1993a). Dumb movies for dumb people: Masculinity, the body, and the voice in contemporary action cinema. In S.Cohan & I. R.Hark (Eds.), Screening the male: Exploring masculinities in Hollywood cinema (230–244). New York: Routledge.(1993b). Spectacular bodies: Gender, genre, and the action cinema. New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203221846(1993a). Fat Man and Little Boy: Cinematic representation of interests in the nuclear weapons organization. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 367–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295039309366877(1993b). Register of the repressed: Women's voice and body in the nuclear weapons organization. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 267–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639309384035(2002). Organizing the unknown subject: Los Alamos, espionage, and the politics of biography. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 88, 33–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335630209384358(1992). Narratives of sexual harassment: Organizational dimensions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 401–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909889209365346, & (2001). Qualitative research methods. In L. L.Putnam & M.Pacanowsky (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (161–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., & (1993). Rethinking the theory of organizational communication: How to read an organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.([Page 228]1995). Shifting from a heteronomous to an autonomous worldview of organizational communication: Communication theory on the cusp. Communication Theory, 5, 1–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00096.x(1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6, 1–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00118.x, , , & (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., & (1995). Watching for vibes: Bringing emotions into the study of feminist organizations. In M. M.Ferree & P. Y.Martin (Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women's movement (223–233). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1993). Postmodernism: Fatal distraction. In J.Hassard & M.Parker (Eds.), Postmodernism and organizations (183–203). London: Sage.(1985). Gender differences in the management of personnel disputes. Women's Studies in Communication, 8, 25–33., & (1984). The functions of human communication in organization. In C.Arnold & K.Frandsen (Eds.), Handbook of rhetorical and communication theory (659–719). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.(1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In R. D.McPhee, & P. K.Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (179–210). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage., & (1989). Feminist thought. Boulder, CO: Westview.(1993). Performance appraisal and the emergence of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 221–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00302.x(2000). The discursive enactment of hegemony: Sexual harassment in academic organizing. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 190–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570310009374671, & (1997). Resistance, identity, and empowerment: A postmodern feminist analysis of clients in a human service organization. Communication Monographs, 64, 281–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759709376425(1999a). Disciplined bodies. Organization Studies, 20, 423–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840699203003(1999b). Isn't it ironic: Using irony to explore the contradictions of organizational life. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 140–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319909374634(2000). Revisioning control: A feminist critique of disciplined bodies. In P. M.Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from feminist perspectives (107–127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452225494(2001). Reproducing and resisting the master narrative of decline: Midlife professional women's experiences of aging. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 183–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318901152002([Page 229]1999). The practical true woman: Reconciling women and work in popular mail-order magazines, 1900-1920. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16, 42–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295039909367071(1992). Interpreting (the work and talk of) baseball: Perspectives on ballpark culture. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 350–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319209374423(1987). Cop talk, police stories, and the social construction of organizational drama. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 196–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510978709368242, & (2000). False dilemmas in organization theory: Realism or social constructivism. Organization, 7, 531–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050840073012(1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1995a). Fear and loathing in organization studies. Organization Science, 6, 687–692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.6.687(1995b). Style as theory. Organization Science, 6, 133–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.133(1993). Mothers on the job: Maternal policy in the U.S. workplace. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.(1996). Gender, interaction, and leadership. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 255–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2787022, , , & (Wants equal rights in the air. (1929, August 14). Wichita, Kansas Beacon. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.1978). Economy and society (G. W.Roth, C.Roth, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.(1941). The hero in America: A chronicle of hero-worship. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.(1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.(1979). The social psychology of organizing ((2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393789(1937, July 18). The women who mark the air lanes. San Francisco Chronicle. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.(1995). Women in positions of service: The politicized body. Communication Studies, 46, 276–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979509368457(1995, February). An investigation of sexual harassment in restaurants: Employees' experiences, responses, feelings, definitions, and training. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Western States Communication Association, Portland, OR., , & (1995). Doing difference. Gender & Society, 9, 8–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124395009001002, & (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002, & ([Page 230]1990). Cooperation and conflict among women in the welfare rights movement. In L.Albrecht & R. M.Brewer (Eds.), Bridges of power: Women's multicultural alliances (149–171). Philadelphia: New Society.(1993). Feminism, “The Boyz,” and other matters regarding the male. In S.Cohan & I. R.Hark (Eds.), Screening the male: Exploring masculinities in Hollywood cinema (173–193). New York: Routledge.(1985). Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success: What if women talk more like men. Sex Roles, 12, 993–1007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00288100, & (1991). Gender differences and similarities in management communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 6–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318991005001002, & (Will woman drive man out of the sky? (1911). American Examiner. 99s Museum of Women Pilots exhibit, Oklahoma City, OK.1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.(1990). Subjectivity and the dialectics of praxis: Opening up the core of labor process analysis. In D.Knights & H.Willmott (Eds.), Labour process theory (336–378). London: MacMillan.(1994). Bringing agency (back) into organizational analysis: Responding to the crisis of (post)modernity In J.Hassard & M.Parker (Eds.), Towards a new theory of organizations (87–130). London: Routledge.(1998). Towards a new ethics? The contributions of poststructuralism and posthumanism. In M.Parker (Ed.), Ethics and organizations (76–121). London: Sage.(1996). Organizational theory: Blind and deaf to gender. Organization Studies, 17, 825–842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069601700506(1993). Narrative and the culture of obedience at the workplace. In D. K.Mumby (Ed.), Narrative and social control: Critical perspectives (97–118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1992). The gender of organizations. In M.Savage & A.Witz (Eds.), Gender and bureaucracy (3–64). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell/The Sociological Review., & (1992). A thrice-told tale: Feminism, postmodernism and ethnographic responsibility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.(Woman pilot teaching men art of flying. (circa 1947). 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.Women fliers prepared to split on regulations. (1931, September 1). New York Herald. 99s Museum of Women Pilots, Oklahoma City, OK, Helen Richey file.1995). What is the “postmodern” agenda? An introduction. Monthly Review, 47(3), 1–12.(1995). Feminist scholarship and the study of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 103–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407595121007([Page 231]1997). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.(2002). Abstract ethics, embodied ethics: The strange marriage of Foucault and positivism in labor process theory. Organization, 9, 5–40.(1998). Marxism, capitalism, and ethics. In M.Parker (Ed.), Ethics and organizations (30–52). London: Sage., & (1996). The occupational masculinity of computing. In C.Cheng (Ed.), Masculinities in organizations (77–96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(1989). On the naming of the rose: Interests and multiple meanings as elements of organizational culture. Organization Studies, 10, 187–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068901000204(
About the Authors[Page 249]
Karen Lee Ashcraft (Ph.D., University of Colorado at Boulder) is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Communication in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. Her research examines gender, power, professional identity, and alternative organizational forms and has appeared in such forums as Communication Monographs, Administrative Science Quarterly, and the Academy of Management Journal.
Dennis K. Mumby (Ph.D., Southern Illinois University-Carbondale) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on the relationships among discourse, power, gender, and organization. He has published in journals such as Academy Management Review, Communication Monographs, and Management Communication Quarterly.