The problematic persistence of gender reflexivity in women's leadership development

Abstract

PurposeResearch on women's leadership development over the past two decades has seen a move away from feminist theory that embeds action at a structural level as the objective of consciousness raising realised during the programme. The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications of the stalling of collective action needed to challenge the continued under-representation of women in leadership roles.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is conceptual. Gender reflexivity – as the basis for claims within women's leadership development programmes (WLDPs) that are based on identity work to enable wider transformation of organisations in respect of structural barriers – is examined and critiqued.FindingsWomen's leadership development is unlikely to be able to used as a vehicle for structural change whilst it remains focused on self-acceptance, self-management and self-development of the individual participants. Gender reflexivity, as the warrant for change and transformation, is not used in a way that can deliver organisational change. Part of this is the way in which it is misapplied within human resource development and part of this is the continued lack of framing WLDP as a historical practice in support of the current logic of leadership.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the development of a critical approach to women's leadership development from a feminist theory perspective.

Leadership development programmes: part of the solution or part of the problem of women’s under-representation in leadership?

“…The effect of the double-bind in women's leadership, meaning that women are simultaneously expected to be feminine as women and masculine as leaders, can negatively impact their leadership opportunities (Hu et al, 2022). As asserted by several scholars (Trumpy and Elliott, 2019;Banu-Lawrence et al, 2020;Hu et al, 2022;Perriton, 2022), women are often expected to meet competing expectations.…”

“…This section seeks to query how LDPs, which are currently offered by companies as a response to the persistent gender leadership gap, are designed. As stated by Perriton (2022), one-size-fits-all LDPs, which fail to acknowledge the double bind in women's leadership, are unlikely to respond to women's distinctive development needs because they are designed to promote a singular leader identity based on a masculine notion of leadership. In a similar vein, Sugiyama et al (2016) concluded that standardised programmes frequently promote an agentic and transactional conception of leadership, meaning that they overemphasise the role of the leader in driving business performance without acknowledging the unique barriers faced by women because of gender bias.…”

“…In a similar vein, Perriton (2022) advances the view that WOLDPs are unlikely to lead to structural change, whilst remaining focused on self-acceptance, self-management and self-development of individual women. Instead, Perriton (2022) advocates for programmes that reflect outward and allow both women and men to recognise and interrogate prevailing gender norms and expectations as well as the conditions under which these are reproduced. Furthermore, Perriton (2022) raises concerns that WOLDPs that are focused inward may unintentionally reproduce the idea that by implementing a set of personal changes, women can resolve structural issues of gender inequality and inequity.…”

“…Instead, Perriton (2022) advocates for programmes that reflect outward and allow both women and men to recognise and interrogate prevailing gender norms and expectations as well as the conditions under which these are reproduced. Furthermore, Perriton (2022) raises concerns that WOLDPs that are focused inward may unintentionally reproduce the idea that by implementing a set of personal changes, women can resolve structural issues of gender inequality and inequity. On the other hand, Debebe (2011) notes that incremental individual change is necessary for organisational change and that, even if structural conditions improve, women's career progression may still be hindered because of internalised bias.…”

“…On the other hand, Debebe (2011) notes that incremental individual change is necessary for organisational change and that, even if structural conditions improve, women's career progression may still be hindered because of internalised bias. However, Perriton's (2022) response to this argument is that this approach is likely to force women to internalise responsibility for their success or failure without acknowledging the overwhelming effects of gendered organisational practices.…”