The Paradox of Equity in Diff erence

Diverse social systems: deconstructing binary and unfolding paradoxes 135 McCall, Leslie 2005, ‘Managing the complexity of intersectionality’, Signs, 30 3, 1771–800. Mumby, Denis K. and Linda L. Putnam 1992, ‘The politics of emotions: a femi- nist rereading of bounded rationality’, Academy of Management Review, 17 2: 465–86. Nassehi, Armin 2004, ‘Eliten als Dif erenzierungsparasiten – Skizze eines Forschungsprogramms’, in Ronald Hitzler, Stefan Hornbostel and Cornelia Mohr eds, Elitenmacht, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 25–41. Nassehi, Armin 2005a, ‘Organizations as decision machines. Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Organized Social Systems’, in Jones Campbell and Rolland Munro eds, Contemporary Organization Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 178–91. Nassehi, Armin 2005b, ‘Constructivism’, in Austin Harrington, Barbara L. Marshall and Hans-Peter Müller eds, Encyclopedia of Social Theory, London: Routledge, pp. 98–100. Nassehi, Armin 2005c, ‘Cybernetics’, in Austin Harrington, Barbara L. Marshall and Hans-Peter Müller eds, Encyclopedia of Social Theory, London: Routledge, p. 121. Nassehi, Armin 2005d, ‘Social System’, in Austin Harrington, Barbara L. Marshall and Hans-Peter Müller eds, Encyclopedia of Social Theory, London: Routledge, pp. 570–72. Nkomo, Stella M. and Taylor Cox Jr 1999, ‘Diverse identities in organizations’, in Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy and Walter R. Nord eds, Managing Organization: Current Issues, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 88–106. Özbilgin, Mustafa and Ahu Tatli 2008, Global Diversity Management: An Evidence-based Approach, Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan. Parsons, Talcott 1951, The Social System, Glencoe: The Free Press. Pasero, Ursula 1994, ‘Geschlechterforschung revisited: konstruktivisitische und systemtheoretische Perspektiven’, in Theresa Wobbe and Gesa Lindemann eds, Denkachsen – zur theoretischen und institutionellen Rede von Geschlecht, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 264–98. Seidl, David and Kai Helge Becker 2006, ‘Organizations as distinction generat- ing and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to organization studies’, Organization, 13 1, 9–35. Serres, Michel 1987, Der Parasit, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Tatli, Ahu and Mustafa Özbilgin 2007, ‘Diversity management as calling: sorry, it’s the wrong number’, in Koall et al. eds, pp. 457–73. Vieira Da Cunha, João, Stewart R. Clegg and Miguel Pina E Cunha 2002, ‘Management paradox and management dialectics’, in Stuart R. Clegg, ed., Management and Organization Paradoxes, Advances in Organization Studies, Vol. 9, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp.11–40. Walby, S. 2007, ‘Complexity theory, systems theory, and multiple intersections of social inequalities’, Philosophy of Social Science, 37 4, 449–70. Wilz, Sylvia 2004, ‘Relevanz, Kontext und Kontingenz – Zur neuen Unübersichtlichkeit in der Gendered Organisation’, in Ursula Pasero and Birger P. Priddat eds, Organisation und Netzwerke: Der Fall Gender, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 227–58. Zannoni, Patrizia and Maddy Janssens 2003, ‘Deconstructing dif erence: the rhetoric of human resource managers’ diversity discourses’, Organizational Studies, 25 1, 55–74. 136 10. The value of seeing gender as a ‘doing’ Elisabeth K. Kelan and Julia C. Nentwich INTRODUCTION Seeing gender as a social practice has been a burgeoning topic in research on gender at work in recent years. This rel ects a theoretical shift in gender studies towards constructivist and post-structuralist approaches. However in much research on gender at work, gender is still seen as a variable or a property of persons. In this chapter it is argued that such a view theo- retically narrows the impact that research on gender at work could have. First, approaches to gender at work are reviewed to show that most studies have focused on a limited array of theories. Second, theories of gender as a social practice arising from gender theories are outlined. Subsequently, the application of those theories for research on gender at work is highlighted before we draw some conclusions and stress the implications that seeing gender as a social practice may have. TUNNEL VISION? Studies in the i eld of gender at work are l ourishing. Studies have focused on gender dif erences in relation to job satisfaction García-Bernal et al., 2005; Mason, 1997; Okpara et al., 2005 and management and leadership styles Helgesen, 1990; Rosener, 1990; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Hau-Siu Chow, 2005. Studies also dealt with equal opportunities Strachan et al., 2004; Burke, 2005; Metcalfe and Afanassieva, 2005 and issues around family friendliness Grover and Crooker, 1995; Greenhaus, 1999; Konrad and Mangel, 2000; Linehan and Walsh, 2000; Lewis, 2001; Veiga et al., 2004, work–life balance Drew and Murtagh, 2005 and working hours Simpson, 1998. Another prominent area of research is related to women’s careers Simpson, 1997; Duignan and Iaquinto, 2005 and women’s networks Ibarra, 1992, 1993. Metaphors such as ‘glass ceiling’ or ‘sticky l oor’ have reached prominence Powell, 1999; Baxter