schemes originated by male researchers studying predominantly men. Thus, rather than going into an organization and testing under what conditions men and women fit Fred Fielder's ( 1967) or Rensis Likert's ( 1967) theories of leadership, she decided to use a grounded methodology: allowing women and men to tell her about their work in order to avoid "an imposition of preconceived categories that may be unlikely to tap the full range of their behaviors" ( Statham 1987, p. 413).
On the basis of this approach, Statham produced a new typology that did reveal gender differences. She found that most women were primarily people and task oriented, whereas most men were primarily power and autonomy oriented. She did not evaluate whether one leadership style was better than another, but she noted that differing expectations of leadership among men and women made it difficult for them to work together, and, given that women were largely evaluated by men, women's different style was not appreciated-even though it may have been as or more effective.
Although Statham's results may deserve further scrutiny, her study is particularly instructive because it highlights the ways in which an androcentric academic knowledge base reinforces an androcentric managerial approach in the business and government sphere. To begin to break that connection requires a willingness to fundamentally question accepted approaches to (in this case) leadership in order to explore alternative conceptualizations. The three studies reviewed previously evince such a willingness and, in the process, provide provocative (and at times convincing) evidence of the gendered nature of some of the conceptual building blocks of organization theory. Whether the resistance to gender scholarship is due to its uneven and incomplete character or to the self-interest of those who benefit from the status quo, the study of "gendered organization" is here to stay, and it offers some of the most exciting research in contemporary public administration and organization theory.
Acker, Joan, 1989. Doing Comparable Worth: Gender, Class, and Pay Equity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
-----, 1990. "Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations". Gender & Society, vol. 4, no. 2: 139-158.
-----, 1992. "Gendering Organizational Theory", pp. 248- 260. In Albert J. Mills and Peta Tancred, eds., Gendering Organizational Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Armstrong, Pat, and Hugh Armstrong, 1990. Theorizing Women's Work. Toronto: Garamond.
Bem, Sandra L., 1993. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Eisenstein, Zillah R., 1988. The Female Body and the Law. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ferguson, Kathy E., 1984. The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Fiedler, Fred E., 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Frieze, Irene H., Esther Sales, and Christine Smith, 1991. "Considering the Social Context in Gender Research: The Impact of College Students' Life Stage". Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 15: 371-392.
Gilligan, Carol, 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harding, Sandra, 1993. "Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is 'Strong Objectivity'?" In Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter , eds., Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge.
Hearn, Jeff, and P. Wendy Parkin, 1983. "Gender and Organizations: A Selective Review and a Critique of a Neglected Area". Organization Studies, vol. 4, no. 3: 219-242.
Kanter, Rosebeth Moss, 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Katzenstein, Mary F., 1990. "Feminism Within American Institutions: Unobtrusive Mobilization in the 1980s" Signs, vol. 16, no. 1: 27-54.
Kettl, Donald F., 1993. "Public Administration: The State of the Field", pp. 407-428. In Ada W. Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
Likert, Rensis, 1967. Human Organizations: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mills, Albert L., and Peta Tancred, eds., 1992. Gendering Organizational Analysis, Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press.
Morrison, Ann M., and Mary Ann Von Glinow, 1990. "Women and Minorities in Management". American Psychologist (February): 200-208.
Nieva, Veronica F., and Barbara A. Gutek, 1981. Women and Work: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Praeger.
Nelson, Barbara J., 1989. "Women and Knowledge in Political Science: Texts, Histories, and Epistemologies". Women & Politics, vol. 9, no. 2: 1-25.
Okin, Susan Moller, 1979. Women in Western Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ruddick, Sara, 1989. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Boston: Beacon Press.
Sapiro, Virginia, 1986. "The Gender Basis of American Social Policy". Political Science Quarterly, vol. 101, no. 2: 221-238.
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine Roberta Q. Herzberg, and Randy T. Simmons . 1993. "Understanding Gender Inequality: The Relative Influence of Institutional Power and Gender Consciousness". Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Scott, Joan, 1986. "Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis". American Historical Review, vol. 91: 1053-1075.
Statham, Anne, 1987. "The Gender Model Revisited: Differences in the Management Styles of Men and Women". Sex Roles, vol. 16, nos. 7-8: 409-429.
Steuernagel, Gertrude A., and Thomas A. Yantek, 1993. "More Than Pink and Blue: Gender, Occupational Stratification, and Political Attitudes", pp. 79-94. In Lois Lovelace Duke, ed., Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stivers, Camilla, 1993. Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the Administrative State. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman, 1987. "Doing Gender". Gender and Sociey, vol. 1, no. 2: 125-151.