The Oxford Handbook of Gender in Organizations
Chapter 15: Power and resistance in gender equality strategies: comparing quotas and small wins.
Yvonne Benschop and Marieke van den Brink
Abstract
Gender equality strategies involve changing processes of power and therefore invoke resistance. In
this chapter, we review existing research on change towards gender equality in organizations. We
summarize the different strategies and zoom in on the post-equity or small wins experiments and
quota regulations. We analyze these contrasting intervention strategies in terms of the power
processes they invoke and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. This comparison between
post-equity and quota strategies suggests that they can be complementary. Quotas force an increase
the numbers of women in managerial positions, but if gendered processes in the organization do not
change, these women might leave again. Post-equity experiments help to change these processes,
and involve many organization members in the change of daily practices and underlying values. We
argue that the combination of inclusive and transformational interventions leads to a synergy that is
the most promising strategy for change.
Keywords: gender equality strategies, quotas, post-equity, small wins, power, resistance,
organizational change
Introduction
How to change gender inequality is a topic that feminist organization scholars have been interested
in for many years (Benschop et al. 2012; Deutsch 2007; Ely and Meyerson 2000b; Hearn 2000; Liff
and Cameron 1997; Nentwich 2006). There have been successes in beating overt discrimination and
gender inequalities in organizations, especially if one is willing to take a historical perspective. In the
twenty-first century direct discrimination by sex and sexual harassment have been banned by laws
and regulations in many Western countries. At the same time, several authors have pointed out that
equal employment opportunity legislation in different countries and contexts does acknowledge
social, structural and systemic gender discrimination, but is not successfully addressing the many
faces of gender inequality in organizations today (Ainsworth et al. 2010; Greene and Kirton 2011;
Miller et al. 2009). Ainsworth et al. (2010) speak of ‘a blinding lack of progress’, and this assertion
goes certainly beyond the Australian private sector context of their study. One important reason for
this slow pace of change is the changed nature of gender inequality at work that has gone
underground (Meyerson and Fletcher 2000). Contemporary organizational life is characterized by
many subtle and deeply embedded inequalities. Changing the processes and practices that
reproduce gender in more opaque and subtle ways has proven to be much more difficult than
changing obvious discriminatory practices. The prevailing theory about the best way to counter these
subtle inequalities, is the post-equity or ‘small-wins’ theory on social change based on the work of
Karl Weick (1984). This theory contends that deeply rooted practices and beliefs can only be changed
by ‘a persistent campaign of incremental changes that discover and destroy the deeply embedded
roots of discrimination’ (Meyerson and Fletcher 2000`: 128). The power of these incremental
changes lies in the persistent campaign of sequential feminist experiments that target organizational
processes and practices. These experiments are carefully designed so that the potential for change is
maximized (Meyerson and Kolb 2000). Meyerson and Fletcher present the small wins approach as ‘a
powerful way of chipping away the barriers that hold women back without sparking the kind of
sound and fury that scares people into resistance’ (2000: 127). This post-equity or small wins
approach differs from various other approaches for organizational change. On the one hand, it
differs from the popular management programs that set out to equip (or fix) the women so that they
, can master the rules of the organizational power game. The post-equity approach targets
organizations rather than women (Ely and Meyerson 2000a; Liff and Cameron 1997). On the other
hand, it also differs from more revolutionary radical approaches to counter gender discrimination
such as equal outcome measures and gender quotas to increase the number of women in top
positions (Kirton and Greene 2010). Radical interventions are powerful as they forego weakening
compromises and focus on results only. Such radical interventions are also highly contested, openly
resisted and the subject of heated debates between avowed proponents and adversaries. We focus
in this chapter on the issues of power and resistance to come to a better understanding of the
success or failure of different types of feminist interventions.
Even though power has been the raison d’être of feminist organization studies, power is often the
elephant in the room in the literature on organizational change towards gender equality. We see
power as linked to the control of resources, structures, behaviors, agendas, ideologies and cultures
and subjectivities (Kärreman and Alvesson 2009, p.1118). One particularly interesting form of power
in the context of organizational change towards gender equality is resistance. Resistance is a form of
power that implies agency and is likely to be expressed in a multitude of mundane actions and
behaviors at the workplace (Prasad and Prasad 2000`: 388). Resistance is a key issue for organization
and management researchers that use critical perspectives, and they have broadened the
conceptualization of resistance from formal organized opposition against the exercise of power
(Kärreman and Alvesson 2009; Prasad and Prasad 2000), to more informal, routinized forms of
resistance in everyday practice that are inherent in the exercise of power (Thomas and Davies 2005).
We stress that changing power processes and power relations is at the heart of feminist intervention
strategies, and therefore resistance is part and parcel of all such interventions. Resistance to change
is typically strong when an organization’s cultural norms, beliefs, attitudes and values are the target
of change efforts. This is certainly the case with projects that target gender inequalities in
organizational routines (Benschop and Verloo 2006). It is thus unsurprising that studies of
organizational change towards gender equality report extensive resistance, a resistance that comes
in many forms and shapes. Examples include men who resist women’s entry into previously
masculine domains, challenges to the authority of women managers, the denial of problems with
gender in the organization (Connell 2006; Martin 2006; Van den Brink 2010), requests for research or
training in order to avoid action, and attempts to escape involvement in change efforts (Benschop
and Verloo 2006). By bringing to the fore the role of processes of power and resistance in the
different types of interventions towards gender equality in organizations, we aim to provide a
balanced account of these interventions and their potential to the realize the change that is needed.
This chapter is structured as follows. We begin by reviewing existing research on change towards
gender equality in organizations. We summarize the different strategies and zoom in on the small
wins experiments and quota regulations as contrasting intervention strategies, discussing the
advantages and disadvantages of these different strategies. The analysis of the interventions leads to
a discussion of the role of power and resistance in successful organizational changes toward gender
equality. We conclude by summarizing our key points and suggesting questions to be explored in
further research.
Changing organizations towards gender equality
While an ever-growing literature has addressed questions of gender in organizations over the years
and the dynamics of gender inequality at work have been documented well, much less is known
about how to bring about effective gender change in organizations. The analyses of what keeps
gender inequality in place outnumber the analyses of what should and could be done to change
organizations towards gender equality.
