Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:25:02.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Public and Nonprofit Administration

Organizational Obliviousness

Entrenched Resistance to Gender Integration in the Military

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2019

Alesha Doan  and
Shannon Portillo
Alesha Doan
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Shannon Portillo
Affiliation:
University of Kansas

Summary

Exploring efforts to integrate women into combat forces in the military, we investigate how resistance to equity becomes entrenched, ultimately excluding women from being full participants in the workplace. Based on focus groups and surveys with members of Special Operations, we found most of the resistance is rooted in traditional gender stereotypes that are often bolstered through organizational policies and practices. The subtlety of these practices often renders them invisible. We refer to this invisibility as organizational obliviousness. Obliviousness exists at the individual level, it becomes reinforced at the cultural level, and, in turn, cultural practices are entrenched institutionally by policies. Organizational obliviousness may not be malicious or done to actively exclude or harm, but the end result is that it does both. Throughout this Element we trace the ways that organizational obliviousness shapes individuals, culture, and institutional practices throughout the organization.
Get access

Keywords

organizational obliviousnessgender integrationpolicies and practicesmilitarySpecial Forces
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Public and Nonprofit Administration
Online ISBN: 9781108665124
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 13 June 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.Google Scholar
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & society, 20(4), 441–464.Google Scholar
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.Google Scholar
Alison, M. (2004). Women as agents of political violence: Gendering security. Security Dialogue, 35(4), 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asencio, M. (2002). Sex and sexuality among New York’s Puerto Rican youth. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, S. R. (2003). Sex composition, masculinity stereotype dissimilarity and the quality of men’s workplace social relations. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(5), 579–604.Google Scholar
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Bonilla-Silva, E., & Dietrich, D. (2011). The sweet enchantment of color-blind racism in Obamerica. The Annals of the American Academy, 634, 190–206.Google Scholar
Britton, D. M. (1997). Gendered organizational logic: Policy and practice in men’s and women’s prisons. Gender & Society, 11(6), 796–818.Google Scholar
Britton, D. M. (2000). The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender & Society, 14(3), 418–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, D. M. (2003). At work in the iron cage: The prison as gendered organization. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Burrelli, D. F. (2013). Women in combat: Issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, R. (2018). “A New Survey Finds 81 Percent of Women Have Experienced Sexual Harassment.” National Public Radio. www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849/a-new-survey-finds-eighty-percent-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment.Google Scholar
Chemaly, S. (2015). “Biology Doesn’t Write Laws: Hillary Clinton’s Bathroom Break Wasn’t as Trivial as Some Might Like to Think.” [Blog] Huffington Post. www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/biology-doesnt-write-laws_b_8874638.html.Google Scholar
Cohn, C. (2000). “How can she claim equal rights when she doesn’t have to do as many push up as I do?” The framing of men’s opposition to women’s equality in the military. Men & Masculinities, 3(2), 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, R. (2006). Glass ceilings or gendered institutions? Mapping the gender regimes of public sector worksites. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 837–849.Google Scholar
Courdileone, K. A. (2005). Manhood and American political culture in the Cold War. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Department of Defense. 2017. “Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.” http://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY16_Annual/FY16_SAPRO_Annual_Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Devilbiss, M. C. (1990). Women and military service: A history, analysis, and overview of key issues. Collingdale, PA: DIANE Publishing.Google Scholar
Doan, A. E., & Williams, J. C. (2008). The politics of virginity: Abstinence in sex education. Social Forces, 89, 3.Google Scholar
Dolan, J. (2004). Gender equity: Illusion or reality for women in the federal executive service? Public Administration Review, 63(3), 299–308.Google Scholar
Dolan, J. (2000). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes, and representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(3), 513–530.Google Scholar
Dull, M. (2010). Leadership and organizational culture: Sustaining dialogue between practitioners and scholars. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 857–866.Google Scholar
Elshtain, J. B. (1995). Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women’s lives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1992). Building two-way streets: The case of feminism and science. Nwsa Journal, 4(3), 336–349.Google Scholar
Fuegen, K., & Biernat, M. (2002). Reexamining the effects of solo status for women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 913–925.Google Scholar
Gagliardi, P. (1986). The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 7(2), 117–134.Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63–81.Google Scholar
Goldenhar, L. M., Swanson, N. G., Hurrell, J. J. Jr., Ruder, A., & Deddens, J. (1998). Stressors and adverse outcomes for female construction workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(1), 19.Google Scholar
Hatch, M. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. The Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693.Google Scholar
Herbert, M. S. (2000). Camouflage isn’t only for combat: Gender, sexuality, and women in the military. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Johnson, B. (2015). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinojosa, R. (2010). Doing hegemony: Military, men, and constructing a hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Men’s Studies, 30, 179–194.Google Scholar
Hulett, D. M., BendickJr., M., Thomas, S. Y., & Moccio, F. (2008). Enhancing women’s inclusion in firefighting in the USA. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities & Nations, 8(2), 189–207.Google Scholar
Jolls, C., & Sunstein, C. R. (2006). The law of implicit bias. California Law Review, 94, 969.Google Scholar
Jurik, N. C. (1985). Individual and organizational determinants of correctional officer attitudes toward inmates. Criminology, 23(3), 523–540.Google Scholar
Jurik, N. C. (1988). Striking a balance: Female correctional officers, gender role stereotypes, and male prisons. Sociological Inquiry, 58(3), 291–305Google Scholar
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990.Google Scholar
Kanter, R.M. (2008). Men and women of the corporation: New edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Keenan, J. O. (2008). The DoD combat exclusion policy: Time for a change? In Putko, M. M. & Johnson, D. V. (Eds.), Women in combat compendium (pp. 21–25). Washington, DC: Strategic Studies Institute. http://wiisglobal.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/Women-in-Combat-Compendium1.pdf.Google Scholar
Keiser, L. R., Wilkins, V. M., Meier, K. J., & Holland, C. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 553–564.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. (2000). Saving the males: The sociological implications of the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel. Gender & Society, 14(4), 494–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (2011). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Kumar, S., & Kant, S., 2006. Organizational resistance to participatory approaches in public agencies: An analysis of forest department’s resistance to community-based forest management. International Public Management Journal, 9(2), 141–173.Google Scholar
Lewis, P., & Simpson, R. (Eds.). (2010). Revealing and concealing gender: Issues of visibility in organizations. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Lewis, P., & Simpson, R. (2012). Kanter revisited: Gender, power and (in) visibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(2), 141–158.Google Scholar
Linskey, A. (2015) “In swing states, Clinton may face gender bias. Voters often reluctant to back female candidates,” The Boston Globe. www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-faces-challenges-unique-woman-running-for-office/Zkv99eyLTzAVzskuGnvRPN/story.htmlGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, M. (2015). Beyond the band of brothers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, S. E., & Jurik, N. (2007). Doing justice, doing gender: Women in legal and criminal justice occupations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Morden, B. J. (1990). The women’s Army corps, 1945–1978. Washington, DC: Center of Military History, United States Army.Google Scholar
Nagel, J., & Feitz, L. 2007. Deploying race, gender, class, and sexuality in the Iraq War. Race, Gender & Class, 14(3–4), 28–47.Google Scholar
O’Leary, R. (2014). The ethics of dissent: Managing guerrilla government. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews. Vol. 18, pp. 157–200. Atlanta: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.Google Scholar
Owen, D., & Dennis, J. (1988). Gender differences in the politicization of American children. Women & Politics, 8(2), 23–43.Google Scholar
Parashar, S. (2009). Feminist international relations and women militants: Case studies from Sri Lanka and Kashmir. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(2), 235–256.Google Scholar
Patten, E., & Parker, K. (2011). Women in the US military: Growing share, distinctive profile. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/22/women-in-the-u-s-military-growing-share-distinctive-profile/Google Scholar
Penner, Barbara. (2012). “We shall deal here with humble things.” Places Journal. https://placesjournal.org/article/we-shall-deal-here-with-humble-things/.Google Scholar
Petersen, T., & Morgan, L. A. (1995). Separate and unequal: Occupation-establishment sex segregation and the gender wage gap. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 329–365.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697–713.Google Scholar
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794.Google Scholar
Portillo, S. (2010) How race, sex, and age frame use of authority by local government officials. Law and Social Inquiry, 35(3), 603–623.Google Scholar
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Plaskow, J. (2008). Embodiment, elimination, and the role of toilets in struggles for social justice. CrossCurrents, 58(1), 51–64.Google Scholar
Prokos, A., & Padavic, I. (2002). “There oughtta be a law against bitches”: Masculinity lessons in police academy training. Gender, Work & Organization, 9(4), 439–459.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62(2), 218–235.Google Scholar
Sabharwal, M. (2015). From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women in senior executive service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 399–426.Google Scholar
Saidel, J. R., & Loscocco, K. (2005). Agency leaders, gendered institutions, and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 158–170.Google Scholar
Santangelo, S. (2014, March 28). Fourteen women have tried, and failed, the Marines’ Infantry Officer Course: Here’s why. The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fourteen-women-have-tried-and-failed-the-marines-infantry-officer-course-heres-why/2014/03/28/24a83ea0-b145-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html.Google Scholar
Sasson-Levy, O. (2003). Feminism and military gender practices: Israeli women soldiers in “masculine” roles. Sociological Inquiry, 73(3), 440–465.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3–16.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychological Association, 45(2), 109.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
SHARP (2018) “What we know about sexual assault of military men.” Sexual Harassment/Assault Response & Prevention. www.sexualassault.army.mil/whatweknow_militarymen.aspxGoogle Scholar
Skaine, R. (1999). Women at war: Gender issues of Americans in combat. Jefferson, NC:McFarland & Company.Google Scholar
Stack-O’Connor, A. (2007). Lions, tiger, and freedom birds: How and why Liberation Tigers of Tamil employs women. Terrorism and Political Violence, 19(1), 43–63.Google Scholar
Tinkler, J. (2012). Resisting the enforcement of sexual harassment law. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Tinker, J. (2008). “People are too quick to take offense”: The effects of legal information and beliefs on definitions of sexual harassment. Law & Social Inquiry 33(2), 417–445.Google Scholar
Tinkler, J., LI, Y.E., & Mollborn, S. (2007). Can legal interventions change beliefs? The effect of exposure to sexual harassment policy on men’s gender beliefs. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(4), 480–494.Google Scholar
Voorhees, H., & Skaggs, R.L.-S. (2015). Women leading government: Why so little progress in 30 years? Public Management, 97(1), 6–10, 12–13.Google Scholar
Zimmer, L. (1988). Tokenism and women in the workplace: The limits of gender-neutral theory. Social Problems, 35(1), 64–77.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Organizational Obliviousness
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Organizational Obliviousness
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Organizational Obliviousness
Available formats
×