Union women leadership: What's the difference?
The
following piece, written by Morna Ballantyne, draws
on an article by Linda Briskin, Professor in the
Social Science Division and the School of Women’s
Studies at Toronto’s York University:
"Victimisation and Agency: The Social Construction of Union Women's Leadership". Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 359-378, July 2006
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=913115 or DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2338.2006.00409.x
Do women and men really lead differently?
Reviewing research from the UK, USA, Canada, Sweden and Australia, Linda Briskin writes, “Despite significant differences in union cultures and political contexts, what is striking is the repeated claim that women and men lead differently. Recurring themes emphasize democratic, collaborative, consultative and less aggressive styles.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 362)
Briskin’s own study of 60 Canadian women trade union leaders (Briskin, L. (1990), “Women, Unions and Leadership”, Canadian Dimension, 24, 1, pp. 38-41) suggests “a new politic of leadership…which emphasizes process and accountability, and which goes well beyond superficial style . . . [T]his politic . . . supports decentralization of the power traditionally associated with leadership positions . . . It is an inclusive rather than exclusive politic; it relies on participation more than on representation. It moves toward greater democracy and openness of union structures and decision making; it underscores accountability and operates on the basis of a strong and active link between leadership and constituency.”
It isn’t only in unions that researchers have found gender differences in leadership. Research on women leaders in the corporate world, for example, suggests that they will do things differently given the chance.
Briskin cites work by Sinclair that indicates “senior women draw on a distinctively different repertoire of strategies and tactics to influence than those identified from studies comprising men. Gender is an essential variable in understanding the range of strategies available, to, and effectively use by, senior executives.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 363 quoting Sinclair, A. (1998), Doing Leadership Differently, Gender, Power and Sexuality in a Changing Business Culture (Melbourne, Melbourne University Press), pp. 125-126.)
A 1990 article in the Harvard Business Review puts it this way: “women encourage participation, share power and information, enhance other people’s self worth, and get others excited about their work…” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 363 quoting Roesener, J. (1990), “Ways Women Lead”, Harvard Business Review, 68, 6, pp. 199-225.)
Why does women’s leadership matter?
Unions looking for ways to be more effective and better able to represent the growing number of women union members would do well to pay attention to the question of gender and leadership.
The research suggests that the women bring to leadership characteristics also associated with what has become known as “transformational” leadership—an approach to leadership that is being increasingly promoted as a key ingredient to union renewal. (See, for example, Paul F. Clark’s Building More Effective Unions (Ithaca, ILR Press, 2000).) These characteristics include being concerned with union members at a personal level, involving others in decision-making, being more concerned about collective than individual achievements, finding new and creative ways of dealing with problems, seeking out a diversity of opinions, and, most importantly, collectively developing a vision of the union’s future and finding ways to build commitment to that vision. (Clark, pp. 168-186)
In other words, building and developing women’s leadership should be embraced as a way forward for unions that want to grow in size and strength, and build power through membership involvement and the active inclusion of women and other equality-seeking groups.
Tokenism not a good idea
Furthermore, the research suggests that unions would do well to go well beyond token measures that result in only a minority of women in leadership positions. This is because women’s transformational leadership qualities are enhanced when they are present in sufficient numbers, and when their leadership is properly and appropriately valued. As Briskin reports (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 368):
“When women were quite rare in leadership roles and therefore tended to have the status of token in organizations or groups, they abandoned stereotypically feminine styles characterized by concern for the morale and welfare of people in the work setting and consideration of these people’s views when making decisions. These findings suggest that women may tend to lose authority if they adopt distinctively feminine styles of leadership in extremely male-dominated roles. Women who survive in such roles probably have to adopt the styles typical of male role occupants. “ (Eagly, A. and B. Johnson (1990), “Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta Analysis”, Psychological Bulletin 108, 2, pp. 233-256)
Not all women lead the same way
Briskin points out that while it is a common finding that women lead differently than men, it can not be said that all women lead the same way, nor can it be said that all women lead in the way they claim.
“Some hold that to succeed in the labour movement women have to be every bit as tough as the men. They have to as strong as the most macho male leaders . . . Some women prefer a more charismatic style of leadership. Others valued supportiveness and encouragement. Some are competitive with other women while others view women as natural allies and friends.” (Briskin, Victimisation, 364 citing Eaton, S. (1993), “Women in Trade Union Leadership, How More Women can Become Leaders of Today’s and Tomorrow’s Unions”, in G. Adler and D. Suarez (eds.), Union Voices, Labour’s Responses to Crisis (Albany, State University of NY Press) pp. 193-194.)
Briskin also notes that “gender . . . is not the only social identity which shapes leadership practice.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 364) Race-based gender expectations can play an important role, for example. Unfortunately, there is very little research on the leadership styles of different equity-seeking groups, despite the fact that people from these groups make-up an increasingly larger proportion of union members.
Gender differences are based in material differences
Unions are somewhat reluctant to accept that gender matters when it comes to leadership. For example, when this question was debated at the 2005 National Convention of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), numerous speakers (men and women) said that gender should not come into play in electing members to the union’s National Executive Board. The convention was debating whether or not to create five new Board positions to be filled by women elected by the entire convention. Several of those who opposed the measure argued that to create seats for women was to concede that women and men are not equal: that women are weaker and therefore require special help to get elected.
The concern voiced by these CUPE delegates--that agreeing to special seats for women on the union’s top leadership body only serves to reinforce the view that women are not men’s equals--is understandable.
After all, do unions not argue that women are just as capable as men and that to treat them otherwise is discriminatory?
Briskin helps answer that question by rooting differences in women and men leaders in their very different material experiences (their different income levels, their education, etc), rather than to attribute differences to the stereotyped view that women are naturally different. Women lead differently not because they are by nature more compassionate or less competitive, but rather because they live in a gendered world where men and women are treated differently in every respect.
“…grounding discussions of women’s approaches to leadership in a materialist framework helps avoid the hint—and dangers—of essentialism that pervade many approach supports a recognition of difference without reference to essentialist ideas that women are more nurturing, relational, emotional by nature.” (Briskin, Victimisation, 360.)
Why do women leaders lead differently?
Briskin suggests that two factors significantly contribute to the making of women union leaders: (1) the discrimination they experience in the workplace, the community, at home and in the union, and, (2) the practice of forming both formal and informal women constituencies within unions in response to that discrimination.
Discrimination contributes to women’s leadership development in several ways.
For one thing, discrimination motivates women to get involved in the union and eventually pursue leadership positions. “Negative experiences, usually of inequity, sexism and discrimination against women by employers, were powerful triggers to women becoming active as workplace representatives,” according to research by Colgan and Ledwith (F. Golgan and S. Ledwith (2000), Diversity, Identities and Strategies of Women Trade Union Activists”, Gender, Work and Organization, 7, 4, pp. 242-257 as quoted in Briskin, Victimisation, p. 369)
Discrimination also moulds how women behave as leaders. Briskin cites the work of Kanter who argued that “apparent sex differences in the behaviour of organizational leaders are in fact a product of the differing structural positions of the sexes within organizations. Because women are more often in position of little power or opportunity for advancement, they behave in ways that reflect their lack of power.” (Kanter (1977) as quoted by Eagly and Johnson.)
For example, women leaders adopt more consultative and inclusive approaches to leadership because such approaches are less threatening to those who have difficulty with women assuming leadership positions. As well, collaborative leadership strategies allow women leaders to build allies giving them the support and power required to get the job done. In other words, empowerment strategies help counter-act discrimination. As Briskin puts it, “ . . . transformational leadership is understood, to some extent, as a way to compensate for the problems women leaders face, a form of ‘gender management’.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 370).
Differences in leadership styles can’t be explained only by the fact that women are victims of discrimination, however. “Victimization” may “shape patterns of union women’s leadership,” writes Briskin, but, just as important, is “women’s pro-active resistance and organizing” through women-only union education and union women’s committees. “Indeed, the convergence in discourse and practices in women’s committees and women-only education with transformational leadership is striking.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 371)
Women’s leadership, then, does not just come about “naturally.” It is not a product of women’s nature or biological role. Rather, it grows from women’s particular position in the workplace, the union, the home and the community. And it grows from the fact that women react to their particular circumstances by coming together in women’s groups and activities and by organizing actively for change.
What can unions do to encourage women leadership?
If women’s leadership is a good thing for union women and for unions more generally because it provides transformational leadership, what can unions do to encourage more of it?
Briskin suggests that women’s leadership is effectively developed through women-only education, provided such education is transformational in design rather than based exclusively on the “deficit” model (education that assumes women are running on a deficit of skills and has as its primary focus skills-development, such as assertiveness training and training in union procedures). (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 371)
It is also essential for unions to support efforts by women to organize as a women’s constituency.
“Constituency organizing, sometimes called self- or separate organizing, and the caucuses and committees which emerge from it, also offer a space for the alternative socialization of women unionists which supports not only their entrance into union leadership, but also the development of transformational practices.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 372)
Most importantly, “The collectivity which emerges out of such organizing encourages women leaders to maintain transformational leadership practices inside the mainstream labour movement in the face of often conflicting pressures, and simultaneously demands accountability from them.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 373)
Building strong women constituencies within unions also allows the development of women leadership to be about more than getting more women into leadership positions. Organized women’s constituencies help keep the pressure on both women and men leaders to lead in a way that addresses the particular concerns of unions members in the workplace, as well as in the union. Organized women’s constituencies can also provide an on-going base of support for union that is inclusive of other equity-seeking groups, which inevitably will include large numbers of women.
J. Parker, who carried out research on women’s groups (WG) in two UK unions, found that they:
“left their mark on ‘softer’ organizational features by slowly transferring so-called ‘women-friendly’ . . . ways of working to the mainstream, particularly via individual WG women’s involvement in mainstream posts. Specific influences included working and interacting in more friendly, ‘open’, enthusiastic, relaxed and supportive ways; making greater use of informal links. . . These were reported to have positively affected branch and Council productivity, participation, and communication between lay activists and officials.” (Parker, J. (2003), “We’re on a Road to Somewhere, Women’s Groups in Unions”, Industrial Relations Journal, 34, 2, pp. 164-185)
Briskin suggests that while “revisioning union leadership practices” is part of the “actual” practice of women’s groups, unions could and should make transformation an “assigned” objective. That is, unions could and should explicitly encourage women’s groups to explore union reform, in addition (or as part of) the task of addressing women’s participation and representation. (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 373)
In summary
There is significant evidence that women and men have different approaches to union leadership. These differences do not arise from differences in their “nature.” Rather, they arise from the fact that women experience discrimination in all aspects of their lives. The discrimination they face as leaders forces them to adopt a style of leadership that is more collaborative and therefore in keeping with the stereotypical view of how women should behave. As well, women leaders adopt a more consultative and inclusive approach to leadership because such an approach allows them to compensate or counter-act their lack of power in union structures.
The evidence also shows that the characteristics and qualities of women’s leadership are similar to those associated with transformational leadership. Increasingly, such leadership is regarded as what is necessary for unions to be more effective. For example, transformational leadership is more likely to build strong support for the union among both union members and staff.
Unions that accept the critical importance of women leaders, not just for women but all union members, can encourage more women’s leadership by supporting women-only education and by giving women in the union opportunities to organize into women’s groups. Such groups create pressure on women and men leaders to lead in an inclusive and transformational way to the benefit of all members and the union as a whole.
List of References
Briskin, L. "Victimisation and Agency: The Social Construction of Union Women's Leadership", Industrial Relations Journal, 37, 4, July 2006, 359-378
Briskin, L. (1990), “Women, Unions and Leadership”, Canadian Dimension, 24, 1, 38-41
Clark, P.F. (2000), Building More Effective Unions (Ithaca, ILR Press)
Eagly, A. and B. Johnson (1990), “Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta Analysis”, Psychological Bulletin 108, 2, 233-256.
Eaton, S. (1993), “Women in Trade Union Leadership: How More Women can Become Leaders of Today’s and Tomorrow’s Unions”, in G. Adler and D. Suarez (eds), Union Voices, Labour’s Responses to Crisis (Albany, State University of NY Press) pp. 171-211.
F. Golgan and S. Ledwith (2000), Diversity, Identities and Strategies of Women Trade Union Activists”, Gender, Work and Organization, 7, 4, 242-257.
Parker, J. (2003), “We’re on a Road to Somewhere, Women’s Groups in Unions”, Industrial Relations Journal, 34, 2, 164-185.
Roesener, J. (1990), “Ways Women Lead”, Harvard Business Review, 68, 6, 199-225.
Sinclair, A. (1998), Doing Leadership Differently, Gender, Power and Sexuality in a Changing Business Culture (Melbourne, Melbourne University Press).
"Victimisation and Agency: The Social Construction of Union Women's Leadership". Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 359-378, July 2006
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=913115 or DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2338.2006.00409.x
Do women and men really lead differently?
Reviewing research from the UK, USA, Canada, Sweden and Australia, Linda Briskin writes, “Despite significant differences in union cultures and political contexts, what is striking is the repeated claim that women and men lead differently. Recurring themes emphasize democratic, collaborative, consultative and less aggressive styles.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 362)
Briskin’s own study of 60 Canadian women trade union leaders (Briskin, L. (1990), “Women, Unions and Leadership”, Canadian Dimension, 24, 1, pp. 38-41) suggests “a new politic of leadership…which emphasizes process and accountability, and which goes well beyond superficial style . . . [T]his politic . . . supports decentralization of the power traditionally associated with leadership positions . . . It is an inclusive rather than exclusive politic; it relies on participation more than on representation. It moves toward greater democracy and openness of union structures and decision making; it underscores accountability and operates on the basis of a strong and active link between leadership and constituency.”
It isn’t only in unions that researchers have found gender differences in leadership. Research on women leaders in the corporate world, for example, suggests that they will do things differently given the chance.
Briskin cites work by Sinclair that indicates “senior women draw on a distinctively different repertoire of strategies and tactics to influence than those identified from studies comprising men. Gender is an essential variable in understanding the range of strategies available, to, and effectively use by, senior executives.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 363 quoting Sinclair, A. (1998), Doing Leadership Differently, Gender, Power and Sexuality in a Changing Business Culture (Melbourne, Melbourne University Press), pp. 125-126.)
A 1990 article in the Harvard Business Review puts it this way: “women encourage participation, share power and information, enhance other people’s self worth, and get others excited about their work…” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 363 quoting Roesener, J. (1990), “Ways Women Lead”, Harvard Business Review, 68, 6, pp. 199-225.)
Why does women’s leadership matter?
Unions looking for ways to be more effective and better able to represent the growing number of women union members would do well to pay attention to the question of gender and leadership.
The research suggests that the women bring to leadership characteristics also associated with what has become known as “transformational” leadership—an approach to leadership that is being increasingly promoted as a key ingredient to union renewal. (See, for example, Paul F. Clark’s Building More Effective Unions (Ithaca, ILR Press, 2000).) These characteristics include being concerned with union members at a personal level, involving others in decision-making, being more concerned about collective than individual achievements, finding new and creative ways of dealing with problems, seeking out a diversity of opinions, and, most importantly, collectively developing a vision of the union’s future and finding ways to build commitment to that vision. (Clark, pp. 168-186)
In other words, building and developing women’s leadership should be embraced as a way forward for unions that want to grow in size and strength, and build power through membership involvement and the active inclusion of women and other equality-seeking groups.
Tokenism not a good idea
Furthermore, the research suggests that unions would do well to go well beyond token measures that result in only a minority of women in leadership positions. This is because women’s transformational leadership qualities are enhanced when they are present in sufficient numbers, and when their leadership is properly and appropriately valued. As Briskin reports (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 368):
“When women were quite rare in leadership roles and therefore tended to have the status of token in organizations or groups, they abandoned stereotypically feminine styles characterized by concern for the morale and welfare of people in the work setting and consideration of these people’s views when making decisions. These findings suggest that women may tend to lose authority if they adopt distinctively feminine styles of leadership in extremely male-dominated roles. Women who survive in such roles probably have to adopt the styles typical of male role occupants. “ (Eagly, A. and B. Johnson (1990), “Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta Analysis”, Psychological Bulletin 108, 2, pp. 233-256)
Not all women lead the same way
Briskin points out that while it is a common finding that women lead differently than men, it can not be said that all women lead the same way, nor can it be said that all women lead in the way they claim.
“Some hold that to succeed in the labour movement women have to be every bit as tough as the men. They have to as strong as the most macho male leaders . . . Some women prefer a more charismatic style of leadership. Others valued supportiveness and encouragement. Some are competitive with other women while others view women as natural allies and friends.” (Briskin, Victimisation, 364 citing Eaton, S. (1993), “Women in Trade Union Leadership, How More Women can Become Leaders of Today’s and Tomorrow’s Unions”, in G. Adler and D. Suarez (eds.), Union Voices, Labour’s Responses to Crisis (Albany, State University of NY Press) pp. 193-194.)
Briskin also notes that “gender . . . is not the only social identity which shapes leadership practice.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 364) Race-based gender expectations can play an important role, for example. Unfortunately, there is very little research on the leadership styles of different equity-seeking groups, despite the fact that people from these groups make-up an increasingly larger proportion of union members.
Gender differences are based in material differences
Unions are somewhat reluctant to accept that gender matters when it comes to leadership. For example, when this question was debated at the 2005 National Convention of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), numerous speakers (men and women) said that gender should not come into play in electing members to the union’s National Executive Board. The convention was debating whether or not to create five new Board positions to be filled by women elected by the entire convention. Several of those who opposed the measure argued that to create seats for women was to concede that women and men are not equal: that women are weaker and therefore require special help to get elected.
The concern voiced by these CUPE delegates--that agreeing to special seats for women on the union’s top leadership body only serves to reinforce the view that women are not men’s equals--is understandable.
After all, do unions not argue that women are just as capable as men and that to treat them otherwise is discriminatory?
Briskin helps answer that question by rooting differences in women and men leaders in their very different material experiences (their different income levels, their education, etc), rather than to attribute differences to the stereotyped view that women are naturally different. Women lead differently not because they are by nature more compassionate or less competitive, but rather because they live in a gendered world where men and women are treated differently in every respect.
“…grounding discussions of women’s approaches to leadership in a materialist framework helps avoid the hint—and dangers—of essentialism that pervade many approach supports a recognition of difference without reference to essentialist ideas that women are more nurturing, relational, emotional by nature.” (Briskin, Victimisation, 360.)
Why do women leaders lead differently?
Briskin suggests that two factors significantly contribute to the making of women union leaders: (1) the discrimination they experience in the workplace, the community, at home and in the union, and, (2) the practice of forming both formal and informal women constituencies within unions in response to that discrimination.
Discrimination contributes to women’s leadership development in several ways.
For one thing, discrimination motivates women to get involved in the union and eventually pursue leadership positions. “Negative experiences, usually of inequity, sexism and discrimination against women by employers, were powerful triggers to women becoming active as workplace representatives,” according to research by Colgan and Ledwith (F. Golgan and S. Ledwith (2000), Diversity, Identities and Strategies of Women Trade Union Activists”, Gender, Work and Organization, 7, 4, pp. 242-257 as quoted in Briskin, Victimisation, p. 369)
Discrimination also moulds how women behave as leaders. Briskin cites the work of Kanter who argued that “apparent sex differences in the behaviour of organizational leaders are in fact a product of the differing structural positions of the sexes within organizations. Because women are more often in position of little power or opportunity for advancement, they behave in ways that reflect their lack of power.” (Kanter (1977) as quoted by Eagly and Johnson.)
For example, women leaders adopt more consultative and inclusive approaches to leadership because such approaches are less threatening to those who have difficulty with women assuming leadership positions. As well, collaborative leadership strategies allow women leaders to build allies giving them the support and power required to get the job done. In other words, empowerment strategies help counter-act discrimination. As Briskin puts it, “ . . . transformational leadership is understood, to some extent, as a way to compensate for the problems women leaders face, a form of ‘gender management’.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 370).
Differences in leadership styles can’t be explained only by the fact that women are victims of discrimination, however. “Victimization” may “shape patterns of union women’s leadership,” writes Briskin, but, just as important, is “women’s pro-active resistance and organizing” through women-only union education and union women’s committees. “Indeed, the convergence in discourse and practices in women’s committees and women-only education with transformational leadership is striking.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 371)
Women’s leadership, then, does not just come about “naturally.” It is not a product of women’s nature or biological role. Rather, it grows from women’s particular position in the workplace, the union, the home and the community. And it grows from the fact that women react to their particular circumstances by coming together in women’s groups and activities and by organizing actively for change.
What can unions do to encourage women leadership?
If women’s leadership is a good thing for union women and for unions more generally because it provides transformational leadership, what can unions do to encourage more of it?
Briskin suggests that women’s leadership is effectively developed through women-only education, provided such education is transformational in design rather than based exclusively on the “deficit” model (education that assumes women are running on a deficit of skills and has as its primary focus skills-development, such as assertiveness training and training in union procedures). (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 371)
It is also essential for unions to support efforts by women to organize as a women’s constituency.
“Constituency organizing, sometimes called self- or separate organizing, and the caucuses and committees which emerge from it, also offer a space for the alternative socialization of women unionists which supports not only their entrance into union leadership, but also the development of transformational practices.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 372)
Most importantly, “The collectivity which emerges out of such organizing encourages women leaders to maintain transformational leadership practices inside the mainstream labour movement in the face of often conflicting pressures, and simultaneously demands accountability from them.” (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 373)
Building strong women constituencies within unions also allows the development of women leadership to be about more than getting more women into leadership positions. Organized women’s constituencies help keep the pressure on both women and men leaders to lead in a way that addresses the particular concerns of unions members in the workplace, as well as in the union. Organized women’s constituencies can also provide an on-going base of support for union that is inclusive of other equity-seeking groups, which inevitably will include large numbers of women.
J. Parker, who carried out research on women’s groups (WG) in two UK unions, found that they:
“left their mark on ‘softer’ organizational features by slowly transferring so-called ‘women-friendly’ . . . ways of working to the mainstream, particularly via individual WG women’s involvement in mainstream posts. Specific influences included working and interacting in more friendly, ‘open’, enthusiastic, relaxed and supportive ways; making greater use of informal links. . . These were reported to have positively affected branch and Council productivity, participation, and communication between lay activists and officials.” (Parker, J. (2003), “We’re on a Road to Somewhere, Women’s Groups in Unions”, Industrial Relations Journal, 34, 2, pp. 164-185)
Briskin suggests that while “revisioning union leadership practices” is part of the “actual” practice of women’s groups, unions could and should make transformation an “assigned” objective. That is, unions could and should explicitly encourage women’s groups to explore union reform, in addition (or as part of) the task of addressing women’s participation and representation. (Briskin, Victimisation, p. 373)
In summary
There is significant evidence that women and men have different approaches to union leadership. These differences do not arise from differences in their “nature.” Rather, they arise from the fact that women experience discrimination in all aspects of their lives. The discrimination they face as leaders forces them to adopt a style of leadership that is more collaborative and therefore in keeping with the stereotypical view of how women should behave. As well, women leaders adopt a more consultative and inclusive approach to leadership because such an approach allows them to compensate or counter-act their lack of power in union structures.
The evidence also shows that the characteristics and qualities of women’s leadership are similar to those associated with transformational leadership. Increasingly, such leadership is regarded as what is necessary for unions to be more effective. For example, transformational leadership is more likely to build strong support for the union among both union members and staff.
Unions that accept the critical importance of women leaders, not just for women but all union members, can encourage more women’s leadership by supporting women-only education and by giving women in the union opportunities to organize into women’s groups. Such groups create pressure on women and men leaders to lead in an inclusive and transformational way to the benefit of all members and the union as a whole.
List of References
Briskin, L. "Victimisation and Agency: The Social Construction of Union Women's Leadership", Industrial Relations Journal, 37, 4, July 2006, 359-378
Briskin, L. (1990), “Women, Unions and Leadership”, Canadian Dimension, 24, 1, 38-41
Clark, P.F. (2000), Building More Effective Unions (Ithaca, ILR Press)
Eagly, A. and B. Johnson (1990), “Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta Analysis”, Psychological Bulletin 108, 2, 233-256.
Eaton, S. (1993), “Women in Trade Union Leadership: How More Women can Become Leaders of Today’s and Tomorrow’s Unions”, in G. Adler and D. Suarez (eds), Union Voices, Labour’s Responses to Crisis (Albany, State University of NY Press) pp. 171-211.
F. Golgan and S. Ledwith (2000), Diversity, Identities and Strategies of Women Trade Union Activists”, Gender, Work and Organization, 7, 4, 242-257.
Parker, J. (2003), “We’re on a Road to Somewhere, Women’s Groups in Unions”, Industrial Relations Journal, 34, 2, 164-185.
Roesener, J. (1990), “Ways Women Lead”, Harvard Business Review, 68, 6, 199-225.
Sinclair, A. (1998), Doing Leadership Differently, Gender, Power and Sexuality in a Changing Business Culture (Melbourne, Melbourne University Press).
Union examples of addressing equality through education
Integrating
Equity, Addressing Barriers: Innovative Learning
Practices by Unions
A June 2007 Report issued by the Canadian Council on Learning.
Who faces barriers - in the workplace, in the union, in education and training? What can the union do differently once aware of these barriers? What results are achieved? Is there a broader impact within the union?
These are some of the questions answered in a new report prepared for the Canadian Council on Learning’s Work and Learning Knowledge Centre (WLKC) by the Labour Education Centre and the Centre for the Study of Education.
In seeking innovative learning practices, the project focused on union education programs that address systemic barriers related to class, age, gender, sexual orientation, race and cultural background, disability, literacy, language, lack of formal education as well as barriers faced by workers in small or remote areas, by part-time workers, by shift workers.
This report includes sketches of various Canadian labour education programs designed to increase participation of equality-seeking groups in the workplace, the community, the union and in education and training.
For example, you will find information on the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada’s Youth Internship Program; the Canadian Auto Workers’ Paid Education Leave Program; the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour’s Prairie School for Union Women; the Public Service Alliance of Canada’s Leadership Program; and the BC Federal of Labour’s Organizing Institute.
The report was prepared for the Canadian Council on Learning’s Work and Learning Knowledge Centre (WLKC) by the Labour Education Centre and the Centre for the Study of Education.
For a copy of the report in English, click here.
For a copy of the report in French, click here.
A June 2007 Report issued by the Canadian Council on Learning.
Who faces barriers - in the workplace, in the union, in education and training? What can the union do differently once aware of these barriers? What results are achieved? Is there a broader impact within the union?
These are some of the questions answered in a new report prepared for the Canadian Council on Learning’s Work and Learning Knowledge Centre (WLKC) by the Labour Education Centre and the Centre for the Study of Education.
In seeking innovative learning practices, the project focused on union education programs that address systemic barriers related to class, age, gender, sexual orientation, race and cultural background, disability, literacy, language, lack of formal education as well as barriers faced by workers in small or remote areas, by part-time workers, by shift workers.
This report includes sketches of various Canadian labour education programs designed to increase participation of equality-seeking groups in the workplace, the community, the union and in education and training.
For example, you will find information on the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada’s Youth Internship Program; the Canadian Auto Workers’ Paid Education Leave Program; the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour’s Prairie School for Union Women; the Public Service Alliance of Canada’s Leadership Program; and the BC Federal of Labour’s Organizing Institute.
The report was prepared for the Canadian Council on Learning’s Work and Learning Knowledge Centre (WLKC) by the Labour Education Centre and the Centre for the Study of Education.
For a copy of the report in English, click here.
For a copy of the report in French, click here.
How union workload blocks women leadership
Eight Days
a Week: How Union Workload Blocks Women's Leadership
in the Union Movement, by Adriane Paavo
Submitted as a thesis towards a Master of Arts degree from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (University of Toronto), Paavo's work explores the impact of union culture on women's participation in leadership positions.
In her thesis abstract, Paavo explains:
Unions have reduced the hours workers spend on the job. Ironically, many union leaders, in particular women, find union workload heavy and debilitating. Workload is a barrier to women's union leadership. Women are underrepresented in Canadian union leadership. The demanding workload of top union jobs results from the construction of unionism as men's work. The ideal union worker is an always-available, able-bodied white male. The organization of union work excludes women (and men) with primary responsibility for home/family or who have other rife priorities in addition to work. Unions' approach to workload resembles that of employers, thereby compromising union goals. Workload limits union democracy by limiting participation in decision-making. How can leadership, participation and commitment be re-conceptualized and practiced to reduce union workload and include more union members? How can workload be reduced to increase women's participation?
Based on the literature she reviewed and on her interviews with union members and leaders, Paavo puts forward a list of strategies and actions that unions could take to reduce workload. The broad categories for proposed change include:
--Changing the definition of the ideal union leader
--Challenging the male union career model
--Challenging the household division of labour.
With respect to changing our view of ideal union leader, Paavo suggests that we develop new standards by which to measure performance. For example, if leaders were measured by results rather than by the number of hours worked, there may be more openings for women to assume leadership positions. If leaders were expected to be effective in addition to being committed, "factors such as exercising more regularly, eating well, getting enough sleep, and protecting one's mental health" become more important.
To challenge the dominant (male) union career model, Paavo recommends models of shared leadership, and models of leading by sharing. "Job-sharing or collective forms of leadership in both paid and unpaid roles would help reduce workload and increase participation in leadership activities," writes Paavo. The concept of shared leadership, however, must go beyond position-sharing to widespread adoption of collective leadership practices. "Facilitative leadership," that fosters collective decision-making and collective practice "must be the basis for leadership education, policies for taff deployment, and current leaders' public behaviour."
Paavo also makes the controversial suggestion that term limits be placed on the holding of union office arguing that "Where union leadership has been traditionally male, long terms of office mean a slow change in the demographics. Women union leaders in Australia and Great Britain have seen term limits for both men and women as a means to give others the opportunity and to leave time for a private life to avoid burn-out."
Challenging the household division of labour is advanced as a necessary step to increasing women's participation in unions and in leadership but the task of winning changes in this area, writes Paavo, cannot be left to women to do alone. "If unions are to seriously increase women's access to leadership, they must lead a collective effort to redraw the division of household labour. As they have urged their members to change behaviour patterns by not buying sweat-shop-made goods or by not practising sexual or racial harassment, unions must urge their male members to take on an equal share of household and family work."
Click here to download a copy of an article by Adrian Paavo on the workload barriers to women's participation in union leadership.
01 Paavo Press
For a copy of the full thesis, contact OISE at the University of Toronto, or Adriane Paavo at the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union.
Submitted as a thesis towards a Master of Arts degree from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (University of Toronto), Paavo's work explores the impact of union culture on women's participation in leadership positions.
In her thesis abstract, Paavo explains:
Unions have reduced the hours workers spend on the job. Ironically, many union leaders, in particular women, find union workload heavy and debilitating. Workload is a barrier to women's union leadership. Women are underrepresented in Canadian union leadership. The demanding workload of top union jobs results from the construction of unionism as men's work. The ideal union worker is an always-available, able-bodied white male. The organization of union work excludes women (and men) with primary responsibility for home/family or who have other rife priorities in addition to work. Unions' approach to workload resembles that of employers, thereby compromising union goals. Workload limits union democracy by limiting participation in decision-making. How can leadership, participation and commitment be re-conceptualized and practiced to reduce union workload and include more union members? How can workload be reduced to increase women's participation?
Based on the literature she reviewed and on her interviews with union members and leaders, Paavo puts forward a list of strategies and actions that unions could take to reduce workload. The broad categories for proposed change include:
--Changing the definition of the ideal union leader
--Challenging the male union career model
--Challenging the household division of labour.
With respect to changing our view of ideal union leader, Paavo suggests that we develop new standards by which to measure performance. For example, if leaders were measured by results rather than by the number of hours worked, there may be more openings for women to assume leadership positions. If leaders were expected to be effective in addition to being committed, "factors such as exercising more regularly, eating well, getting enough sleep, and protecting one's mental health" become more important.
To challenge the dominant (male) union career model, Paavo recommends models of shared leadership, and models of leading by sharing. "Job-sharing or collective forms of leadership in both paid and unpaid roles would help reduce workload and increase participation in leadership activities," writes Paavo. The concept of shared leadership, however, must go beyond position-sharing to widespread adoption of collective leadership practices. "Facilitative leadership," that fosters collective decision-making and collective practice "must be the basis for leadership education, policies for taff deployment, and current leaders' public behaviour."
Paavo also makes the controversial suggestion that term limits be placed on the holding of union office arguing that "Where union leadership has been traditionally male, long terms of office mean a slow change in the demographics. Women union leaders in Australia and Great Britain have seen term limits for both men and women as a means to give others the opportunity and to leave time for a private life to avoid burn-out."
Challenging the household division of labour is advanced as a necessary step to increasing women's participation in unions and in leadership but the task of winning changes in this area, writes Paavo, cannot be left to women to do alone. "If unions are to seriously increase women's access to leadership, they must lead a collective effort to redraw the division of household labour. As they have urged their members to change behaviour patterns by not buying sweat-shop-made goods or by not practising sexual or racial harassment, unions must urge their male members to take on an equal share of household and family work."
Click here to download a copy of an article by Adrian Paavo on the workload barriers to women's participation in union leadership.
01 Paavo Press
For a copy of the full thesis, contact OISE at the University of Toronto, or Adriane Paavo at the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union.