Читать книгу Rural Women in Leadership - Lori Ann McVay - Страница 19

For rural women, this is also the case. Although among women’s agricultural organizations women leaders have been more able to develop their own style of leadership, this style has yet to become acceptable among the traditionally male-dominated agricultural organizations (Pini, 2005). Practical issues such as childcare and domestic duties typically remain their responsibility and are often overlooked by the dominant male group when organizing meeting times and places (Shortall, 2001; Pini, 2005). Further, women in leadership may be expected to function as men while maintaining the appearance of femininity (Maleta, 2009). Such situations highlight the precarious position of women leaders, which requires them to be constantly aware of behaving in neither too masculine nor too feminine a manner – a quandary Pini has labelled as being a member of ‘the third sex’ (Pini, 2005). In many organizations, this is compounded by the fact that a woman in leadership is treated as a novelty, which limits her credibility and political power (Shortall, 2001).

Reed (2005) sees such gendered structures as existing prior to agency, and therefore acting as constraints to those who would change them, but also attests that these structures have continuous potential for transformation. In this way, he acknowledges the difficulty of an either/or mindset in the structure/agency debate, and creates a space in which women who operate within traditional organizational discourses may find room to make the arduous journey into leadership. Emirbayer’s (1997) arguments concur, and go one step further by suggesting that factors influencing decisions can only be found by closely scrutinizing the many and varied social situations of the decision maker. McNay’s (1999, 2003) approach to the limitations of the structure/agency debate align most closely with the objectives of this study in her recognition of the negative tone within much structure/agency discourse, and her proposal to include – within discussions around subjectivity – positive movements of creative freedom in which subjects may exercise agency in unexpected ways, rather than limiting it exclusively to negative or constricting conceptions. Given the divided history of Northern Ireland, it has the potential to be seen in such a negative light.