An immediate concern that arises on reviewing these ten CIAR projects, is that all these seem to revolve around women’s needs. Some had the aim of addressing the conflicts experienced by working mothers (Abarca, 2006a; Baird & Charlesworth, 2006; Ross-Smith, 2006); whilst others tried to address the issue of lack of women in decision-making positions (Bronznick et al., 2006a, Bronznick et al., 2006b; Harrington & Hsi, 2006; Bourke & Russell, 2006; Blake-Beard et al., Fletcher & Holvino, 2006). Thus it becomes immediately clear that men did not focus much in these projects.
Projects which focused on working mothers’ experience include the interventions carried out in two Chilean organisations, the El Mercurio newspaper and the Santander Bank (Abarca 2006a, 2006b). Following the CIAR process, interventions at El Mercurio led to the granting of flexitime arrangements following maternity leave and a free afternoon each month to mothers. Working mothers were also allowed to attend to their sick children’s needs and could make use of unpaid leave in more pressing situations (Abarca, 2006a, p.1). In the other known case from Chile (the Santander Bank), the
55
interventions, in theory, looked as though they were more open to both women and men and the flexitime arrangements could be used by all employees - as long as these were approved by the supervisors (Abarca, 2006b). These were however limited to Fridays (called Super Fridays). This suggests that control was still left in the hands of supervisors and unlike the ‘Xerox’ experiment, workers were not trusted to make the final decisions regarding their work schedules. Furthermore, the idea that workers could only adjust their starting and finishing times on Fridays, gives a rather limited definition to flexibility. In hindsight, it is difficult to assess how such interventions could have brought systemic changes to the underlying values about work and life (Kolb et. al, 1998). Rather than challenging the gendered assumptions about women’s and men’s role in work and life, these interventions seem to reinforce women’s caring and mothering roles.
In two Australian CIAR projects carried out by the same researchers at UtilityCo (pseudonym-public organisation) and at ManuCo (pseudonym-manufacturing company), the focus of the project was also related to “women’s experience at work and to their ability to combine work and family” (Baird & Charlesworth, 2006, p4). At ManuCo, the focus was on “maternity leave policies, incorporating the before, during and after maternity leave experience.” Here, the CIAR interventions included the development of a policy around quality part- time work, and how to address “cultural issues in engineering and manufacturing” (Baird & Charlesworth, 2006 p.4). Although some men were involved in the research process, most of the interactions during this study were with women in the organisation. It was noted that many male managers
56
resisted the findings that came out of the CIAR project, whilst employees (mostly females), welcomed the research (Baird & Charlesworth 2006). In both cases, evaluations on the impact of these CIAR projects on the workers or the organisation were not available.
A third Australian CIAR project carried out in a company operating in the Legal Services was also woman centric and interventions there led to the establishment of family-friendly policies (parental leave, flexibility guidelines childcare pilot programmes) and to coaching, mentoring and training programmes for women who were under-represented at partnership level (Bourke & Russell, 2006). Commenting on another study in one of the Big Four accounting firms in Australia which had the aim of “creating the best professional workplace for women” (Kornberger, Carter, & Ross-Smith, 2010, p.1), the researchers describe the ‘Dual Agenda’ as an “utopia” which takes a “neo-liberal” approach in order to resolve some of the contradictions that capitalism brings with it (Kornberger, et al., 2010, p.14). Here, they found that rather than bringing the desired changes, this “in practice, translated into a mechanism that actually reinforced gender barriers.” This project was still underway in 2006 (see Ross-Smith, Kornberger & Stilin, 2006) but a paper was subsequently published by Kornberger, et al., in 2010 following this CIAR project.
The four CIAR projects carried out in the USA (Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services - JBFCS; United Jewish Communities - UJC; Legal firm in Massachusetts; Teaching hospital in Boston) likewise, all focused around
57
women’s problems in reaching leadership position, although in the JBFCS case it was later extended to workplace flexibility (Bronznick et al., 2006a; Bronznick et al., 2006b). In the UJC case, the representation of women rose and 50% of candidates were women, however, it was noted that progress on work-life integration was slow and there was still resistance to institutionalising flexible work arrangements (Bronznick et al., 2006a, p. 4 Bourke & Russell, 2006; Blake-Beard et al., Fletcher & Holvino, 2006).
Without exception, the ten projects reviewed above are more in line with Kolb et. al’s (1998) first, second and third frames and there is less evidence that these brought fundamental or systemic changes in line with the fourth approach. This is because, whilst in most cases women were given help to cope with their dual roles or to progress in their career, there was little tangible evidence that ideal worker norms were challenged or changed. Considering that men generally occupy top posts in most organisations and considering their role as gate keepers or as potential facilitators of change (Connell, 2003) it is pertinent to ask where men fit in the dual agenda process.