Ideal worker values are largely built around men’s roles and stereotypical male values (Acker, 1990) although these may differ according to time and place and not all men will hold the same values (Khan, 2009). Being key stakeholders in many organisations (Connell, 2003) it is legitimate to ask whether men can ever
58
feel part of change processes if the focus of many CIAR projects revolves mostly around women’s problems. Some theorists, rather pessimistically, warn that “gender and change do not go together” and that in a change process there are no simple answers but many hurdles and impediments (Benschop, Helms- Mills and Tiernari, 2012, p.2).
The lesson learnt from these CIAR projects shows that if gender equality is automatically linked to women’s issues, these are likely to leave the underlying ideal worker assumptions and the Single Agenda logic intact. Consequently if FWAs are presented as a solution to stressed-out mothers, does this not imply that men who use them are departing from the blueprints of manhood and ideal worker norms? The automatic question that arises is how can men integrate paid work with their personal lives without getting punished or labelled negatively for doing so? What can make them transcend the safe but restricting ideal worker parameters in order to integrate work and life? This question is tackled in this research and is a legitimate question to ask if we are truly looking for systemic change that goes beyond the normal rhetoric of gender equality at work. Interestingly, researchers in the Xerox project were “specifically asked not to talk about gender equity” as this was seen as too provocative. Instead the focus was on “redesigning work to make it easier for employees to integrate their work with their personal lives” (Bailyn, 2011 pg. 6). All this suggests that CIAR projects where gender equity was over emphasised or was linked exclusively to women, the results were rather limiting.
59
A similar approach to CIAR and Dual Agenda projects which promotes work-life integration without overtly emphasising the gender focus, are interventions which are based on the Results Only Work Environment (ROWE). ROWE projects are “strategically framed as a smart business move” for fear that “gender or work-family framing would lead to the initiative’s margination” (Kelly, Ammons, Chermack, & Moen, 2010, p.285). This concept was developed by Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson in the United States in 2003. The idea behind ROWE is to challenge traditional concepts about the organisation of work, like the long hour culture and the “visible busyness…..as signs of commitment and productivity” (Ressler, & Thompson, 2008, p.3). Instead ROWE interventions promote the idea that workers can do “whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as the work gets done” (Ressler, & Thompson, 2008, p.3). Here the focus is on output rather than time spent at work.
There are considerable differences in the implementation time-frames and the expediency with which ROWE projects can be implemented when compared to CIAR projects, which tend to be lengthy and complicated (Ross-Smith et al., 2006; Montgomery, Panagopoulou & Lemonis, 2006). By contrast, at the team level, ROWE can be implemented “with four participatory sessions and a manager’s orientation session lasting about six hours” (Kelly, et al., 2010, p. 284). However, when probed further about the short time frames, Shelly Sorenson who is a Manager at ROWE, claimed that the length on interventions depends on the size of the company, and interventions can vary from three months for smaller companies to two years plus for larger companies (personal communication, November 12, 2012). This suggests that things are not always
60
clear cut and that implementing change offers many challenges even when using ROWE.
Concerning the success rate of ROWE projects, Moen, Kelly and Hill (2011) claim that regardless of the employees’ gender, age, or their stage in the life course, ROWE reduces work-family conflict and time pressure. It also reduces turnover and slows down the turnover rate. In spite of this, Kelly et al., (2010) sadly note that the response to ROWE is gendered, with women, but especially mothers, embracing the ROWE flexible work options, whilst men tend to remain more hesitant to do so. Theorists argue that in order to bring about change in people’s assumptions regarding gender and work-life issues, there is a need to create “new stories and metaphors” (Smithson and Stokoe, 2005, p.151). So, whilst the ROWE approach may give more instant results, the iterative nature of CIAR and Dual Agenda projects, is more likely to allow new stories and metaphors to develop. This can happen during the face-to-face interviews and the feedback sessions, where participants will not only have time to speak out, but where their underlying assumptions can be challenged and discussed in more detail. This close interaction between the researcher and participants across all levels of the hierarchy has more potential to bring about change in gendered organisations (Leinonen, 2012). Furthermore, the CIAR approach allows one to understand the complex micro-dynamic processes at play in gendered organisations and to theorise about them.
Hence, this action research project offers an excellent opportunity to look at the issue of gendered organisations in a different and rather extreme context. This
61
study is different because women will not be the focus of this study, and the aim is not improve gender equity for them. Here the focus is on systemic change that has the potential of challenging the Single Agenda logic and replacing it with a different logic that promotes work-life integration (Dual Agenda logic) in a very specific context (that of Malta which can be considered as an extreme case in terms of gender inequality at work).
Understanding the multiple layers of context is fundamental for recognising the various interlinking forces that are at play when discussing gender related matters and work (Lewis & Den Dulk, 2008; Kamenou, 2008). When doing action research, Coghlan and Brannick, (2010) specifically suggest that we also look at the internal context (the cultural and structural forces) as well as the external context (for example the economic, political and social forces) at play. In line with these suggestions, in the next chapter I amplify on the internal and external context of this study. Here I look at the relation between gender and work in Malta and analyse the ICT sector through the gender lens. I also take note of the economic uncertainty surrounding the world of business and explore how the current recession may affect work-life issues.
62