Relocating Margaret Thatchers in the Workplace Essay

Working environments argon dimensions in which the singulars skills, talents and production capabilities be put into the test. The war-like agency manifested in corporate arenas continues to post a challenge to each and every individual. It is a legitimized jungle wherein plainly the strong remains and the weak perish. Thus, for every peel that is addressed, this spells sweet victory for the triumphant warrior. It is for this aspect that Karsten described the workplace a source of ones sense of self, power and prestige (162). As the individual continue to climb the corporate ladder, his or her sense of self, power and prestige (Karsten 162) continue to increase. This is most especially true in scenarios wherein leadinghip roles are pretended and performed. However, a critical examination shows that holding power, garnering respect and expressing authority aim exclusively remained in the hands of men. The opportunity to lead has been an exclusive right of males and women, des pite of the strong campaign to uphold existity, are continuously pushed to the periphery.Women leadership remains a critical issue in the corporate environment. Despite of the efforts to render equal opportunities to both men and women, the actions taken, remained futile. Women as leaders are still seen from a derogatory perspective. As Spade and Valentine described, work places are no less than gendered institutions that check under inequality regimes (341). downstairs this context, it can be argued that the so-called inequality regimes mentioned in this discussion, is no less than the hegemonic and oppressive patriarchal orientations that are highly manifested in various work spaces.Drawing on Dahrendorfs distri scarceion of power and authority (Lemell & Noll, 52), it is evident that many working environments deprive women from having equal chances or memory access to positions that demand an exercise of power and control. Also, power legitimacy as for the case of women leade rs are often questioned or blatantly ignored. While it is true that women have managed to acquire managerial positions, Ely et. al expressed that notwithstanding 1 % of these females are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or establishments (161). Likewise, Ely et.al mentioned that in terms of governmental positions and functions, only a small percentage of women can be observed. The seemingly under representation and to a certain extenttotal absence of women leaders in the corporate world is triggered by societys patriarchal culture. The practices seen in the business world reflect the manipulative and discriminating orientation of the patriarchal system. Under this context, societal roles and functions are highly determined by gender. Men are seen as the stronger sex whereas women are the exact opposite.Women are constantly confined into interior(prenominal) roles. They are mothers and wives whose values and worth are best exemplified in the bedroom and kitchen. Thus, their entries in to the workplace or business environments are often seen as a threat. In addition to that, this scenario highly contradicts the so-called normative behaviors (Ridge panache 223) of world. Leadership in business environments translates to performing firm decision, asserting authority and showing direct control, if necessary.Needless to say, these traits or characteristics are often played or portrayed by men. On the other hand, the idea of being a mere follower is relegated to women. Therefore, in the suit wherein a woman leader practices authority, utilizes power and make decisions, these scenario is immediately dismissed as a violation of the canonical norms not only of the workplace, but withal of the overall social structure (Ridgeway 223). The problem with women executives or leaders is that their socially-constructed roles are mixed with their corporate or work-related functions.The merit of their leadership skills and capabilities are based on how well they perform their ove rtly stereotyped duties and obligations. When women act like leaders, the patriarchal system immediately questions their efficiency via insisting the womens highly biased and gender-based tasks (Ridgeway 223). As Ridgeway stressed, women leaders are initially seen as a woman, thence a leader (223). Gender would always come first and leadership capabilities are only secondary. There are several ways in which women are prevented from acquiring leadership positions in the workplace.The first one is illustrated by the glass ceiling concept (Goethals & Burns 77). Under this context, women are blatantly deprived of acquiring leadership positions via unequal distribution of chances and opportunities (Goethals & Burns 77). This is despite of eliciting commendable work-related achievements and success. The glass ceiling acts as a barricade that prevents women from being hailed as managers and executives despite delivering good results and performances (Haslett, Geis & Carter 128).In additio n to that, it is also evident that women are placed into positions or departments in which they cannot maybe harness their leadership skills (Goethals, Sorenson & Burns 77). They are subjected into roles that do not engage into actual corporate management and decision making. Therefore, in the event in which women are recommended for promotions, their skills and experience readily lag behind. Or in such cases, a woman must shoulder the entire burden of exerting efforts and energy to prove themselves, but with no assurance that they will be selected.But then again even if some women were able to secure their positions on the corporate hierarchy, Goethal, Sorenson and Burns shared out that this is no less than a defense mechanism used to avoid accusations of gender discrimination and inequality (77). Aside from the glass ceiling, the persistence of the seemingly powerful old boy net (Goethals, Sorenson & Burns 77) is also instrumental in the under representation of women leaders. A critical examination of the old boy network clearly shows the strong attempt of men to protect their own interests (Sanchez et.al 240). There is the intention to keep power in the hands of the few and eat new players. This basically explains the degree of favoritism in promotions. Men often receive high preference compared to women not because they are better or to a greater extent productive. Instead, this is just a way to preserve the patriarchal rule. Since majority of senior executives are men, their power legitimacy is highly acknowledged and recognized. This kind of prestige is then used by males to control, manipulate and safeguard their interests.Thus, to ensure that their power and authority shall remain, these executives are more likely to choose male protegeesindividuals, who like them, present a common set of beliefs, ideologies and value systems. Lastly, the limited access of women to building social networks lessens their chances of being corporate leaders (Goethals , Sorenson & Burns 78). Goethals, Sorenson and Burns mentioned that informal gatherings is a way for women to connect with other individuals in the business organizations (78).It is through these activities that women can further improve their social and communication skillstwo of the most significant traits that leaders should acquire. However, these opportunities are hardly given to women. Other than obstructing women to create meaningful relationships and camaraderie, this scenario also inhibits females from having their own mentors and role models (Klenke 185). Mentors and role models serve as a support system. Through them, precious knowledge and insights are shared and transmitted. Mentoring relationships help potential leaders devise sound decisions and appropriate solutions.Unfortunately, this right is highly exclusive to men. The struggles and challenges faced by women leaders in the corporate system is yet another gender issue that should be readily addressed. Leadership roles should not be equated to gender-based functions. Equal rights and opportunities should be provided to both genders and should not be an exclusive privilege of men. It should be stressed and remembered that leadership efficiency is determined by skills and performances, never by gender. Works Cited Sanchez, Penny Philip Hucles Janis Sanchez-Hucles and Sanjay Mehta. change magnitude Diverse Women Leadership in Corporate America Climbing Concrete Walls and Shattering Glass Ceilings. Women and Leadership Transforming Visions and Diverse Voices Eds. Jean Lau Chin Bernice Lott Joy sift and Janis Sanchez-Hucles. Massachusetts Blackwell Publishing, 2007 Ely, Robin Erica Foldy Maureen Scully and The Center for Gender in Organizations Simmons School of Management. Reader in Gender, Work and Organization. Massachusetts Blackwell Publishing, 2003 Goethal, George Georgia Sorenson and James MacGregor Burns. Encyclopedia of Leadership. atomic number 20 Sage Publications Inc, 2004Haslett, Beth Florence Geis and Mae Carter. The Organizational Woman. New Jersey Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1992 Karsten, Margaret. Gender, Race and Ethnicity in the Workplace. Westport, CT Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 Klenke, Karin. Women Leadership. New York Springer Publishing Company, 1996 Lemell, Yannick and Heinz-Herbert Noll. Changing Structures of Inequality A Comparative Perspective. Canada Mc-Gill Queens University Press, 2002 Ridgeway, Cecilia. Gender Interaction and Inequality. New York Springer Verlag New York Inc. , 1992 Spade, Joan and Catherine Valentine. The Ka