248 CHAPTER 12 Public Speaking Preparation and Delivery (Steps.docx

248 CHAPTER 12 Public Speaking Preparation and Delivery
(Steps 7–10)
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CULTURE SHOCKED?
Thesis: Culture shock can be described in four stages.
Purpose: To inform my audience of the four phases of cul-
ture shock.
INTRODUCTION
I. How many of you have experienced culture shock?
A. Many people experience culture shock, a reac-
tion to being in a culture very different from
what they were used to.
B. By understanding culture shock, you’ll be in a bet-
ter position to deal with it if and when it happens.
II. Culture shock occurs in four stages (Oberg, 1960).
A. The Honeymoon occurs first.
B. The Crisis occurs second.
C. The Recovery occurs third.
D. The Adjustment occurs fourth.
[Let’s follow the order in which these four stages occur
beginning with the first stage, the honeymoon.]
BODY

I. The Honeymoon occurs first.
A. The Honeymoon is the period of fascination
with the new people and culture.
B. You enjoy the people and the culture.
1. You love the people.
a. For example, the people in Zaire spend
their time very differently from the way
New Yorkers do.
b. For example, my first 18 years living on
a farm was very different from life in a
college dorm.
2. You love the culture.
a. The great number of different religions
in India fascinated me.
b. Eating was an especially great experience.
[But like many relationships, contact with a new culture is
not all honeymoon; soon there comes a crisis.]
II. The Crisis occurs second.
A. The Crisis is the period when you begin to expe-
rience problems.
1. One-third of American workers abroad fail
because of culture shock (Samovar, Porter, &
McDaniel, 2008).
2. The personal difficulties are also great.

Generally, the title, thesis, and purpose of the speech are
prefaced to the outline. When the outline is an assignment
that is to be handed in, additional information may be
required.
Note the general format for the outline; the headings are
clearly labeled, and the indenting helps you see the rela-
tionship between the items. For example, in introduction II,
the outline format helps you to see that A, B, C, and D are
explanations for II.
Note that the introduction, body, and conclusion are
clearly labeled and separated visually.
Although the speaker assumes that the audience is famil-
iar with culture shock, he or she still includes a brief defini-
tion in case some audience members don’t know what it is
and to refresh the memory of others.
Note that references are integrated throughout the outline,
just as they would be in a term paper. In the actual speech,
the speaker might say, “Anthropologist Kalervo Oberg, who
coined the term culture shock, said it occurs in four stages.”
The introduction serves two functions: It gains attention by
involving the audience and by stressing the importance of
the topic in the audience’s desire to gain self-understanding,
and it orients the audience to what is to follow. This partic-
ular orientation identifies both the number and the names
of the stages. If this speech were much longer and more
complex, this orientation might also have included brief
definitions of each stage.
Another function often served by the introduction is to es-
tablish a relationship among yourself as the speaker, the
topic, and the audience. In this particular speech, this func-
tion might have been served by your telling the audience
how you experienced culture shock and how knowing the
stages helped you cope with the difficulties. You might then
tell the audience that the same would be true for them and
thus connect all three major elements of the speech.
The transition at the end of the introduction tells the audi-

ence to expect a four-part presentation. Also, the numbers
repeated throughout the outline will further aid the audi-
ence in keeping track of where you are in the speech. Most
important, the transition tells the audience that the speech
will follow a temporal thought pattern.
Notice the parallel structure throughout the outline. For
example, note that I, II, III, and IV in the body are all
phrased in exactly the same way. Although this may seem
unnecessarily repetitive, it will help your audience follow
your speech more closely and will also help you structure
your thoughts logically.
Notice that there are lots of examples in this speech.
These examples are identified only briefly in the outline
and would naturally be elaborated on in the speech.
When you cite a specific fact, some style manuals require
that you include the page number in the source reference.
The Public Speaking Sample Assistant
THE PREPARATION OUTLINE
Here is a relatively detailed preparation outline similar to the
outline you might prepare when
constructing your speech. The side notes should clarify both the
content and the format of a
preparation outline.
6914_Ch12_pp239-265.qxd 11/16/09 1:17 PM Page 248
Step 8: Construct Your Conclusion and Introduction 249
B. Life becomes difficult in the new culture.
1. Communication is difficult.

2. It’s easy to offend people without realizing it.
[As you gain control over the various crises, you begin to
recover.]
III. The Recovery occurs third.
A. The Recovery is the period when you learn how
to cope.
B. You begin to learn intercultural competence
(Lustig & Koester, 2010).
1. You learn how to communicate.
a. Being able to go to the market and make
my wants known was a great day for me.
b. I was able to ask for a date.
2. You learn the rules of the culture.
a. The different religious ceremonies each
have their own rules.
b. Eating is a ritual experience in lots of
places throughout Africa.
[Your recovery leads naturally into the next and final
stage, the adjustment.]
IV. The Adjustment occurs fourth.
A. The adjustment is the period when you come to
enjoy the new culture.

B. You come to appreciate the people and the culture.
[Let me summarize, then, the stages you go through in expe-
riencing culture shock.]
CONCLUSION
I. Culture shock can be described in four stages.
A. The Honeymoon is first.
B. The Crisis is second.
C. The Recovery is third.
D. The Adjustment is fourth.
II. By knowing the four stages, you can better under-
stand the culture shock you may now be experienc-
ing on the job, at school, or in your private life.
REFERENCES
Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2010). Intercultural competence:
Interpersonal communication across cultures (6th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cul-
tural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177–182.
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2008).
Communication between cultures, 6th ed. Belmont, CA:
Cengage.
This reference list includes only those sources that appear
in the completed speech.
Notice, too, the internal organization of each major point.

Each main assertion in the body contains a definition of
the stage (I.A, II.A, III.A, and IV.A) and examples (I.B, II.B,
III.B, and IV.B) to illustrate the stage.
Note that each statement in the outline is a complete sen-
tence. You can easily convert this outline into a phrase or
key word outline to use in delivery. The full sentences,
however, will help you see relationships among items
more clearly.
Transitions are inserted between all major parts of the
speech. Although they may seem too numerous in this ab-
breviated outline, they will be appreciated by your audi-
ence because the transitions will help them follow your
speech.
Notice that these four points correspond to II.A, B, C, and
D of the introduction and to I, II, III, and IV of the body.
Notice how the similar wording adds clarity.
This step provides closure; it makes it clear that the speech
is finished. It also serves to encourage reflection on the
part of the audience as to their own experience of culture
shock.
The Public Speaking Sample Assistant (continued)
6914_Ch12_pp239-265.qxd 11/16/09 1:17 PM Page 249
From Wage Labour and CapitalKarl Marx
What are Wages?
How are they Determined?
If several workmen were to be asked: "How much wages do you

get?", one would reply, "I get two shillings a day", and so on.
According to the different branches of industry in which they
are employed, they would mention different sums of money that
they receive from their respective employers for the completion
of a certain task; for example, for weaving a yard of linen, or
for setting a page of type. Despite the variety of their
statements, they would all agree upon one point: that wages are
the amount of money which the capitalist pays for a certain
period of work or for a certain amount of work.
Consequently, it appears that the capitalist buys their labour
with money, and that for money they sell him their labour. But
this is merely an illusion. What they actually sell to the
capitalist for money is their labour-power. This labour-power
the capitalist buys for a day, a week, a month, etc. And after he
has bought it, he uses it up by letting the worker labour during
the stipulated time. With the same amount of money with which
the capitalist has bought their labour-power (for example, with
two shillings) he could have bought a certain amount of sugar or
of any other commodity. The two shillings with which he
bought 20 pounds of sugar is the price of the 20 pounds of
sugar. The two shillings with which he bought 12 hours' use of
labour-power, is the price of 12 hours' labour. Labour-power,
then, is a commodity, no more, no less so than is the sugar. The
first is measured by the clock, the other by the scales.
Their commodity, labour-power, the workers exchange for the
commodity of the capitalist, for money, and, moreover, this
exchange takes place at a certain ratio. So much money for so
long a use of labour-power. For 12 hours' weaving, two
shillings. And these two shillings, do they not represent all the
other commodities which I can buy for two shillings? Therefore,
actually, the worker has exchanged his commodity, labour-
power, for commodities of all kinds, and, moreover, at a certain
ratio. By giving him two shillings, the capitalist has given him
so much meat, so much clothing, so much wood, light, etc., in
exchange for his day's work. The two shillings therefore express
the relation in which labour-power is exchanged for other

commodities, the exchange-value of labour-power.
The exchange value of a commodity estimated in money is
called its price. Wages therefore are only a special name for the
price of labour-power, and are usually called the price of
labour; it is the special name for the price of this peculiar
commodity, which has no other repository than human flesh and
blood.
Let us take any worker; for example, a weaver. The capitalist
supplies him with the loom and yarn. The weaver applies
himself to work, and the yarn is turned into cloth. The capitalist
takes possession of the cloth and sells it for 20 shillings, for
example. Now are the wages of the weaver a share of the cloth,
of the 20 shillings, of the product of the work? By no means.
Long before the cloth is sold, perhaps long before it is fully
woven, the weaver has received his wages. The capitalist, then,
does not pay his wages out of the money which he will obtain
from the cloth, but out of money already on hand. Just as little
as loom and yarn are the product of the weaver to whom they
are supplied by the employer, just so little are the commodities
which he receives in exchange for his commodity – labour-
power – his product. It is possible that the employer found no
purchasers at all for the cloth. It is possible that he did not get
even the amount of the wages by its sale. It is possible that he
sells it very profitably in proportion to the weaver's wages. But
all that does not concern the weaver. With a part of his existing
wealth, of his capital, the capitalist buys the labour-power of
the weaver in exactly the same manner as, with another part of
his wealth, he has bought the raw material – the yarn – and the
instrument of labour – the loom. After he has made these
purchases, and among them belongs the labour-power necessary
to the production of the cloth he produces only with raw
materials and instruments of labour belonging to him. For our
good weaver, too, is one of the instruments of labour, and being
in this respect on a par with the loom, he has no more share in
the product (the cloth), or in the price of the product, than the
loom itself has.

Wages, therefore, are not a share of the worker in the
commodities produced by himself. Wages are that part of
already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys a
certain amount of productive labour-power.
Consequently, labour-power is a commodity which its
possessor, the wage-worker, sells to the capitalist. Why does he
sell it? It is in order to live.
But the putting of labour-power into action – i.e., the work – is
the active expression of the labourer's own life. And this life
activity he sells to another person in order to secure the
necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a
means of securing his own existence. He works that he may
keep alive. He does not count the labour itself as a part of his
life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he
has auctioned off to another. The product of his activity,
therefore, is not the aim of his activity. What he produces for
himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the gold that he draws
up the mining shaft, not the palace that he builds. What he
produces for himself is wages; and the silk, the gold, and the
palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of
necessaries of life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper
coins, and into a basement dwelling. And the labourer who for
12 hours long, weaves, spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels,
breaks stone, carries hods, and so on – is this 12 hours'
weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building, shovelling, stone-
breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life, as life?
Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity
ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours' work, on
the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning,
boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit
down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in
a bed. If the silk-worm's object in spinning were to prolong its
existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a
wage-worker.
Labour-power was not always a commodity (merchandise).
Labour was not always wage-labour, i.e., free labour. The slave

did not sell his labour-power to the slave-owner, any more than
the ox sells his labour to the farmer. The slave, together with
his labour-power, was sold to his owner once for all. He is a
commodity that can pass from the hand of one owner to that of
another. He himself is a commodity, but his labour-power is not
his commodity. The serf sells only a portion of his labour-
power. It is not he who receives wages from the owner of the
land; it is rather the owner of the land who receives a tribute
from him. The serf belongs to the soil, and to the lord of the
soil he brings its fruit. The free labourer, on the other hand,
sells his very self, and that by fractions. He auctions off eight,
10, 12, 15 hours of his life, one day like the next, to the highest
bidder, to the owner of raw materials, tools, and the means of
life – i.e., to the capitalist. The labourer belongs neither to an
owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his daily
life belong to whomsoever buys them. The worker leaves the
capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses,
and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon
as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him.
But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his
labour-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the
capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does
not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class;
and it is for him to find his man – i.e., to find a buyer in this
capitalist class.
Before entering more closely upon the relation of capital to
wage-labour, we shall present briefly the most general
conditions which come into consideration in the determination
of wages.
Wages, as we have seen, are the price of a certain commodity,
labour-power. Wages, therefore, are determined by the same
laws that determine the price of every other commodity. The
question then is, How is the price of a commodity determined?
Relation of Wage-Labour to Capital
What is it that takes place in the exchange between the
capitalist and the wage-labourer?

The labourer receives means of subsistence in exchange for his
labour-power; the capitalist receives, in exchange for his means
of subsistence, labour, the productive activity of the labourer,
the creative force by which the worker not only replaces what
he consumes, but also gives to the accumulated labour a greater
value than it previously possessed. The labourer gets from the
capitalist a portion of the existing means of subsistence. For
what purpose do these means of subsistence serve him? For
immediate consumption. But as soon as I consume means of
subsistence, they are irrevocably lost to me, unless I employ the
time during which these means sustain my life in producing new
means of subsistence, in creating by my labour new values in
place of the values lost in consumption. But it is just this noble
reproductive power that the labourer surrenders to the capitalist
in exchange for means of subsistence received. Consequently,
he has lost it for himself.
Let us take an example. For one shilling a labourer works all
day long in the fields of a farmer, to whom he thus secures a
return of two shillings. The farmer not only receives the
replaced value which he has given to the day labourer, he has
doubled it. Therefore, he has consumed the one shilling that he
gave to the day labourer in a fruitful, productive manner. For
the one shilling he has bought the labour-power of the day-
labourer, which creates products of the soil of twice the value,
and out of one shilling makes two. The day-labourer, on the
contrary, receives in the place of his productive force, whose
results he has just surrendered to the farmer, one shilling, which
he exchanges for means of subsistence, which he consumes
more or less quickly. The one shilling has therefore been
consumed in a double manner – reproductively for the
capitalist, for it has been exchanged for labour-power, which
brought forth two shillings; unproductively for the worker, for
it has been exchanged for means of subsistence which are lost
for ever, and whose value he can obtain again only by repeating
the same exchange with the farmer. Capital therefore
presupposes wage-labour; wage-labour presupposes capital.

They condition each other; each brings the other into existence.
Does a worker in a cotton factory produce only cotton? No. He
produces capital. He produces values which serve anew to
command his work and to create by means of it new values.
Capital can multiply itself only by exchanging itself for labour-
power, by calling wage-labour into life. The labour-power of
the wage-labourer can exchange itself for capital only by
increasing capital, by strengthening that very power whose
slave it is. Increase of capital, therefore, is increase of the
proletariat, i.e., of the working class.
And so, the bourgeoisie and its economists maintain that the
interest of the capitalist and of the labourer is the same. And in
fact, so they are! The worker perishes if capital does not keep
him busy. Capital perishes if it does not exploit labour-power,
which, in order to exploit, it must buy. The more quickly the
capital destined for production – the productive capital –
increases, the more prosperous industry is, the more the
bourgeoisie enriches itself, the better business gets, so many
more workers does the capitalist need, so much the dearer does
the worker sell himself. The fastest possible growth of
productive capital is, therefore, the indispensable condition for
a tolerable life to the labourer.
But what is growth of productive capital? Growth of the power
of accumulated labour over living labour; growth of the rule of
the bourgeoisie over the working class. When wage-labour
produces the alien wealth dominating it, the power hostile to it,
capital, there flow back to it its means of employment – i.e., its
means of subsistence, under the condition that it again become a
part of capital, that is become again the lever whereby capital is
to be forced into an accelerated expansive movement.
To say that the interests of capital and the interests of the
workers are identical, signifies only this: that capital and wage-
labour are two sides of one and the same relation. The one
conditions the other in the same way that the usurer and the
borrower condition each other.

As long as the wage-labourer remains a wage-labourer, his lot is
dependent upon capital. That is what the boasted community of
interests between worker and capitalists amounts to.
If capital grows, the mass of wage-labour grows, the number of
wage-workers increases; in a word, the sway of capital extends
over a greater mass of individuals.
Let us suppose the most favorable case: if productive capital
grows, the demand for labour grows. It therefore increases the
price of labour-power, wages.
A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring
houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for
a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace,
and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes
it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain,
or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot
up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises
in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the
relatively little house will always find himself more
uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four
walls.
An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of
productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls
forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs
and social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the
labourer have increased, the social gratification which they
afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of
the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in
comparison with the stage of development of society in general.
Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we
therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not
measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their
gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a
relative nature.
But wages are not at all determined merely by the sum of
commodities for which they may be exchanged. Other factors
enter into the problem. What the workers directly receive for

their labour-power is a certain sum of money. Are wages
determined merely by this money price?
In the 16th century, the gold and silver circulation in Europe
increased in consequence of the discovery of richer and more
easily worked mines in America. The value of gold and silver,
therefore, fell in relation to other commodities. The workers
received the same amount of coined silver for their labour-
power as before. The money price of their work remained the
same, and yet their wages had fallen, for in exchange for the
same amount of silver they obtained a smaller amount of other
commodities. This was one of the circumstances which
furthered the growth of capital, the rise of the bourgeoisie, in
the 18th century.
Let us take another case. In the winter of 1847, in consequence
of bad harvest, the most indispensable means of subsistence –
grains, meat, butter, cheese, etc. – rose greatly in price. Let us
suppose that the workers still received the same sum of money
for their labour-power as before. Did not their wages fall? To be
sure. For the same money they received in exchange less bread,
meat, etc. Their wages fell, not because the value of silver was
less, but because the value of the means of subsistence had
increased.
Finally, let us suppose that the money price of labour-power
remained the same, while all agricultural and manufactured
commodities had fallen in price because of the employment of
new machines, of favorable seasons, etc. For the same money
the workers could now buy more commodities of all kinds.
Their wages have therefore risen, just because their money
value has not changed.
The money price of labour-power, the nominal wages, do not
therefore coincide with the actual or real wages – i.e., with the
amount of commodities which are actually given in exchange
for the wages. If then we speak of a rise or fall of wages, we
have to keep in mind not only the money price of labour-power,
the nominal wages, but also the real wages.

But neither the nominal wages – i.e., the amount of money for
which the labourer sells himself to the capitalist – nor the real
wages – i.e., the amount of commodities which he can buy for
this money – exhausts the relations which are comprehended in
the term wages.
Wages are determined above all by their relations to the gain,
the profit, of the capitalist. In other words, wages are a
proportionate, relative quantity.
Real wages express the price of labour-power in relation to the
price of commodities; relative wages, on the other hand, express
the share of immediate labour in the value newly created by it,
in relation to the share of it which falls to accumulated labour,
to capital.
Management, Women and
Gender Capitalgwao_523 547..566
Anne Ross-Smith* and Kate Huppatz
A generation of women have sustained careers in senior
management. We
use Bourdieu’s concepts of field together with contemporary
feminist
interpretations of embodied cultural capital to analyse a group
of such
women’s narratives of their own managerial experiences. We
extend femi-
nist analyses of gender capital and argue it may be an important
cultural
resource by which women develop and sustain their careers in
senior
management. Drawing on selected findings of an empirical
study of senior
managers in Australian organizations and a recent theoretical

analysis
of women’s narratives using Bourdieu and feminist
interpretations of
Bourdieu, we examine whether women wield gender capital in
the man-
agement field. We propose that gender capital, as articulated in
contempo-
rary feminist theory, provides an unexplored but potentially
powerful
explanatory mechanism for furthering our understanding of the
complex
and different ways the presence of women in senior managerial
roles may
shape contemporary management discourses and practices.
Keywords: Bourdieu, management, gender capital, field
Introduction
Management is not a feminized occupation. Unlike professions
such asnursing and teaching and particular organizational
subunits such as
human resources and public relations, where women
predominate numeri-
cally, men still outnumber women, especially in the ranks of
senior manage-
ment. Notwithstanding their lack of numerical dominance,
women have
increased their representation in the ranks of senior
management in the last
three decades. Indeed, a generation of women who have made it
to this level
of management has reached retirement age. This means that a
generation of
women have successfully sustained careers beyond the glass
ceiling and

overcome other differential barriers to advancement such as the
glass walls —
Address for correspondence: *Director of Graduate Studies,
Faculty of Business and Economics.
Macquarie University, NSW 2109 Australia, e-mail:
[email protected]
Gender, Work and Organization. Vol. 17 No. 5 September 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
areas of the organization that do not traditionally lead to senior
management
(Jackson, 2001) and the glass cliff — the preferential placement
of women in
leadership roles associated with an increased risk of negative
consequences
(Ryan and Haslam, 2005). There has been a plethora of research
on the
barriers to women’s advancement in management but less
empirical research
has concentrated on women who have spent prolonged periods
of time in
senior managerial roles. This is despite the fact that in some
organizations,
such as those involved in the empirical research we discuss in
this article,
women hold at least 30 per cent of senior management roles.
The article draws upon French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s
concept of
‘field’ and feminist interpretations of Bourdieu’s concepts of
‘embodied cul-
tural capital’ to examine the managerial experiences of a group

of such
women. Feminist writers have both critiqued and developed
Bourdieu’s
ideas over the last 20 years or so (see, for example, Butler,
1999; Huppatz,
2009; Lovell, 2000; McCall, 1992; McLeod, 2005; McNay,
1999, 2000;
Dillabough, 2004; Silva, 2005; Skeggs, 1997). Mainstream
organization studies
have also used Bourdieu’s ideas in limited ways (see, for
example, Everett,
2002; Iellatchitch et al., 2003; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;
Oakes et al., 1998;
Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2005). Given the interest in his work by
feminist theorists
in other areas of the social sciences, such as education and
sociology, it is
somewhat surprising that feminist organization theorists rarely
refer directly
to Bourdieu’s work or, for that matter, feminist interpretations
of his ideas.
Yet Bourdieu’s ideas, with their emphasis on symbolic
structures and their
relation to both cognitive structures of individuals, as well as
broader social
structures (Everett, 2002), are sympathetic to feminist traditions
in organiza-
tion studies. Despite critiques of his work, feminist theorists
have demon-
strated the value of Bourdieu’s ideas for development of theory
in this area
particularly as it has moved away from theories of patriarchy
and female
subordination and towards reconceptualizing theories of agency
and less
immutable versions of gender identity (McNay, 2000).

‘Capital’ and ‘field’ are two of Bourdieu’s core concepts. In
terms of the
arguments we develop in this article, organizations can be seen
as embedded
in a field of relations in which individuals strive to accumulate
capital
(Everett, 2002). One such field is that of management. The
gendered nature
of management and organization is now well established
(Acker, 1990;
Gherardi, 1995; Meyerson and Kolb, 2000). Management has
been and, argu-
ably continues to be, inherently masculine (Kerfoot and
Knights, 1996) with
male players positioned as dominant and thus able to shape the
field of play
(Corsun and Costen, 2001). The women who took part in our
study have
successfully entered this field and this research therefore
provides the oppor-
tunity to examine whether female and feminine dispositions may
operate as
capital in a field that has generally privileged masculine
embodiment.
In the Bourdieuian sense capital, as it applies to organizations,
is most
obviously economic (Everett, 2002) but, as we will show later
in the article,
548 GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION
Volume 17 Number 5 September 2010 © 2010 Blackwell
Publishing Ltd

embodied cultural capital defined as cultural knowledge that is
situated in the
mind and body and linked to the habitus can have an equally
valid place in
organizational settings. Bourdieu’s concept of embodied
cultural capital has
been extended by feminist theorists to include the idea of
gender capital (for
example, see McCall, 1992; Skeggs, 1997; Lovell, 2000). The
idea that women
might use gender as a resource or form of capital in establishing
and main-
taining their managerial careers has not previously been
explored. The article
pursues the idea that femaleness and femininity can be forms of
embodied
cultural capital and, following McNay (2000, p. 73), supports
the idea of a
more active role ‘played by the subject in the construction of a
coherent
identity which allows a more nuanced concept of agency to
emerge’.
This article draws together two research projects. The empirical
study we
draw upon derives from Australian research involving 255
interviews with
senior managers across the private, public and tertiary sectors.
Ethnographic
interviewing, with its emphasis on enabling individuals to
account for their
own actions, was the main source of data. The theoretical
analysis was
directed by a second research project that developed a model for

looking at
women’s narratives using Bourdieu and feminist interpretations
of Bourdieu.
Initially, we provide a brief summary of the recent organization
studies
literature that engages with Bourdieu’s ideas. This is followed
by an overview
of various ways in which Bourdieu’s ideas have been built on
and developed
by feminist theorists. We then introduce the concepts of capital
and field and
explain how they are interpreted in this article. The concept of
gender capital
is introduced and defined. Then, using excerpts from the
participants’ narra-
tives from the first research project, we use the theoretical
model developed
in the second project to examine whether female and feminine
capitals are
enacted in these women’s managerial lives.
Bourdieu, organizational studies and feminism
The ideas of Pierre Bourdieu have not been extensively drawn
upon in the
management and organization studies literature (Ozbilgin and
Tatli, 2005)
even less so by feminists and those interested in the study of
gender in
organizational settings. On a purely pragmatic level, one reason
is
the fact that Bourdieu’s oeuvre is simply just difficult to
comprehend. This
problem is a function of at least three things: the sheer size of

his work (he
has penned over two dozen books and two hundred articles), the
fact that
it is written in French, and his difficult writing style. (Everett,
2002, p. 77)
Yet, as Everett suggests, Bourdieu has a lot to offer
organization studies. His
capacity to ‘link an analysis of the humdrum details of ordinary
organiza-
tional existence with both an analysis of language and a more
general social
analysis’ (Everett, 2002, p. 57) is one dimension of his work
that is of
MANAGEMENT, WOMEN AND GENDER CAPITAL 549
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Volume 17 Number 5
September 2010
significance as is his relational or process oriented view of
power. Oakes et al.
(1998) also draw attention to the utility of Bourdieu’s
conception of power to
bettering our understanding of the more coercive form of
control on contem-
porary organizations. They show how his ideas can be used to
build and
enhance institutional theory in an empirical study of the impact
of business
planning in a Canadian provincial museum and heritage site.
Iellatchitch et al.
(2003, p. 732), using the intrinsically linked concepts of
habitus, capital and

field, argue that the career can be seen as a social field in which
to question the
‘conditions, possibilities and modalities of the adaptation of
individuals to
rapidly evolving career patterns’.
Capital in various forms has been an increasing area of interest
in the
organization studies literature (Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2005), and
Bourdieu’s
concept of capital had been used either directly or indirectly to
underpin
theory development in this area. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998),
for instance,
draw on Bourdieu to develop a model of the relationship
between social
capital and intellectual capital. Among other factors, Maman
(2000) looks at
the place of social capital in the accumulation of board
directorships in Israeli
companies. Such studies are few and Bourdieu’s influence is
limited by
comparison with that of other noted French postmodernist and
poststructur-
alist scholars, particularly Foucault (McKinlay and Starkey,
1998).
Ozbilgin and Tatli (2005, p. 855) sum up Bourdieu’s as yet
largely unreal-
ized potential to contribute more broadly to organization studies
in the
following ways:
through (1) offering a conceptual framework for a multilevel
research
agenda in organization and management studies, (2) presenting

an episte-
mological and methodological framework for tackling issues of
reflexivity
in the research process, and (3) proposing a methodological and
epistemo-
logical way to overcome the dualities between structure and
agency and
objectivism and subjectivism.
This article engages with point (1) above. As Ozbilgin and Tatli
(2005, p. 860)
note, Bourdieu
utilises the concepts of capital and disposition at the individual
level,
habitus at the meso level, and the field at the macro level of
analysis
in order to operationalize his realist project of social inquiry,
and this
project is very much based in this multilayered analysis of
organizational
phenomena.
In this article we seek to demonstrate how a particular form of
capital —
gender capital, identified by feminist theorists as a form of
limited
‘embodied’ cultural capital (McCall, 1992) (a micro-level
organizational
concept) is used by women in senior management roles as a
form of agency
to disrupt the field of management (a macro-level
organizational concept).
We reveal how in certain situations these women draw on their
feminine

Publishing Ltd
dispositions — a feature of women’s habitus — to navigate the
boundaries of
a field established by men. The outcomes, as we argue, are not
constitutive of
transformation in that they overturn the power regimes that
dominate this
field; they can merely tweak the edges in ways that are tactical
rather than
strategic (Skeggs, 1997).
A number of feminists have engaged with Bourdieu’s ideas and
offered
both a critique and assessment of the potential of his work to
contribute to
feminist thinking and gender theory. Dillabough (2004, p. 489)
argues that
Bourdieu’s oeuvre
stands as a highly focused, realistic and generative attempt
(McLeod, 2005;
McNay, 1999) to chart the problems of subordination,
differentiation and
hierarchy, and to expose the possibilities, as well as the limits,
of gendered
self-hood.
Moi (1991, p. 1091) suggests Bourdieu’s social theories offer
the opportunity
to ‘reconceptualize gender as a social category in a way which

undercuts the
traditional essentialist/non essentialist divide’. McCall (1992, p.
832) suggests
his work offers a ‘powerfully elaborate conceptual framework
for under-
standing the role of gender in the social relations of modern
capitalist society’.
McNay (2000, p. 26), in arguing for a more generative theory of
agency, turns
to Bourdieu, noting that his concept of field suggests a revised
understanding
of the reflexive dimension of agency as a form of distantiation,
noting as well
that it ‘is the increasing movement of women into social fields
that have
previously been confined to men that is crucial to an
understanding of the
decline of gender norms’. Lovell (2000, p. 25) suggests that
Bourdieu’s
approach to the gendered division of labour has ‘implications
for feminist
understandings of the history of class relations’.
One of the few articles that draw on Bourdieu to explain
women’s status
within management is Is the Glass Ceiling Unbreakable?
Habitus, Fields and the
Stalling of Women and Minorities in Management by Corsun
and Costen (2001).
Using the concepts of field, habitus and capital, Corsun and
Costen (2001, p.
18) suggest although
women and minorities may have been granted access to
management posi-
tions, they do not have sufficient capital (economic, political,

social and
symbolic) to force a redefinition of the implicit — that is White
male —
requirements of the field.
Although this is not an argument we would necessarily dispute,
the move-
ment of women from the domestic realm into the public world
of organiza-
tions is undoubtedly one of the more significant social
phenomena of late
modern capitalism. In Australia (where the empirical research
we refer to in
this article took place), women account for 44.8 per cent of the
Australian
labour force and 44.2 per cent of managerial and professional
positions (Equal
Opportunity for Women in the Workplace [EOWA], 2006).
Gender equity in
September 2010
the ranks of senior management in the private sector is still a
long way from
being achieved with women holding only 12 per cent of
executive positions
in Australia’s top 200 publicly listed companies — the ASX200
(EOWA, 2006).
Nevertheless, in 2006, women accounted for at least one-quarter
or more of
senior executives in 18 per cent of the ASX200 companies, an

increase from 13
per cent in 2003. The percentages of women in senior
management in the
higher education and public sectors in this country are
considerably higher
than in the private sector. For example, women hold 35 per cent
of senior
executive positions in the Australian Public Service
(Commonwealth of
Australia (2009) and 21.1 per cent of vice-chancellors’
positions in Australian
universities (EOWA, 2006). There are several largely historical
reasons why
this is the case. Firstly, women in the public and tertiary sectors
were more
active in debates concerning industrial democracy in this
country (Walpole
and Baldwin, 1986). Many initiatives relating to women and
employment,
such as affirmative action and equal employment opportunity
legislation,
work-based childcare, flexible hours, job sharing, the merit
principle and
paid maternity leave, were originally enacted in these sectors
(Public Service
Commission, 1993). These initiatives resulted in changes in
structural condi-
tions that assisted in the retaining women in the workforce and
facilitated
their progression through the ranks of management. The private
sector lagged
behind the public and tertiary sectors, in term of both equity
initiatives and
structural reform.
The changing gender norms that have accompanied the

increased presence
of women in managerial roles in the last thirty or so years
require theoretical
explanations beyond notions of patriarchy and female
subordination. Theo-
retical explanations need to be more nuanced and finely attuned,
for instance,
to local organizational contexts, cross-sections of class and race
with gender
and considerations of individual agency and the rethinking of
gender iden-
tity. This article seeks to build on the nascent interest in
Bourdieu in the
organization studies and to draw on broader feminist
engagement with his
ideas to theoretically build a more complete understanding of
the contempo-
rary, gendered structure of senior management. More
specifically, we explore
whether women wield gender capital in management fields. In
doing this we
seek to understand how the game of management has changed
since women
players have become more prevalent.
The study: analysing the narratives
This article represents the coming together of two separate
studies to
produce, in effect, new insights. The first study, ‘Women
executives in
Australian organisations’: an investigation of their role in the
transformation
and maintenance of managerial cultures provided the data for
the article. In
this study, women’s narratives of their experiences in senior

management
Publishing Ltd
were collected and the problematic of understanding how
femininity and
femaleness works in the field of senior management was
examined. Senior
executives in 19 Australian organizations across the public and
private sector
and in higher education sectors were interviewed. In each of
these organiza-
tions women constituted 30 per cent or more of senior
executives and had
held an executive role for 3 years or more years. Their seniority
also meant
they had considerable decision-making power. By definition
they had broken
the glass ceiling (Morrison et al., 1994).
The principal method of data collection was ethnographic
interviews with
168 women. To support and contextualize these interviews 87
men at the
same level of senior management were also interviewed. The
interviews
averaged between 45 and 60 minutes in length. All interviews
were con-
ducted by the three chief investigators on the project using a
semi-structured
interview guide. The interviews were ethnographic in the sense

that the
researchers sought to find out how the participants described
and structured
their world (Basit, 2003). As with most social research projects,
the interviews
were informed by the researchers’ own analytic frameworks and
interests
(Gubrium and Holstein, 2003). One of the principal aims of the
project,
relevant to the analysis we present in this article, was to capture
female
participants’ descriptions of what it was that enabled them to
maintain and
sustain their careers in senior management; metaphorically
speaking, what
kept them above the glass ceiling. Other relevant areas of
interest, in terms of
this article, were both women and men’s descriptions of their
experience of
managing and their approaches to managing, as well as their
reflections on
the role their gender had played in their careers.
The analysis of the data initially involved each researcher in
reading the
transcripts of the interviews to get a general sense of their
content, followed
by several meetings at which emergent themes were discussed
and broad
categories of analysis around these themes developed. These
categories of
analysis formed the basis of a more nuanced analysis of the data
using the
qualitative research programme NVivo. The NVivo analysis
revealed that
discussions of the value of femininity was predominant in the

interview
narratives, especially in both men’s and women’s reflections on
the role of
gender in their careers, which, in our view, warranted
theoretical investiga-
tion. The second project, ‘Reworking Bourdieu for feminist
research: appre-
hending classed and gendered practices in the field of paid
caring work’ (see
Huppatz, 2009), developed a new model for looking at women’s
narratives
using Bourdieu and feminist interpretations of Bourdieu. The
possibilities of
feminine capital were a particular focus. The approach
developed in the
second project was thus used to provide the theoretical
underpinnings for
making sense of these narratives.
In representing the data, we use direct quotes to exemplify
participants’
perceptions and experiences or to emphasize, highlight or
illustrate a particu-
lar finding (Ely, 1995; Marshall, 1995). Using this mode of
representation we
September 2010
analyse excerpts from the narratives of five women whose
experiences are
characteristic of female and feminine forms of capital as

articulated in the
article.
Applying Bourdieu’s concepts to study gender
and management
The management field
In this section we examine how gender capital might operate
within a par-
ticular type of field — the field of management. Bourdieu saw
fields as
semi-autonomous networks of social relations and compared the
field to a
game that follows rules and regularities that are not directly
explicit. The
agents who are operating in these fields are players who are
engaged in this
game and hold particular stakes within it. Each of these players
holds tokens
(particular types of capital) that are of a particular volume and
structure,
which they use in competition with others. These tokens
determine the moves
each player makes and the positions they take up (Bourdieu and
Wacquant,
1992, pp. 97–99). Corsun and Costen (2001, p. 18) argue that,
for the most part,
white men usually possess the capital that enables movement
into and within
the management field. Theirs is the legitimated capital in this
field and is what
Bourdieu called ‘symbolic capital’. This means that men
generally maintain
power over the field and ‘women and minorities must play by
the rules and

within the boundaries established by white men’ (Corsun and
Costen, 2001,
p. 18). Similarly, Witz (1998, p. 58) states that bureaucracies
and organizations
have not only privileged attributes linked to masculinity and
male work–life
arrangements but have also validated and permitted male forms
of embodi-
ment and invalidated or rendered impermissible, female forms
of embodi-
ment. Hence, male and masculine dispositions are advantaged in
organizations, while female and feminine dispositions are not.
This means
that men are better equipped and positioned for the game of
management
than women.
However, women have entered and succeeded in the field of
management.
In some organizations they are reaching a critical mass
(Dahlerup, 1988).
Corsun and Costen (2001, p. 19) suggest that when women
succeed in man-
agement fields it is because they have assimilated masculine
norms. Hence,
women have taken on masculine values and utilised masculine
tools of power
(that is, masculine forms of capital) in ‘playing the game’ of
management
fields. Yet some researchers have also found that the value of
femininity is
increasing in the labour market (for example, Illouz, 1997;
Lovell, 2000). It
follows that this may also be the case in management fields.
We, therefore,
explore whether women draw upon distinctive ‘female’ and

‘feminine’
resources to achieve and sustain successful management
positions; we
Publishing Ltd
explore the profitability of femaleness and femininity in the
management
field. The empirical study we analyse is suggestive of how
useful women’s
gender capital has been in women’s success in management
fields.
Gender capital
For Bourdieu, the concept of capital is invaluable for making
sense of the
distribution of advantage and disadvantage, and the movements
of agents
through social space. This is because the accumulation (or lack
of accumula-
tion) of capital is an important element of social distinction and
different
social groups possess different volumes and species of capital.
Moreover, the
concept of capital allowed Bourdieu to consider both monetary
and non-
monetary wealth, for the concept of capital encompasses
material and
symbolic resources. According to Bourdieu (1984), four forms
of capital exist

— economic, cultural, educational and social capital. Cultural
capital may be
embodied, objectified or institutionalized.
Generally, Bourdieu did not consider the possibility of gendered
forms of
capital. Capital, as conceived by Bourdieu, is gender neutral
and is merely
shaped by gender in the ‘reconversion process’ (McCall, 1992,
p. 842). This is
because Bourdieu saw gender as a secondary form of social
stratification; it is
not as significant as class in the production of distinction
(McCall, 1992, p.
841). Hence, Bourdieu only tended to use the concept of capital
to examine
class advantage. However, capital may also be a useful tool for
examining
gender advantage and gender distinction. In her article. ‘Does
gender fit?
Bourdieu, feminism, and the conceptions of social order’, Leslie
McCall
(1992) extends Bourdieu’s interpretation of capital and the
habitus and pro-
poses that the embodied dispositions that constitute the habitus
may operate
as gendered cultural capital or ‘gender capital’. McCall (1992,
p. 843) argues
that the possibility of gendered capital can actually be found in
Bourdieu’s
formulation of embodied cultural capital — for in Bourdieu’s
work ‘certain
types of dispositions are themselves forms of capital’. Although
Bourdieu saw
gender as a secondary social form that gains specificity from a
person’s class

position, McCall (1992, p. 844) points out that Bourdieu did not
only term
gender ‘secondary’ on the basis of its significance in
stratification, it is also
termed ‘secondary’ due to its hidden form. McCall (1992, p.
844) states that
this allows for an interpretation of gender as a primary, yet
elusive social
force that appears natural and universal. Hence, gender is
potentially a sig-
nificant form of capital (McCall, 1992, p. 842).
Nevertheless, Bourdieu saw women as having a limited
relationship with
capital. He saw their primary role as the accumulation of capital
for men.
Thus, he did not consider that women might have capital
accumulating strat-
egies of their own. According to Bourdieu, women are capital-
bearing objects
rather than capital-bearing subjects; women are mere
‘repositories’ of capital
(Lovell, 2000, p. 22). However, Bourdieu contradicted himself
on this matter.
September 2010
In places in Distinction it appears that Bourdieu did indeed see
women as
capital accumulating subjects. Bourdieu (1984, p. 206)
mentioned in passing

that petit-bourgeoisie women are aware of the market value of
beauty, are
particularly invested in beauty capital and actively cultivate
their bodies
accordingly. In addition, Bourdieu (1984, pp. 152–3) mentioned
that ‘certain
women derive occupational profit from their charm(s), and that
beauty has
acquired a value on the labour market’. Hence, it is in fact
possible that
women (like men) engage in the accumulation of capital and
actively use it to
their advantage.
A number of feminist writers have also taken issue with
women’s relation-
ship with capital (see for example, Lovell, 2000; McCall, 1992;
Moi, 1991;
Skeggs, 1997). Several of these feminist theorists claim that
women do not
only accumulate capital, they also possess their own feminine
forms of
capital. For example, Skeggs (1997, p. 10) argues that,
femininity as capital
is the discursive position available though gender relations that
women are
encouraged to inhabit and use. Its use will be informed by the
network of
social positions of class, gender, sexuality, region, age and race
which
ensure that it will be taken up (and resisted) in different ways
Lovell (2000, p. 25) proposes that ‘femininity as cultural capital
is beginning to
have broader currency in unexpected ways’. In this article we

take up the
feminist Bourdieuian concept of feminine capital. However,
following
Huppatz (2009) we also include in our analysis an examination
of female
capital. For, while we wish to study femininity as an asset, we
do not want to
conflate the concepts of femininity and female so that
femininity is general-
ized as a female condition. Hence, female capital is the gender
advantage that
is derived from being perceived as female, but not necessarily
feminine,
whereas, feminine capital is the gender advantage that is
derived from a skill
set that is associated with femininity or from simply being
recognized as
feminine.
Findings
Many of the participants in this study seemed to enthusiastically
support the
notion that their gender in some way operated to their advantage
in the
management field. Women in senior management discussed
their own expe-
riences of gender capital with reference to their skills and
appearance and
highlighted the importance of equal opportunity discourse in
enabling them
to move into and within management fields. In this section, we
present their
narratives and our analysis of the composition of their gender
capital and its
limits.

Publishing Ltd
Equal opportunity discourse
The topic of equal opportunity discourse featured prominently
in discussion
of gender advantage. Some of the participants stated that they
perceived
femaleness to be valuable during the 1980s in Australia, when
the discourse
on equal employment opportunity, anti-discrimination and
affirmative action
was dominant (Sawer, 1990). This was also a time when
practices in certain
organizations also encouraged affirmative action whereby
organizations
attempted to move women into senior roles on the basis of their
gender
(Ross-Smith, 1999). This was a time when female capital was in
operation
because the advantage experienced was a result of being
recognized as female
but not necessarily feminine. For example, Clare (a manager
from a financial
institution) stated:
I think in the early stages of my career it had some success in
that in the
early ’80s there weren’t a lot of women in senior roles in
banking and

finance so there was a bit of a curiosity factor and also at that
point there
was a bit of a quota ... unstated quota system working. Did that
mean I got
promoted over a man? I don’t think so; but maybe it got me at
least to the
table. Does it make a difference now? I don’t think so. My track
record has
got me to where I am. I think the choices that I made in my
personal life
probably have helped get me to where I am in that I’ve spent
most of my
career.... I’ve been on my own, I haven’t had a family so I’ve
been able to
move to New York in the space of 2 months notice and take jobs
that
perhaps I wouldn’t have been able to take if I’d had a small
family.
Hence, Clare achieved entrance into the management field
because her orga-
nization was attempting to address its bias towards men.
However, as this
participant pointed out, her gender did not assist her to the
extent that she got
promoted over a man; it merely brought her to the table. Indeed,
her success
was more to do with her decision not to have a family than the
quota system;
Clare has foregone the experience of mothering and adapted to
the masculine
norms of un-attachment and flexibility (Corsun and Costen,
2001, p. 19).
The gender capital which Clare experienced was unusual and
the result of

a deliberate attempt to undo the privileging of men in her
organization. It
took place at a time when Australian governments were
particularly respon-
sive to the needs of women and put in place via legislation ‘an
impressive
network of rights covering women at work’ (Davis and Harris,
1996, p. x).
Women such as Clare, now nearing retirement, were the
beneficiaries of this
legislation and its impact on equity policies in Australian
organizations.
However, equal opportunity discourse no longer holds the same
impact as it
had in the 1980s. In the early days of its implementation this
legislation was
seen to have produced positive gains for women in the
workplace but its
influence has waned.
September 2010
Moreover, as this privilege that is provided by equal
opportunity discourse
is dependent on women’s marginalization, it necessarily
coexists with disad-
vantage. It provides a limited and situational advantage that
does not operate
across the entire management field (although it might operate in
particular
organizations). Clare’s example, therefore, demonstrates that

female capital
operates within limits. It also illustrates both the benefits and
limits of equal
opportunity policies.
Feminine skills
The participants saw their feminine skills as instrumental in
their movement
into and success in management. These feminine skills are
specific abilities
which the participants stated they saw as particular to their
gender and as a
consequence of their gender. The participants appeared to view
these skills as
stemming from either biology or socialization. Therefore, it
seems these skills
were seen as part and parcel of a feminine disposition; as an
aspect of the
women’s habitus. These feminine skills often appeared to the
researchers to
be stereotypes of the feminine but, nevertheless, the participants
interpreted
them as advantageous. For example, when asked if her gender
played a role
in her success, Mary, a manager from a financial institution,
stated:
I was thinking about this the other day, ... and I’m frightened
I’m not the
brightest person around, and I think that one of my keys to
success is
probably my social capability, so my ability to put people ...
meet new
people and for it not to take long for that person to feel
comfortable with me

and I wonder whether part of that is gender, whether that comes
more
naturally to females than males. I’m not sure.... So that would
be my first
thought. And secondly, I think gender ... I think females do
have a different
way of thinking to males. I’m not always sure whether I can
define what
that is but certainly in a debate ... and most of the time I am
working with
males ... in the debate I would bring up different ways of
looking at things
than the rest of ... the debate is thinking around, often around
compromise,
so ... trying to get a situation resolved that people have become
polarized....
So I think ... bearing in mind ... because I’ve obviously grown
... my career
has been during a time which has been predominantly males
versus ...
whereas I think it’s getting a bit more balance. I think that
ability to look at
things slightly differently has been positive and has helped.
Hence, for Mary, her social skills and ability to compromise are
feminine
skills and these skills have worked to her advantage in the
management field.
However, Mary is also frightened that she is not the brightest
person and
seems relieved that she has feminine skills to draw upon. This
may be one of
the negative outcomes of the naturalization of feminine skills —
they are
conceptualized in opposition to ‘masculine’ intellectual and
cultural skills.

The consequence of this is that while women may be confident
in their
Publishing Ltd
‘natural’ feminine skills, which may provide them with some
advantage in the
workplace, it may also undermine their confidence in relation to
other capaci-
ties, thereby deterring them from investing in ‘masculine skills’
and practices.
Thus, Mary is a ‘people person’ and not an intellectual one.
Joan (a manager from the public service) also discussed
feminine skills.
When asked if her gender played a role in her career success,
she replied:
I think that I deliver in terms of work and attention to detail and
perfec-
tionist.... I think women tend to be more attentive to those sorts
of things,
and I guess that’s why I observe that there’s value in
differences.
Later Joan expanded on this point:
I find it hard to answer because I think if I was a male with my
personality
I may not have done as well. I think it’s OK for a woman; I just
don’t know

how that mix would have worked if I was a male. I can say that
I’ve never
knowingly used my female wiles or certainly anything more
than that, but
I suspect that I do it without thinking about it. I mean, we all
use different
techniques, in the same way that guys have a bit of a yarn. I do
find it
interesting ... with my boss we got going very well but I always
find it
interesting socially ... on occasions we tend not to be
comfortable with each
other socially or having drinks. He doesn’t relate to me very
well in that
situation, whereas with lots of guys he feels very comfortable
and I often
reflect on ... and sometimes he’ll sort of have a bit of a go ...
it’s a very good
relationship but yeah, he sort of, I don’t know ... it’s different. I
find it
interesting with different guys and some in particular ... there’s
that sort of
personal continuous level of comfort and ‘at ease’ and nothing
much varies,
but there’s a few guys that ... sometimes it feels different,
strange.
Thus, for Joan, women tend to pay more attention to detail and
(as this is one
of her skills) this may operate to her advantage. She also states
that there may
be other feminine capacities which she unknowingly uses to her
benefit.
However, Joan also mentions that although she gets on well
with her boss,
they are uncomfortable with each other at organizational social

occasions.
What this would seem to suggest is that her male boss relates to
masculine
dispositions in ways that he cannot replicate in his interactions
with her.
Masculine dispositions fit with one another so that there is a
continuous level
of comfort and ease which positions her on the outer so that she
feels differ-
ent, strange. As Witz (1998) states, male forms of embodiment
are validated
while female forms are not. Hence, although her feminine
disposition may
have provided her with feminine skills, this feminine
disposition is not as
comfortable in the management field as masculine dispositions
are, and Joan
is consequently disadvantaged compared to her male
counterparts.
Other participants stated that they drew these feminine skills
from their
mothering role. For example, when asked if her gender had
contributed to
her success Jenny (a manager from a university) replied:
September 2010
Yes. Well it’s played a role in my success. It’s also ... as I think
my third son
said, if I’d been a boy I’d probably have been a CEO of an

organization a lot
earlier. If I hadn’t had four children and I hadn’t discovered
that I wanted
to have a career in my mid-thirties because of having
children.... I think
two things ... the fact of having four children had a huge impact
on me and
it affected the way I did work. So having such a ludicrous
number of
children taught me to work in a way I’d never worked before
and it taught
me to be well organized and brought out a whole lot of things I
suspect
were there but I’d never ever done. So I became very well
organized and I
am very well organized, which everybody who works with me
will tell
you, and that is always because I wanted to go back to work.
There was a
profound difference between me at 20 and me at 30, around my
attitudes ...
a bit older, 35 probably.
Hence, it is Jenny’s opinion that her gender assisted her in her
success
because she developed organizational skills in her mothering
role. However,
she stated that it was necessary to be very well organized
because she wanted
to go back to work. While mothering may have provided Jenny
with unique
skills, her mothering role simultaneously made returning to
work difficult
because organizations still tend to be inflexible over working
hours and
continue to be based around a male working life. Moreover,

these skills
cannot compensate for the fact that if she had been male she
might have been
a CEO of an organization a lot earlier. Once again, these
feminine skills are an
embodied cultural capital that operates within limits.
Feminine appearance and sexuality
Some of the participants discussed the benefit of feminine
appearance and
sexuality. It is perhaps least surprising that feminine appearance
and sexual-
ity arose in conversation concerning feminine capital as these
are long-
stereotyped female assets. When asked if her gender had worked
to her
advantage in the field, Alice (a manager from a university)
stated:
But I do think that being a woman has helped. I would say
something else,
which is very controversial. I also think that there is an issue
about suc-
cessful women and appearance. And I think something that
many femi-
nists hate to talk about.... I’m talking about women playing
sexual games at
work. But I think it is a considerable advantage to be reasonably
good
looking for women, but then it is for men too. I would just note
that if I look
around the Australian vice chancellors who are women, they are
all pretty
good looking. Not beautiful or anything like that, and always, in
their

different ways, well turned out. Much better turned out than the
blokes.
Thus, according to Alice, women use their appearance and
sexuality to their
advantage in her profession. The implication of this is that she
had profited
Publishing Ltd
from these devices herself. Moreover, Alice mentioned that men
also profit
from appearance but alluded to the idea that this asset is more
valuable for
women. Alice stated that the women are much better turned out
than the
blokes. Therefore, it seems that the senior women invest more
time in (sexu-
alized) appearance than the men in the field. Hence, it appears
that, as
Bourdieu (1984) argued, women may derive occupational profit
from their
appearance and cultivate their bodies accordingly. This may
mean that
women play sexual games at work, as Alice suggests, or it may
mean that a
groomed appearance is a powerful social signifier — a form of
distinction
that provides women with authority in the management field.
However, this
asset may also be indicative of an inequality — it may indicate

that women’s
appearances are prioritized over other attributes.
Like Alice, Susan (a manager from the public service) discussed
the prof-
itability of a feminine appearance. When asked whether her
gender had
played a role in her success she stated:
I’m conscious at times where gender has played a role because
I’ve
exploited it and I learned this very early in my career. I used to
have very
long waist-length hair and I had a very young-looking face. This
was quite
some time ago and I was in my 20s and I was going to a meeting
in
Canberra with some pretty hard hitters, senior Commonwealth
bureau-
crats. I went with my boss at the time who was a man and I had
done a lot
of the work in this area and I knew quite a lot about it and I was
really right
on top of the issues. We went to this meeting and my boss spoke
first and
I could tell at once that everybody around that table (and they
tended to be
senior male bureaucrats) had put me in my box. I was the
secretary who
was there taking notes and when my boss at the time handed
over to me
you could see them.... Suddenly they had to re-evaluate who I
was and I
realized I’d really caught them off guard. I just let fly with the
issues and
they were just really reeling, I used that. I remember some

months later
when I was going to a meeting I was feeling quite intimidated
because a
couple of ministers were going to be there. It was a very high
level meeting.
I deliberately chose something quite feminine, very girlish and
they made
that same mistake. And in a way that empowered me because I
could see
what was going on and I felt a bit more in control of the
situation and
wrong-footed them. It doesn’t work for me any more.
Susan, therefore, used her appearance tactically in order to
manipulate a
particular situation and gain an upper hand. However, this does
not mean
that a feminine appearance is capital. As Susan has illustrated,
the men with
whom she worked equated femininity with traditional female
roles, which
are unauthoritative, devalued and considered to be lesser than
their own (in
this case, Susan was assumed to be a secretary). It may be
speculated then,
that this would generally have a negative impact on women and
would limit
the use value of their appearance. Susan’s is an exceptional case
in that she
September 2010

was reflexive about this and did not allow these presumptions to
negatively
affect her practices or her opinion of her own worth. Moreover,
these per-
ceptions did not inform her position in the field. Rather, this
was a unique
situation in which she was able to use these presumptions to
alter the state of
play and gain a more powerful position in the field.
Discussion
The narratives of Mary, Joan, Jenny, Alice and Susan
demonstrate how female
and feminine capitals may be utilised to destabilize the
masculinized field of
management. These narratives suggest that feminine capital in
the manage-
ment field may take the form of feminine skills and appearance,
and female
capital may have operated in the early days of equal opportunity
discourse in
particular. Each of these participants provided an example of
how their
femaleness or femininity has operated to their benefit. To be
recognized as
female has brought them to the table; their feminine experiences
have enabled
them to acquire gendered skills (and confidence in these skills);
and their
feminine appearance and sexuality provided them with (at least)
a tactical
advantage.
Hence, contrary to popular understanding and much feminist

rhetoric
concerning the patriarchy and female subordination, in some
instances
femaleness or femininity may empower women and provide
them with
agency. Moreover, these findings show that feminine capital
may be gaining
wider currency and, in particular, may be changing the state of
play in
management fields so that they are no longer wholly
masculinized. As Illouz
(1997, p. 39) suggests, traditional feminine skills may be
increasingly valued
in management culture.
These narratives demonstrate that female and feminine capitals
are quite
real and tangible but they also show how limited they are in
their use
value. Whether they realized it or not, the participants never
expressed the
view that female and feminine capitals are straightforwardly
assets. They
always perceived female and feminine capitals as double-edged,
as situ-
ational, as operating within boundaries. Moreover, while
gendered dispo-
sitions and embodiments provided certain advantage, they often
disadvantaged the participants in other ways. The limitations to
women’s
gender capital are something that Bourdieuian feminists have
foreseen. For
example, McCall (1992) argues that the profits that may be
gained from
femininity are restricted and Skeggs (1997, p. 10) proposes that
feminine

capital has a limited use value as ‘it provides only limited
access to potential
forms of power’. For Skeggs (1997, pp. 8–10), femininity can
be used only as
a ‘cultural resource’ in ‘tactical rather than strategic ways’. In
other words,
women’s gender capital may only manipulate constraints rather
than over-
turn power.
Publishing Ltd
Considering our participants experienced female and feminine
capitals as
limited assets, it might be assumed that these women are
probably more
likely to rely upon other forms of capital in accessing power
and moving
positions in the management field. This, of course, suggests
much about
contemporary management cultures. While these narratives do
show how
women might utilise gender capital as a form of agency in
management
cultures, they also shed light on why women generally continue
to be disad-
vantaged in entering and playing the game in management
fields. As Corsun
and Costen (2001) suggest, it appears that masculine forms of
capital continue
to have greater currency than feminine forms of capital, and, as

Witz (1998)
has argued, it appears that male forms of embodiment continue
to be privi-
leged over female forms of embodiment in management fields.
Hence, if the
gender imbalance in management is to be addressed, female and
feminine
forms of embodiment need to be re-evaluated and given greater
currency in
management cultures.
Conclusion
In this article, we have drawn together two research projects to
demonstrate
that female and feminine dispositions have become currency in
the mascu-
linized field of management; we have argued that they have
become em-
bodied cultural capital. We have asserted that feminine and
female capital
may be seen as expressions of individual agency in localized
organization
contexts for they provide women with a stake in the
management game and
women consciously utilise them to improve or maintain their
management
positions. We have argued that the concept of gender capital, as
articulated in
contemporary feminist theory, provides a potentially powerful
explanatory
mechanism for furthering our understanding of the complex and
different
ways in which the presence of women in senior managerial roles
may shape
contemporary management discourses and practices.

Moreover, we have provided further evidence for the assertion
of femi-
nists, such as McCall (1992) and Skeggs (1997) — that
women’s gender capital
is a tangible asset. Yet we have also found that it is a limited
currency. This
capital is often double-edged and situational and, as Skeggs
(1997) suggests,
is perhaps best conceptualized as a tactical rather than a
strategic resource.
We have, therefore, found that women continue to face
considerable obstacles
in management cultures. Despite the fact that women have
achieved greater
representation in this field they continue to be subordinately
positioned in
comparison to their male counterparts.
Furthermore, in exploring women’s gender capital in the
management
field, we have advocated the importance of Bourdieu for
organizational
studies and feminism. While feminists who operate in certain
academic
arenas have begun to engage with Bourdieu and have made use
of his
September 2010
concepts, organizational theorists and, in particular, feminist

organization
theorists have overlooked his contribution. This oversight is
unfortunate for,
as this article has illustrated, Bourdieu may assist feminists in
understanding
how women continue to be both advantaged and disadvantaged
in the man-
agement field. Bourdieu’s concepts may facilitate our
understanding of the
complex ways in which gender power operates and is contested
in manage-
ment, for his theories enable us to think beyond the dichotomy
of dominance
and subordination. In addition, Bourdieu’s potential for
exploring the field of
management extends far beyond the scope of this article. For
example,
Bourdieu’s theorizing may assist in researching gender
identities, class
identities, power and local organizational contexts. We propose
that future
research could draw upon Bourdieu’s key concepts, as well as
the concept of
gender capital, in order to provide more fruitful and detailed
explorations of
gender in contemporary management fields.
References
Acker, J. (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered
organizations. Gender &
Society, 4,2, 139–58.
Basit, T. (2003) Manual or electronic? The role of coding in
qualitative data analysis.
Educational Research, 45,2, 143–54.

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the
Judgement of Taste, transl. by R
Nice. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to
Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Butler, J. (1999) Performativity’s social magic. In Shusterman,
R. (ed.) Bourdieu: A
Critical Reader, pp. 113–28. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Commonwealth of Australia (2009) Fact sheets: women’s
issues, available online at
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/general/factsheet_wo
men_issues/
last accessed 14 June 2010.
Corsun, D. and Costen, W. (2001) Is the glass ceiling
unbreakable? Habitus, fields, and
the stalling of women and minorities in management. Journal of
Management
Inquiry, 10,1, 16–25.
Dahlerup, D. (1988) From a small to a large minority: women in
Scandinavian politics.
Scandinavian Political Studies, 11,4, 275–98.
Davis, E. and Harris, C. (1996) Preface. In Davis, E. and Harris,
C. (eds) Making the Link
7: Affirmative Action and Industrial Relations, pp. ix–xiii.
Labour-Management Foun-
dation, Macquarie University: Sydney.
Dillabough, J. (2004) Class, culture and the ‘predicaments of

masculine domination’:
encountering Pierre Bourdieu. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 25,4, 489–506.
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace (2006)
Australian Census of Women in
Leadership, available online at http://www.eowa.gov.au/ Last
accessed 14 June
2010.
Ely, R. (1995) The power of demography: women’s social
constructions of gender
identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38,3, 589–
635.
Everett, J. (2002) Organisational research and the praxeology of
Pierre Bourdieu.
Organisational Research Methods, 5,1, 56–80.
Gherardi, S. (1995) Gender, Symbolism and Organizational
Cultures. London: Sage.
Publishing Ltd
Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J. (eds) (2003) Postmodern
Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Huppatz, K. (2009) Reworking Bourdieu’s ‘capital’: feminine
and female capitals in the
field of paid caring work. Sociology, 43,1, 45–66.

Iellatchitch, A., Mayrhofer, W. and Meyer, M. (2003) Career
fields: a small step
towards a grand career theory? International Journal of Human
Resource Management,
14,5, 728–50.
Illouz, E. (1997) Who will take care of the caretakers daughter?
Towards a sociology
of happiness in the era of reflexive modernity. Theory, Culture
and Society, 14,4,
31–66.
Jackson, J. (2001) Women middle managers perception of the
glass ceiling. Women in
Management Review, 16,1, 30–41.
Kerfoot, D. and Knights, D. (1996) The best is yet to come? The
quest for embodiment
in managerial work. In Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (eds) Men as
Managers, Managers
as Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and
Managements, pp. 78–98.
London: Sage.
Lovell, T. (2000) Thinking feminism with and against Bourdieu.
Feminist Theory, 1,1,
11–32.
McCall, L. (1992) Does gender fit? Bourdieu, feminism, and the
conceptions of social
order. Theory and Society, 21,6, 837–67.
McKinlay, A. and Starkey, K. (1998) Foucault Management and
Organization Theory.
London: Sage.

McLeod, J. (2005) Feminists re-reading Bourdieu: old debates
and new questions
about gender habitus and gender change. Theory and Research
in Education, 3,1,
11–30.
McNay, L. (1999) Gender, habitus and the field: Pierre
Bourdieu and the limits of
reflexivity. Theory, Culture and Society, 16,1, 95–117.
McNay, L. (2000) Gender and Agency: Reconfiguring the
Subject in Feminist and Social
Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Maman, D. (2000) Who accumulates directorships of big
business firms in Israel?
Organisation structure, social capital and human capital. Human
Relations, 53,
603–629
Marshall, J. (1995) Women Managers Moving On: Exploring
Career and Life Choices.
London: Routledge.
Meyerson, D. and Kolb, D. (2000) Moving out of the
‘armchair’: developing a frame-
work to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice.
Organisation, 7,4,
553–71.
Moi, T. (1991) Appropriating Bourdieu; feminist theory and
Pierre Bourdieu’s sociol-
ogy of culture. New Literary History, 22,4, 1017–49.
Morrison, A., White, R. and Van Velsor, E. and the Center for

Creative Leadership
(1994) Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top
of America’s Largest
Corporations? Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social capital, intellectual
capital, and the organi-
sational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23,2,
242–66.
Oakes, L., Townley, B. and Cooper, D. (1998) Business
planning as pedagogy: lan-
guage and control in a changing institutional field.
Administrative Science Quarterly,
43,June, 257–92.
Ozbilgin M. and Tatli A. (2005) Understanding Bourdieu’s
contribution to
organisation and management studies. Academy of Management
Review, 30,4,
85–877.
Public Service Commission (1993) Equal Employment
Opportunity. Canberra: Austra-
lian Government Publishing Service.
September 2010
Ross-Smith, A. (1999) Women who manage. Women’s
experience as managers in
contemporary Australian organisations: implications for the

discourse of manage-
ment and organisations(s). Unpublished PhD thesis. Macquarie
University.
Ryan, M. and Haslam, A. (2005) The glass cliff: evidence that
women are over repre-
sented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of
Management, 16,2, 81–90.
Sawer, M. (1990) Sisters in Suits: Women and Public Policy in
Australia. Sydney: Allen
and Unwin.
Silva, E.B. (2005) Gender, home and family in cultural capital
theory. British Journal of
Sociology, 56,1, 83–103.
Skeggs, B. (1997) Formations of Class and Gender: Becoming
Respectable. London: Sage.
Walpole, S. and Baldwin, F. (1986) Affirmative Action and
Industrial Democracy.
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Witz, A. (1998) Embodiment, organisation and gender. Paper
presented at the Inter-
national Conference on Rationalization, Organisation and
Gender, Sozialfors-
chungsstelle Dortmund.
Publishing Ltd

248 CHAPTER 12 Public Speaking Preparation and Delivery (Steps.docx

248 CHAPTER 12 Public Speaking Preparation and Delivery (Steps.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 248 CHAPTER 12 Public Speaking Preparation and Delivery (Steps.docx

Similar to 248 CHAPTER 12 Public Speaking Preparation and Delivery (Steps.docx (20)

More from lorainedeserre

More from lorainedeserre (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

248 CHAPTER 12 Public Speaking Preparation and Delivery (Steps.docx