Rural Women in Leadership. Lori Ann McVay

In Northern Ireland this is also true of rural women’s networks, which, in spite of having a vibrant presence and role in rural communities, have met with continuous difficulties in obtaining long-term funding (Macaulay and Laverty, 2007). It is at this point that our review of literature brings us to the focal area of this study – rural women in leadership.

       1.4 A Brief Sociological Analysis of Leadership

      To facilitate the examination of leadership from a sociological perspective, it must be recognized that leadership studies owe a debt to Weber’s concept of bureaucracy as a functional means of shaping employees into a coherent group of efficient service providers (Hatch, 1997). In fact, it is difficult to think of a more social act than that of leadership, since it could not exist without the relationship between a leader and her/his followers. Further, leadership is a dynamic interaction that appears in all societies (Hackman and Johnson, 2000). In spite of the fact that leadership literature abounds, however, authoritative definitions for the terms ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’ have yet to be widely embraced. Uhl-Bien’s (2006) Relational Leadership Theory approaches the complicated discussion of leadership by differentiating between the study of leadership ‘effectiveness’ and her focus on the ‘relational processes by which leadership is produced and enabled’ (p. 667, emphasis in the original). From this focus, she calls for a more sociological examination of the contexts within which leadership develops. Elliott and Stead’s (2008) study of a group of women leaders took such a sociological perspective, and concluded that this ‘sociological lens’ was better suited to explorations of leadership outside of the contexts within which it has traditionally been housed (p. 178). Postmodern leadership studies have thus seen the advent of complex and adaptable theories of leadership, creating a growing chasm between traditional positivistic definitions and ‘new ideas about the nature of reality and of life’ (Barker, 2001). Most recently, leadership has come to be understood as a ‘moment of social relations’, in which a group of people are moving towards a common goal, and during which leadership may appear in one of many forms (Ladkin, 2010).

       1.4.1 Women in leadership

      For many women, the exercise of entrenched organizational power has barred their access to positions of leadership. Barbara Pini (2005, p. 76) states: ‘Scholarship on gender and organizations has demonstrated that both in definition and practice, leadership is intricately connected to the construction and enactment of hegemonic masculinity.’⁵ In fact, Henig (1996) claims that, without the presence of women in leadership positions, even a significant number of women within an organization will not change the organization’s treatment of women. In part, this may be ascribed to wider power relations that inform the perpetuation of traditional gender identities (Bock, 2006). This takes place in spite of the broader conceptions of masculinity and femininity now available to women (as the result of an increase in women’s access to education and the labour market) (Brandth, 1994). In the language of discourse, women who attain leadership positions may be seen as resisting the dominant discourse by embracing an alternative discourse that flies in the face of hegemony (Bock, 2006). However, this does not put them outside dominant discourses and power relations (Jackson, 2004). On the contrary, occupations in which women are the dominant participants continue to be predominantly part-time, pay poorly and offer few opportunities for training and advancement (Kreimer, 2004). This often leads to a reproduction of traditional gender roles and identities in the workplace (i.e. few women in leadership positions), since organizational routines are not easily disrupted (Kreimer, 2004; West-enholz et al., 2006). Recent theoretical discussions surrounding the positive value of so-called feminine styles of leadership (i.e. dispersed leadership or willingness to share leadership among a group) have served in some ways to reinforce the stereotype of women as motherly caregivers (Elliott and Stead, 2008). In this way, leadership continues to be housed within a quite ‘narrow range of identities’ standardized by organizations who fail to critique gendered assumptions underlying the norms to which they require their leaders to aspire and adhere (Ford, 2005).

       1.4.2 Rural women in leadership

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

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

       1.5 Contextualizing the Study: Rural Women in Northern Ireland

      It is important to note that rural women often develop a sense of self that is inseparable from the context in which they are located (Heather et al., 2005). Additionally, variations in the particularities surrounding the concept of ‘rural’ exist between and among rural spaces (Little and Austin, 1996). Therefore, although the women of rural Northern Ireland are not exceptions to the wider literature on women and rural women, it is fundamental to recognize the impossibility of generalizing rural women’s experiences to women from all communities (Jackson, 1993), and to bear in mind that women from Northern Ireland will have interpretations of experiences and ideologies which differ from those of rural women in other rural locations (Little and Austin, 1996). One of the most unique facets of Northern Ireland women’s experiences is that of the conflict which has been present in the region for many years and has served to heighten the role of women in the affected areas as nurturers and caretakers (Rural Women’s Networks, Northern Ireland Rural Women’s Network, 2007).

      In 2002 (p. 161), Shortall wrote: ‘the equality legislation that has emerged in Northern Ireland is far-reaching’, but that ‘the current face of agricultural and rural restructuring is not one that significantly advances gender equality.’ Much of this can be attributed to the hidden undervaluing of women’s representation that is present in Northern Ireland, as revealed in the lack of statistical information surrounding women’s issues and the under-representation of women on rural development organization’s management boards (Shortall, 2002). The following year, in her report on women in rural areas of Northern Ireland, she noted several specific issues facing rural women in Northern Ireland (each of which resonates clearly with broader literature): lack of adequate childcare, transportation difficulties, restricted job opportunities and limited access to training (Shortall, 2003). More recently, a 2007