Polarized gender thinking—visions or norms in male-dominated workplaces?

Abstract

Men's experiences and beliefs of working with women colleagues in a male dominated organization were investigated using qualitative analyses of 29 in-depth interviews. The analysis identified eight characteristics that were organized in one core category labeled polarized gender thinking and two categories. The first of these categories, illusory gender equality, comprised the subcategories: practicing invisible language, thinking differently, accepting extra work, and modifying masculine jargon. The second category, visualizing and practicing gender equality, consisted of perceptions of management's strategies to achieve gender equality and included the subcategories: practicing a vision of future, valuing equality, recruiting female competence, and balancing the work-family puzzle. A substantive theory was proposed to illustrate the effects of these categories on the type and outcome of gender equality. It is suggested that traditional adjustment to male norms may be a critical hindrance for equality of opportunities. Strategies and measures to visualize gender equality may support trouble-shooting and develop an open mind when problemizing gender inequality.

• Male norms
• gender in male-dominated organization
• illusory gender equality
• masculine jargon
• work-family puzzle
• grounded theory

Introduction

Important variables for health and a good work environment, such as control over work, influence, meaningfulness, support, and professionalism, seem to be negatively influenced by gender-related personal offences (Bergman, Carlsson & Wright, 1996; Frankenhaeuser, 1996; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). The desire to live in mutually beneficial relationships is in conflict with the established work culture patterns in male-dominated workplaces (Bergman, 2003; Bergman, Ahmad, & Stewart, 2008; Bergman & Wright, 2000; Crawford & Unger, 2004; Magnusson, 2002; Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower & Grunewald, 2000). Since gender harassment is about the abuse of power and status rather than being limited to unwelcome sexual invitations, it can lead to adverse psychological consequences as well as to impaired work performance (Robbins, Bender & Finnis, 1997; Seymor, 1999). In a study by Wahl (1998), only 16% of the women who felt discriminated against voiced their concerns; most women preferred to ignore or joke about the discriminating actions. In another study reported by Bergman et al. (1996), patriarchal leadership was negative for health whereas modern leadership supported trouble-shooting. From the view of public health, gender-related harassment (in a broader sense than sexual harassment) is a problem faced by women at their workplaces (Lindfors, Berntsson & Lundberg, 2006; Piotrkowski, 1998). This has to be viewed in the context of institutionalized male power, i.e. the “chilly climate” (Pyke, 1996; Seymor, 1999; Steele, James & Barnett, 2002; Wennerås & Vold, 1997). Gender blindness (Wahl, Holgersson, Höök & Linghag, 2001) dominates organizational male cultures in spite of an increasing number of women in management positions.

The aforementioned research studies suggest that male values are perceived as the norm, which may create feelings of uncertainty and loss of control for women and produce reactions of alarm and illness problems. These are important observations in work concerning equality of opportunity and should be explored with a view of teaching management and co-workers about demands on equality. Equality plans are suspected to be difficult to fulfill if people do not know on which mechanisms the concept gender inequality is founded, this is why we conducted the study.

Today, the workforce in Sweden is made up of 80% of total women and 86% of total men; fulltime 49% of total women and 72% of total men (SCB, 2006). Overall, the knowledge about gender inequality at work is well established. However, concerning the subtle gender mechanisms, which on a social micro-level counteract women's perceptions of equality, the knowledge is much more flawed with an over-emphasis on anecdotal material. In order to explore how men employed in male-dominated work places think, feel and act about these subtle gender-related mechanisms and propose an explanation for the relationships among factors that affect the established treatment of women a qualitative study that applied grounded theory methods, therefore, was undertaken. It is important to note that the aim of the study is not to speak generally about gender equality attitudes of ‘all’ men. The aim was rather to ‘listen’ to a small group of men in male-dominated jobs, in order to examine whether we could discern experiences of gender equality from their accounts, and to describe these particular accounts as adequately as possible.

Method

Participants

The sample included 29 men, 30–59 years old who consented to take part in the study, in accordance with ethical principles accepted by Swedish universities for research in art and social sciences (HSFR, 1994). The sample was strategically selected from three different male dominated types of industrial companies (car, ball bearing and electronic) and two university colleges (faculties of medicine and dentistry) in order to maximize the variations of the experiences in the group (Malterud, 2001). Ten participants were recruited through referrals from personnel staff in one male-dominated industry. These men were randomly selected from lists of employees arranged with regard to position and type of work. A second group of participants comprised a convenient sample of industrial employees close to production from another manufacturing industry and from an electronic industry. A third group of participants was recruited from faculties of medicine and dentistry among university teachers for example professors, lecturers, physicians, dentists. These men were partly appointed by the equality ombudsman of the faculty and partly recommended by the interviewees themselves based on presumed interest in gender-related issues. Few of the presumed respondents declined to participate in the study.

The selected industries are large with worldwide businesses, which employ 19%, 15%, and 35% women respectively. At the faculty of medicine, the percentage of women is approximately 10–15% among the professors, and about equal among the students.

Seventy-nine percent lived in partnerships; 21% were fathers of pre-school children and 21% were fathers of children over the age of 7, and who still lived at home. Sixty percent had completed university studies. Twenty percent were managers, 21% professors, 38% white-collar workers and 10% blue-collar workers, and the remaining participants worked as researchers, specialists or student interns (See Table I). Most men worked full-time and 10% had shift work.

Table I.  Characteristics of the men interviewed (n = 29).

	n	%
Age
20–29 years	4	14
30–39 years	8	27
40–49 years	9	31
50–59 years	8	28
Married/cohabiting	23	79
With children at home	12	41
Education
Secondary school	2	7
High school	7	24
University studies	2	7
University degree	11	38
Graduate degree, MD, PhD	7	24
Median years of employment	10
Type of Job
Department manager	1	3
Supervisor/group manager	5	17
White-collar worker	11	38
Blue-collar worker	3	10
Professor	4	14
Senior lecture	2	7
Researcher	1	3
Specialist	1	3
Specialist undergraduate	1	3

Analytic approach

The qualitative methodological approach used in the present study relied on the tradition of grounded theory (Charmaz, 1995; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss 1987). The strongest reason for using such an inductive method is the need to explore a new research area in which theories are lacking, or to bring a fresh perspective on a familiar field (Stern, 1980). In the present study, grounded theory was used to develop a substantive theory explaining the process according to which men at work perceive and report gender equality. As a method, grounded theory accounts for variation within a specific case and across cases and it facilitates the inductive generation of a substantive theory and hypotheses for further testing. Grounded theory is referred to as “grounded” because the method also requires researchers to test emerging concepts against the raw data and, thus, ensure that abstract concepts are grounded in empirical data about the everyday experiences of the participants in the study.

Sampling within qualitative research aims at selecting informants who can provide “rich” data and in-depth descriptions of experiences (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In a grounded theory study, sampling, memo writing, and analysis are iterative processes. In this study, purposive or theoretical sampling was used, therefore, so that the participants were selected according to the emerging conceptual requirements of the study to ensure a wide range of experiences.

Procedure

Data-collection was conducted by means of in-depth interviews. The interviews were characterized by an informal and conversational manner and they took place in a quiet room, located near the interviewees’ offices. The open-ended and unstructured interviews had the form of a dialogue and focused on the informants’ own thoughts, actions, and feelings related to work with women colleagues. Grounded theory methodology allows the informants to talk freely about what had been significant for their experiences and perceptions of gender equality as well as gender inequality. In order for research findings to represent accurately what is significant for the participants in their everyday life, reflexivity addresses power relationships and relationships of trust with the participants (Hall & Callery, 2001). The introductory questions addressed in the interviews were broadly formulated so that the interviewer could hear what the participants thought, felt, and did and to receive a range of responses so that later on, the questioning had meaning for the conversational partner (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). “Tell me about your recent work with women colleagues,” and probing follow-up questions were “How did you experience that?” “How did you feel?” “What did you think?” “How did you act?” “How do you reason around gender-related problems?”

Topics related to these questions were often raised spontaneously by the participants and were narrowed down in the interview, to lead the dialogue forward in order to get a deeper understanding of the participant's perspectives. The interviews lasted 1–2 hours and were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

The author, who is psychologist with several years of experiences in psychosocial work at one of the corporations1 but who is presently affiliated at the university, conducted all the interviews. The interviewer thus had a certain preconception and acquaintance with one of the work places, and therefore, she might be potentially biased in her responses to these interviewees’ suggestions. Alternatively, the choice of different work places not familiar for the interviewer may protect against groupthink and bias. Concerning risk of social desirability, all researchers enter a field of research with certain preconceptions (Malterud, 2000). However, preconceptions are not the same as bias when the researcher identify, reflect, and mention them (Rennie, 2004).

Data analysis

Data collection, memo writing, and data analysis occurred simultaneously and in line with Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1978). The analysis of the verbatim-transcribed interviews started as soon as the first interview was collected and transcribed. The units of analysis were the meaning categories of the interviews, i.e. the events and stories told by the informants, rather than the individual informant per se (Charmaz, 1995). Initially, the interview transcripts were broken into discrete parts and substantive codes were identified and labeled concretely. The codes were continuously compared to each other so that similar phenomena were given the same label. Substantive codes codify the substance or meaning of the data (Stern, 1980). The open coding process ended in a grouping of substantive codes with similar content into summarizing subcategories. Since the theory will be generated for a core variable, the rule is to begin sorting all other categories and properties only as they relate to the core category (Glaser, 1978). One central feature of the analysis was the constant comparative method. Each category was therefore continuously compared with all the other categories to secure similarities within categories and differences between them. In the entire process of analysis, relationships between categories were hypothesized, sought, and verified in the data. The context of the interviews was focused on the emerging categories and dimensions, i.e. theoretical sampling, to refine ideas and to pinpoint the fit and the relevance of the categories. This means that the purpose of theoretical sampling is to fill out the categories, to discover variations within the categories and to define gaps between them (Charmaz, 1995). In order to reduce the amount of data, categories or core concepts, were formed in a process of analyzing memos and clustering related categories. For example, the subcategories labeled practicing invisible language, thinking differently, modifying masculine jargon and accepting extra work formed the category, illusory gender equality. According to Glaser (1978), data should be summarized in as few categories or concepts as possible, while explaining as much as possible of the area under study. In the following sections, one core category, two categories, and subsumed subcategories and substantive codes grounded on the data will be presented and illustrated by quotes from the interviews. It is of great importance that the generated categories fit, that is are grounded in the data. All the quotes are chosen because they are representative of the particular categories.

Results

Polarized gender thinking

This core category, the main concern, describes the coexistence of opposing feelings and actions to gender equality and indicate a polarization between a negative and positive approach. The interview data frequently present a picture of, on the one hand, more or less conscious expectations that women should adjust to existing “male norms,” and, on the other hand, how gender equality is envisioned in a possible future and practiced on an organizational level. Two categories emerged to explain the transition to introduce gender equality: illusory gender equality and visualizing and practicing gender equality. (see Table II). These categories describe thoughts, feelings and actions, which involve illusions of gender equality and dreams of some “balanced world” where gender equality is a matter of course. This involves concrete plans such as decisions on top management levels to change and up date gender perspectives but also achievement-oriented goals to increase the number of women and female decision-makers through better understanding of gender problems involved.

Table II.  Overview of core category, categories and subcategories grounded in data.

Core category	Polarized gender thinking
Categories	Illusory gender equality	Visualizing and practicing gender
		equality
Subcategories	Practicing invisible language	Practicing a vision of future
	Thinking differently	Valuing equality
	Accepting extra work	Recruiting female competence
	Modifying masculine behavior	Balancing the work-family puzzle

Illusory gender equality

This category describes coping difficulties when women seem to act differently from the dominating male norms. The respondents are more or less aware of this imbalance and try to describe this experience and that they are puzzled about it.

The category is further divided into the subcategories, practicing invisible language, thinking differently, accepting extra work, and modifying masculine jargon (Table II).

Practicing invisible language

The subcategory illustrates the feelings of more or less visible dominating male values that direct men and women to different types of jobs, which has resulted in a rigid gender-marked work pattern (Westberg-Wohlgemut, 1996). This subtle discrimination weakens the female connection to the workplace. The substantive codes are giving side jobs to women, creating unwelcome atmosphere or double standards, concerns for pregnancy and imperceptible harassing comments. On the shop floor, men have been successful in machine work and women in “the side jobs” such as revision and control, according to interview data. Men often have done the big mechanical tasks using a big spanner/wrench and sledgehammer and women have often done the small things around, not having enough physical strength and “being more careful”. The experience was that ever since women entered the shop floor they had traditionally been assigned to certain side jobs along the production or assembly line and that this attitude remained. For example, the general opinion had been that material composition was a male area, “a woman is never thought of”, some technical subjects are very specialized, “deeply technical” and as such, only suitable for men. At the faculties of medicine and dentistry, women and men were also assigned to different specialties because of gender-marking: men to surgery as it often includes physically heavy operations, from which women are excluded as not suitable and they are instead assigned to pediatrics, family medicine, psychiatry, child dentistry and outpatient care. Through gender marking, men and women are assigned to different jobs, and their results of work are not evaluated in the same way, which influences career and salary levels. Do men hesitate or even say no to a woman who is go-ahead and straightforward? The respondents ask if that represents a negative view of women; a dream of the perfect woman; a greater demand on women to have good manners and a greater acceptance of bad manners in men, which reminds on the so-called benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996). A woman may prioritize her career to her family life, but this preference is not embraced by a male belief about what to expect from women. An unwelcome atmosphere or double standards among male managers may cause a female manager to leave the company or unwillingly accept promotions. Concerns of women becoming pregnant are also a cause, which motivates subtle discrimination. In this case, according to one respondent, it is easier to be a man. A young respondent had experienced that many female colleagues felt discriminated against especially by older men. They resented being addressed “my dear” or “honey” or “little lady”. This statement shocked him because he had never himself heard or noticed these comments and felt awkward that supervisors or colleagues behaved so patronizingly, harassing his female colleagues. As a man, he said, without similar experiences he had never reflected over these attitudes towards girls or women. This perception alludes to what Wahl et al. (2001) have labeled gender blindness. Many interviewees described the subcategory thus:

You came in, you worked; you had a career; you showed to be clever on maybe the most difficult thing on the machine, whereas the girls often got into revisions or to inspection and certifying things. They so to speak didn't enter the field (Interviewee 21, p. 4).

Women are expected to behave in a certain way and men in another way, and women who actively set about, how they are treated, that's the question (Interviewee 2, p. 14).

There are self-confident women who want to be managers but they step back instead of forwards, don't feel welcome because of the male culture, and don't want to take the fight (Interviewee 7).

There was a need for competent persons and then you could hear that ‘he is competent, that guy is good and there is somebody who is a fast learner’ (Interviewee 27, p. 9).

Maybe as you don't see these so to speak invisible comments such as ‘little lady’ or ‘sweetie’ you think it is equal and you cannot influence this type of strange treatment at all (Interviewee 23, p. 4).

Thinking differently

The subcategory describes basic beliefs that men and women have different views of life. According to this subcategory, women and men think or reason differently, “the thinking” differs, which results in different styles of behavior, speech, and writing. When considering why it is easier for a man to understand another man than a woman the suggestion for this is different “thinking”. Perceptions of women and men appear to be conceived in term of opposites. Suggestions were that men are more oriented towards results whereas women are more oriented towards processes. Some respondents asked themselves: ‘Are there basic psychological differences between men and women; even biologically apart from the reproduction system?’ According to this view of gender, changing gender attitudes and order would imply a denial of basic psychology and both men and women would feel bad. Women who work in male-dominated organizations have reported corresponding negative attitudes from men towards women (Bergman, 2003; Bergman & Hallberg, 1997; Bergman & Wright, 2000). Substantive codes are home versus work perspectives and behaving straightforwardly. The following section contains a few excerpts from the interviews:

Something in the genes, it takes generations to take that away. You don't change that only because of policies (Interviewee 9).

Maybe you force differences between men and women in every damned question. Is it because she thinks so or is it because she is a woman? (Interviewee 13, p. 5).

Home versus work perspectives means, that even if a home is important for both men and women, men in contrast to women often want self-fulfillment in a field outside the home. Women set limits for their involvement in their work while men clench their teeth because of a higher level of aggressiveness or competition.

Women are satisfied with a lower performance, it is still good, they think, whereas men all the time want something more outside home … I think this is difficult to change. I think there is something else, a difference in the aspiration to do something with their professional lives … I think women have a broader perspective on life than men, another view of life (Interviewee 17, p. 4).

Men behave more straightforwardly to each other than to women, some men say. This means that men are more straightforward to male colleagues than to female colleagues in discussions.

Is the reason that I behave too manly, too harshly? (Interviewee 13).

Men write in a way that is different from women, men expose themselves in a way that appeals to male readers by being tougher expressing more ‘nerve’ (Interviewee 12, p. 13).

Women hesitate, ‘no, not me, I have no time, and there must be others’ (Interviewee 13).

Accepting extra work

The subcategory encompasses the substantive codes family provider, salary interest, and self-esteem, and it illuminates the beliefs that the socio-economic structure is powerful in modeling gender roles: the man being the provider of the family and the woman the caregiver as “taught by family, parents, grandparents, and society”. Accordingly, men have a stronger drive than do women to earn more money and learn more about work. In industry as well as in the academic world, the idea is equal salary for equal work. Certain types of jobs may however motivate higher pay. Salary statistics indicate that it often is men who have these extra jobs according to several of the interviewees. The respondents argue that men never say “no thanks” to extra jobs. Men talk to their supervisor about their aptitude for certain issues because they have special knowledge and qualifications as opposed to women's more modest way to act, they say. They also inform themselves about salary statistics of different branches to argue for a justifiable salary. This is one way to ensure a positive salary development in order not to slip behind. The same opinion is verbalized in the academic world: men more often than women look for the well-paid jobs. Specialists are better paid than doctors are with the Dental Public Service or outpatient care, and private practice is best paid. These professions are also most often occupied by men. This may be interpreted as that women are bad at marketing themselves to generate a higher salary. Some respondents stated that in a male world, you compete to be the best but in a female world, you adapt to others and do not try to be the best. This is a different risk taking meaning that men are more argumentative and express self-confidence even if they are on “thin ice”. Some respondents observed that women hesitate to promote themselves in a way that they consider self-centered and self-glorifying. Women believe that a good performance should be noticed and rewarded without them having to ask for it. Women underestimate themselves and do not recognize their skills and seem to question their own legitimacy. Men have no problems pointing out their good sides/abilities. The salary is an important proof or a measure of how the employer appreciates his abilities and performances. As we stated earlier, men want to compete and the salary constitutes an important indicator of success. At an early stage, men argue: “I know this and now I want to be paid for that”. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:

When we expected our first child, I felt for some time, very strongly it just came over me, I was deeply affected, I didn't think of it actively, but it was a feeling deep in my heart: I have no time, I cannot just have fun with this type of work, it doesn't pay financially … I must earn more money, maybe quit and take a better-paid job. Such were my thoughts at that time (Interviewee 16, p. 3).

I think the salary is one of the most important indicators of how I'm valued. If I'm not satisfied, I wouldn't be pleased with my employer (Interviewee 4 pp. 4–5).

If I get a reward, I have done something good … If I am offered something, which I have wanted, I would not hesitate to take it because I think I wouldn't be offered anything if they didn't think, I was competent. I don't think any manager takes a chance; you don't promote somebody because you think he will succeed but you promote people because you know they will succeed (Interviewee 27, p. 12).

Modifying masculine jargon

This subcategory highlights significant feelings when thinking of female colleagues; ideas regarding a positive work environment and a different atmosphere were pronounced. This subcategory, comprising the substantive codes involving co-workers, caring and supporting, illuminates significant perceptions about adding social competence when women are included in project work. One respondent pointed at, with women at the workplace the relationships become more cheerful and the environment more pleasant. Another interviewee said that the conversations flow more easily, you learn from each other, you cooperate better when women are included, and complement each other. Keys in this context were modifying ‘masculine’ jargon and men's rude behavior toward each other. One of the respondents tried to describe women's social competence by thoughts that men often fight each other or passively let nothing happen, while female colleagues give new suggestions and feelings of stimulation by presenting other inputs or different angles to a problem. A common opinion was that as women often have the social responsibility at home they also bring it to work, which is of great value in group or project work, they said. According to one respondent, female colleagues who have a career still care for their social network as opposed to men, who in order to make a fast career focusing them and forgetting the importance of good social relationships. Some interviewees described it this way:

A male-dominated workplace gets very harsh, a little tougher. With women it gets more … friendly maybe it's wrongly expressed, but softer, softer atmosphere, easier to work (Interviewee 24, p. 1).

It is different, it cheers you up, and you talk about completely different things with chicks than with guys … not always talk job, but talk about other things, a few more social things happening around (Interviewee 4, p. 2).

In team work women are of a great help; women care for others, how others feel, in any case I have noticed that (Interviewee 8, p. 1).

Visualizing and practicing gender equality

This other all-embracing category describes perceptions that the presence of more women in industry has not developed by itself but that has its roots in conscious strategies from top management and corresponding political levels in public organizations for breaking barriers in order to create gender equality. The segregation pattern in male and female jobs must be broken off and the process of gender socialization should be strongly considered. The respondents use metaphors such as it has been the men's world; the women have not been on the playing field; it is about a new field; shift the gender roles; there have not been any wall-to-wall carpets for women: knowledge is not related to gender. According to many respondents, these metaphors motivate a carefully planned strategy in order to reach better gender balance. Four subcategories are included, and are labeled practicing a vision of future, valuing equality, recruiting female competence and balancing the work-family puzzle (See Table II).

Practicing a vision of future

This subcategory describes the respondents’ experiences of having to transform an emotional perception or vision of gender equality into concrete activities that the company, the enterprise, or the university college would engage in. These suggestions had to be sufficiently detailed so that equality implications could be discussed and sorted out. The respondents said that they work hard to break with old gender perceptions, and there are warnings that parenthood should not become an ethical dilemma. Excerpts are:

We have a perception to abandon: women are caught in special types of work. We work hard to make it easier for women to take over typically male jobs (Interviewee 21, p. 11).

Year so and so we will have x number of women represented (Interviewee 1, p. 8).

Substantive codes are more women, merits, and training. Some of the respondents had observed the phenomenon of visibility according to Moss Kanter (1977). To avoid focus on one woman they had made a practice of recruiting at least two women at the same time to a male-dominated department, “so they can support each other” and “are not followed everywhere”. When women enter a tough men's world, and “no wall-to-wall carpets exist” there is a risk that a woman even if she can stand up for herself will be squashed or that she will feel small in this chilly climate (Pyke, 1996). In one industry, they have successfully recruited women to a male-dominated department with traditionally “macho” men “and now the manager is a woman”. There are also positive examples of employing women at top management positions even on the workshop floor and of being supportive of pregnancy when recruiting female managers. Support for training opportunities for qualified women after pregnancy i.e. female specialists are suggested, in order to reach the level that the male colleagues acquired during their maternal leave. The following sections illustrate this point:

I think you have to work actively, promote women if you want more female managers, emphasize their performance and not that they are women (Interviewee 7).

It doesn't have to be an ethical dilemma (Interviewee 14, p. 4).

Valuing equality

With the aid of three substantive codes, this category describes how to communicate the idea of equality to get the leadership and workers/colleagues to understand how the future organization will include women. The substantive codes concerns learn about gender equality, competence should pay, and speed up business. This vision of a changed future was motivated by the necessity to recognize and learn from existing typical perceptions about gender differences, and value experiences from gender-neutral work-places for example logistics, IT, research, teaching; thus facilitating women's entrance into a male dominated workplace. This was expressed in the following ways:

It takes time … I also have difficulties accepting why a woman cannot do the same work as a man and even different salary feels very strange. It is competence that should be paid not male or female (Interviewee 2, p. 7).

… today there are many women who are economists or Master of Business Administration, many engineers are women (Interviewee 7, p. 2).

It's hard work to change something that has been going on for a long time.

We have a lot to do; it's a very slow business at the university (Interviewee 12, p. 12).

Recruiting female competence

The subcategory encompasses the substantive codes professional, go-ahead, and competence and it highlights the significant attributes in women's personal make-up, which concern business and leadership. Women are forward and not afraid or anxious as they have dared to enter a male-dominated world with specialized technicians for example, building engines. Younger respondents who are used to fifty-fifty gender distribution at school and university perceived the work places as very male dominated. “Women are missing,” they say. There are, however, also hesitations about generalizing and creating gender stereotypes: there are men who are passive and men who are active as well as women. According to this idea, the differences are more a question of personality and competence than gender. The category recruiting female competence seems partly to illuminate positive sexism according to Glick and Fiske (1996) and partly to include non-sexist attitudes. Being a member of an organization that works for gender equality meant going beyond the present boundaries of male dominance and it involved feelings of self-efficacy and gender empowerment. The following excerpts illustrate the category:

The women who are 20–25 years old, I think they are forward, they have a different self-confidence than I had at that age (Interviewee 10).

The more women you get in, in the long run there ought to be changes … the only explanation is the ‘heritage’ that is the gender-related socio-economic instructions (Interviewee 2, p. 16).

I have difficulties generalizing about female and male abilities because some of the women in the group are very inquisitive and critical which ought to be a male behavior and some behave as you expect them to (Interviewee 2).

Balancing the work-family puzzle

This subcategory addresses substantive codes regarding the work-family balance: Traditional roles, to be allowed to have children and parental leave. It addresses the “parental puzzle” at home and at work of caring for the children.

Today in Sweden, a man has a legal right to stay at home for ten days when his baby is born and share the paternal leave equally. Fifteen years ago staying at home for daddy leave could have stopped your career, one respondent says. Another interviewee remarked “How you manage the role of the father will be a model for the next generation of men”. Nowadays you never openly hear any negative comments; it is a shared responsibility not only rights but also a duty, many respondents say. However, it happens rather often that fathers’ parental leaves are hidden behind compensations for overtime or night work. On the shop floor the colleagues, generally expect that the fathers take paternal leave, maybe not for a year, but rather for some months. However, there were expressions of the opposite, for example, that as a manager or supervisor you are wary of encouraging the employees to take parental leave, although it is legal, and consider it up to the parents to negotiate. According to Haas, Allard and Hwang (2002) men's use of parental leave is significantly affected by the organizational culture for example a company's commitment to caring values, company's level of “father friendliness,” its support for women's equal employment opportunities. According to interview data in this study, women are still concerned about how the news about their pregnancies will be received at work. Some managers do however mention examples of women who after their parental leave have been promoted to management positions. A manager stated that it is a matter of time.

You must realize that women give birth to children and it may involve problems for their careers, but you must be supportive. The atmosphere at work has become more open and at management meetings it nowadays happens that children are present when parents who are on parental leave return for attending a meeting (Interviewee 21, p. 11).

Excerpts are:

A pregnancy should not be a handicap for a person's career. The mother is a significant person for the baby and she should be supported at work, because we want many babies/children and a pregnancy should not stop the woman (Interviewee 14).

I have reacted over that some times, it [parental leave] must be discriminating. They [women] have been at home with a child or children, which postpones their work experiences, often in the age of 30–35. Up to 30 years of age most people at university haven't had any children yet, but later it may be a pause to women's disadvantage, if you look at it from a career point of view (Interviewee 18, p. 6).

An organization of categories into a substantive theory

The analysis generated an organization of one core category and two comprehensive categories into a substantive theory describing a process of polarized gender thinking related to different strategies exercised by male employees and staff. For entering women, valuing an equal world and perceptions of adjusting to male norms may result in feelings of being unwelcome or illusions of gender equality—“a chilly climate”—in the organization (Pyke, 1996). The assumption is that a good management strategy with differentiated measures against gender stereotypes such as practicing visions of future, recruiting female competence and solving the work-family puzzle will change the male view of gender equality to a more open-minded and flexible standard (Crawford & Unger, 2004).

Discussion

The interviewed men represent both industry and academy in male-dominated settings. Based on in-depth interviews, social and psychological dimensions related to gender equality at work were identified and summarized in one core category labeled polarized gender thinking. The findings have been combined in a substantive theory for better understanding of processes in creating gender equality. This organization of emerged categories illustrates the importance of management strategies and measures toward gender roles that were voiced by the men in this study to avoid more or less conscious demands to adjust to male norms creating polarizations of gender equality. According to the presented theory, gender equality appears on the one side to be accepted when men perceive women colleagues as skillful and competent giving valuable contributions and on the other side illusory or not understood when traditional male attitudes are the norm excluding and stereotyping women. When on an organizational level, strategies for gender equality seem to be interpreted as a duty and wishful-thinking male norms appear to spoil work for gender equality. These findings illustrate an ambivalence that is connected to social power. In that sense competent style when exhibited by women is by male raters viewed as less likable, more threatening and less influential than when men exhibit the same style.

The result of a grounded theory should be related to existing theories in the substantive and/or related field (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The respondents express a belief in ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996) in their wish for gender balance. There are expressions of idealized images of women in their traditional roles as wives and mothers, which could be transferred to work. Modifying masculine jargon may be linked to benevolent sexism, which views women as lovable but less able to take care of themselves. In contrast, recruiting female competence encompasses non-sexist views of women's ability to be competitive. Benevolent sexism may threaten women's identity. Women may fare badly by these ambivalent messages, when while they feel appreciated they are at the same time not as worthy as men of equal rights, roles and privileges. If one believes that women and men have different causes for the same behaviors, these beliefs can lead to different expectations about future behaviors (Crawford & Unger, 2004).

Thinking differently is associated with the concept hostile sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996), which acknowledges the competence of women but which also views women as soft underestimating themselves, and being outsiders. Thinking differently illustrates two groups of traits suggested by other researchers (Crawford & Unger, 2004): an affective dimension that is considered characteristic of typical females (care of others) and an instrumental dimension considered characteristic of typical males (straightforward). The opinion about thinking differently whereas women do not reason like men is according to research, more a question about similarity than difference. Research on gender differences has found that differences are often bigger within than between gender groups (Anderson & Leaper, 1998; Magnusson, 2002; Wahl et al., 2001).

There are tendencies to stereotype women and men, which are acceptable to social consensus more than individual judgments. According to research, stereotypes about women seem to be more strongly differentiated than stereotypes about men. Men are like men, women are different. When the respondents think about males and females they seem to think about more than just their personality traits considering role behaviors (accepting extra work) and occupations (practicing invisible language) (Deaux & Lewis, 1984). This puzzles some respondents and makes them suggest beliefs about biological differences expressed as thinking differently.

When women are perceived to be less competent than men and must adapt to male norms, it is not surprising that they emerge as leaders of groups far less often than men (Eagly & Karau, 1991). Female leaders face a dilemma. If they emulate a masculine leadership style, their male subordinates will dislike them. If they adopt a stereotypical warm and nurturing feminine style, they will be liked, but they might not be respected. This connects to practicing invisible language.

Changes in circumstances can however produce rapid changes in women's lives and combat social myths (Crawford & Unger, 2004). Traditional perceptions about women and men sometimes disappear when people are reminded about their egalitarian gender-related beliefs. Visualizing and practicing gender equality illustrates this. Explicit messages about gender ideology can be effective. Real social change will take place only when there are changes in both internal and external realities. According to emerged categories there seems to be a need for both strategies and measures to combat the subtle gender mechanisms, which on a social micro-level counteract equality of opportunities. There are some reflections over how to cope with these perceptions expressed in the following excerpt: “maybe I reacted on the fact that she didn't behave in a way I think a woman should act”.

Trials to solve the family puzzle has widened men's responsibility for example by paternal leave but it is still their choice to choose which form is convenient for them (Bekkenger, 2002; Waldron, 2000). Still, the focus is work for men and family for women, which has an impact/effect on their priorities (Bergman et al., 2008; Lundberg, Krantz & Berntsson, 2003). Men perceive themselves as family providers as existing male norms prescribe and men's use of parental leave is also according to Haas et al. (2002) significantly affected by the organizational culture of work.

This qualitative study pinpoints the importance of a vision of an equal world anchored by management on an organizational level and expressed in strategies and measures to fulfill expectations of gender equality even if no generalization can be made in this context. As regards solving the work-family puzzle, it seems particularly important to support the parental role in an open and accepting way from the part of society as well as from organizations (general policy, work schedules, supervisors, and mentors).

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, which has supported this study.

Notes

1. The author has been employed at a Health department of the corporation.