PAPER PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON
“MAINSTREAMING GENDER IN POLICY AND PLANNING”
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING UNIT, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON
28 JUNE -1 JULY 1999
FINDING A FOOTHOLD
THE ECOLOGY OF GENDER MAINSTREAMING
IN A LARGE ORGANISATION
KALYANI MENON-SEN
GENDER ADVISOR, UNDP
55, LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI, INDIA
<kalyani.menon-sen@undp.org>
JUNE 1999
1
ABSTRACT
This paper analyses the experience of developing a gender mainstreaming strategy for a
multilateral development agency. Gender mainstreaming is central to the global mandate
of this organisation. A core gender strategy has been developed centrally and passed
down to country offices in the form of policy directives. The paper examines the extent to
which this stated ideological commitment to gender equity has been successful in creating
spaces for renegotiation of gender relations within the organisation, and the colonisation
of these spaces by advocates for gender issues.
The paper suggests that large organisations are like complex ecosystems, with several
communities and components in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Even if the overall
environment is inhospitable, several subsystems or niches can exist within such
organisations in which new concepts can take root. Concepts like gender equality, which
the larger system finds subversive and threatening to its stability, can survive and
reproduce within these niches without affecting the rest of the system. In the initial
stages, only a few ideas or individuals - pioneers, who may enter the system from outside
or who may emerge from a niche inside it - are able to establish a foothold in the larger
system. If they can survive long enough, they can change the environment in ways that
make it more hospitable to other change agents.
The gender implications of tensions and compulsions within the organisation are
explored. The paper looks critically at the role of “gender pioneers” - people from within
the organisation as well as external gender consultants - in creating an enabling
environment for gender mainstreaming. This group has to evolve strategies to take
forward the stated commitment to gender mainstreaming, and counter the invisible
resistance stemming from the gendered structures and traditions of the organisation.
Creating a conscious, committed and skilled group of internal gender pioneers, while
simultaneously working to make the environment more hospitable to their ideas and
activities are the central focus of the gender mainstreaming strategy. Building a genderequitable organisation, and building internal capacity to mainstream gender - modifying
the environment and creating potential colonisers to exploit the change - need to move
simultaneously.
2
FINDING A FOOTHOLD: THE ECOLOGY OF GENDER MAINSTREAMING
IN A LARGE ORGANISATION
Mainstreaming is now widely accepted as the most effective strategy for institutionalising
gender equality concerns within organisations. The recognition in the 1980s that efforts to
“integrate” women into development had failed to achieve significant results primarily
because of the “gendered” nature of institutions, led to a corresponding emphasis in the
1990s on restructuring institutions to ensure that they reflect and represent women’s
interests.
Donor agencies have played a central role in promoting the concept of gender
mainstreaming, and in developing and testing strategies and tools – so much so that
attempts to explore organisational gender issues in Southern NGOs are often dismissed as
being part of a donor-driven agenda. While this may be just another expression of
patriarchal resistance to questioning of women’s subordination, other more reasoned
critiques of mainstreaming have come from feminist activists, who see it as a process of
co-option.
The apparent consensus among very diverse organisations on the need for gender
mainstreaming has been widely questioned by grassroots activists as well as by feminists
within development organisations. A range of ideological standpoints appears to underlie
these “common concerns” and the use of blanket terms like “empowerment” and
“mainstreaming” may well conceal a process of transformation of radical feminist
agendas into policies with a conservative or neo-liberal flavour.
From the feminist point of view, mainstreaming is a political process that requires
fundamental changes in hierarchies of power within organisations, and involves
transformation of organisational goals, cultures and ways of functioning. However, in
practice, mainstreaming often appears less a political issue than a technical and
managerial problem, involving the development of new structures and systems for policy
making, agenda setting, planning, implementation and evaluation. From this point of
view, the central concern in mainstreaming is to set up procedures, financial practices,
HRD policies, operational guidelines and so on. It has been pointed out that this
preoccupation with procedures can, and often does, lead to a lack of clarity on the
ultimate goals of the exercise (Baden and Goetz, 1997).
In implementing gender mainstreaming, donors – and governments - have tended to focus
on activities that yield quick and visible results – such as producing policy documents,
data sets and programme guidelines. We now have a large volume of data on global
gender issues and a considerable collection of gender analytical frameworks and tools.
All major donor agencies have gender policy statements, gender advisors and gender
toolkits. The fact that, in spite of these initiatives, development programmes continue to
produce gendered outcomes has provided legitimacy to feminist interrogations of
development organisations and the management of development. A gendered
‘archaeology of organisations is emerging, and the manner in which particular
3
organisational structures and practices actually produce gendered outcomes is
increasingly the focus of attention (Goetz, 1995).
The process of gender mainstreaming in organisations can be visualised as a continuum,
starting with “gender as a good idea”, and moving through a phase of “taking gender on
board as a paper policy” to the final stage of “integrating gender into living practice
(McDonald et al, 1997). Of course, the process is not linear or uniform – different levels
within the organisation may be at different stages, and there may be differences between
the degree of integration of gender issues within the organisation, and in relation to its
external environment. Large and small organisations may face very different situations
with respect to their institutional contexts – their responses to external pressures, the
complexity and flexibility of their structures and procedures and the influencing
potentials of change agents can be very different.
The institutional context is more difficult to define in the case of multilateral
development organisations. These organisations operate across state boundaries, and their
policies and worldviews themselves shape the context in which governments and NGOs
function. While there have been studies and assessments of efforts by multilaterals to
integrate gender concerns into their activities (Kardam, 1993; Razavi and Miller, 1995),
these have focused on institutional factors at the policy level, rather than on problems of
implementation at the organisational level.
Apart from organisational structures, processes and culture, the presence of gender
entrepreneurs” - people willing and able to promote gender issues, equipped with
technical and analytical skills as well as able to bargain with different actors to mobilise
support, has been identified as critical to change (Kardam, 1995).
Organisations have been compared to onions (they have many layers, they have to be
peeled to release the flavour, and peeling induces tears!) or icebergs (the “deep structure”
is more than what is visible on the surface) (Rao and Stewart, 1997). The process of
gender mainstreaming has been compared to cooking in an uncovered pot - if you leave it
on the fire long enough, the gendered policies contained in the pot will evaporate, but the
pot remains the same (Longwe, 1995). These images do not help us to understand the
role of “gender entrepreneurs” in organisational tranformation, even though they have
been identified as the “strongest internal force for gender oriented practice” (Holzner,
1996).
This paper is based on the experience of an external consultant in developing and
implementing a gender mainstreaming strategy in the UNDP India country office. It
suggests that large organisations are like complex ecosystems, with several communities
and components in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Even if the overall environment is
inhospitable, several subsystems or niches can exist within such organisations in which
new concepts can take root. Concepts like gender equality, which the larger system finds
subversive and threatening to its stability, can survive and reproduce within these niches
without affecting the rest of the system. In the initial stages, only a few ideas or
individuals - pioneers, who may enter the system from outside or who may emerge from a
niche inside it - are able to establish a foothold in the larger system. If they can survive
4
long enough, they can change the environment in ways that make it more hospitable to
other change agents.
The larger environment - the global organisation
UNDP has its headquarters in New York and operates through a network of 132 country
offices around the world. The organisation is fairly decentralised, with 85% of staff in the
field offices. Although established in 1966 as an agency for technical cooperation, UNDP
is now committed to the mandate of sustainable human development – “development that
is pro-poor, pro-women, pro-nature and pro-jobs”. This shift has resulted in increased
visibility and centrality of gender issues in the organisation.
At headquarters, the Gender in Development Programme (GIDP) is mandated to provide
overall policy guidance and operational tools for gender mainstreaming. At present, GIDP
has six staff members, supplemented by gender focal points in regional bureaux and
country offices. However, focal points are not always gender specialists. GIDP sees itself
as playing an advocacy role within the organisation, through policy papers, guidelines and
training for staff. The mainstreaming strategy has two major goals – to diffuse
responsibility for gender mainstreaming to all staff members, and to integrate gender
concerns into all activities.
UNDP emphasises the importance of procedures for overall institutional accountability to
gender. Gender training is seen as a key procedural tool for mainstreaming. Several
rounds of intensive capacity-building have been organised for focal points. However,
training has covered only a fraction of staff members (Razavi and Miller, 1995). There
are few internal gender experts in country offices, which tend to rely on consultants.
There have been some recent efforts to make senior managers more accountable for
gender mainstreaming, through making it mandatory to report on achievement of gender
goals and tracking resources directed to women or spent on mainstreaming activities.
A recent analysis of gender mainstreaming at the global level in UNDP has found that
UNDP had “gone a long way in putting its procedures through a gender lens, and is
poised to further strengthen existing mechanisms” (Razavi and Miller, 1995).
The immediate ecosystem - UNDP India
The gender mainstreaming strategy for the UNDP India Country Office does not attempt
to reinvent the wheel – it follows the broad strategic framework evolved by the gender
team at headquarters, while building on the strengths and addressing the challenges
presented by the Indian context.
The strategy document identifies spaces and entry-points for gender mainstreaming
within the organisation. While some of these spaces are the logical outcome of the UNDP
commitment to sustainable human development, others are created by gender policies at
the global level.
5
The process of colonisation and exploitation of these spaces – whether by pioneering
individuals or pioneering ideas – is taking place in an environment characterised by a
complex interplay of forces and processes.
The last decade has seen major changes in UNDP at the global level.
Between 1966 and 1990, the organisational did not have a clear substantive focus - its
mission changed with every change at the top. Now, however, sustainable human
development appears to have stabilised as the overall mandate. In addition, there has been
a shift from the earlier ‘project’ approach to a more integrated ‘programme’ approach,
involving complicated negotiations with partners and a slowdown in resource utilisation.
There is also a move towards decentralisation of functions to the country offices. All this
is happening in an environment of fund cutbacks, creating pressure on UNDP for
showing performance and improving accountability.
UNDP in India does not occupy a commanding position in terms of development thought
and practice - it is only one (and not the largest) among many powerful players in a
crowded field. There are large and well-established NGO donors with proven “propeople” credentials who have an advantage over UNDP in terms of grassroot presence.
Bilaterals are increasingly circumventing cumbersome procedures (and avoiding
accountability to the Indian government) by direct funding to NGOs. The terms of
development debate and discourse are set by NGOs with both conceptual and
organisational strengths. The concept of sustainable human development, which could be
a ‘USP’ for UNDP, is in danger of being appropriated by agencies like the World Bank,
which are beginning to rewrite the rules of the game.
The organisation depends on external consultants - a total of 28,000 globally - for
substantive inputs in programme formulation and monitoring (Razavi and Miller, 1995).
These consultants are drawn from a wide range of backgrounds and disciplines, and are
potential pioneers of ideas and innovations within the organisation. However, since
programme divisions function sectorally, there is little interaction between consultants
and the larger environment. The time-bound nature of their relationships with the
organisation, and their lack of formal authority also limit the degree of influence that
consultants can exercise. Usually, their influence is seen at the level of programmes, and
the survival of their ideas and approaches, even within the niche provided by a particular
division, is left very much to chance. The fact that consultants do not necessarily share a
gender perspective - as evidenced by the continuing need to screen the documents they
produce with a “gender lens” - also precludes their becoming gender pioneers.
The challenge in producing the gender strategy document was to ensure that the process
of producing the document itself contributed to changing the environment, and creating
some spaces where gender equality could take root.
The gender consultant was hired in partnership with UNIFEM to conduct an
organisational analysis and evolve a strategy for gender mainstreaming. Initially, she
attempted to interact with various programme sections and explore the extent to which
gender issues were reflected in their work and functioning. This was a period of crisis in
6
the organisation - there were serious bottlenecks in the fund flow and each section was
struggling to get interventions moving on the ground. Most programme documents were
in the final stages of preparation, and there was general apprehension that a gender review
would mean more work, and demand a “back-to-the-drawing-board” approach. It was
difficult for the consultant to assess the degree to which the organisation was open to
change, without being seen as implying that drastic change would be necessary.
It soon became clear that there was a high degree of fatigue, not only with the idea of
gender mainstreaming, but also with the thought of any further discussion on concepts.
However, people were willing to accept that there was a need for practical tools. Given
the situation, the Gender Focal Point suggested that the gender consultant work with her
section to develop some interventions for women’s empowerment. The Gender Focal
Point, who herself was grappling with programme delivery, shared the view that it was
more to the point to demonstrate gendered interventions than talk about gender in the
abstract. Since her section handles five programmes, all with explicitly gendered and
women-centred frameworks, and was already a niche for gender issues in the
organisation, she felt that it would also provide a good entry-point for experimenting with
consultative and participatory ways of functioning .
Rather than extending the diagnostic phase, which she initally saw as central to her role
as an external pioneer, the gender consultant moved into activities and developed her
analysis of the organisation from observations of its functioning. While she continued to
hold the view that organisational change should be central to the mainstreaming strategy,
she also felt that the development of some women-centred interventions in key sections
would help in developing client pressure for continued support to gender issues.
This move of using the programme development process as an entry point into the
organisation was not fully supported by gender advocates outside the system, who felt
that the gender consultant might be diverted from examining and confronting
organisational issues, and ran the risk of being coopted into supporting the status quo in
the organisation. The gender consultant agreed that this risk existed, but felt that it was
worth taking, given the opposition to outsiders pushing agendas which were of little
interest to others inside the organisation.
Given the complexity of the structures and processes of large organisations, an analysis
from the position of a complete outsider would necessarily have been based on
assumptions that could be easily contested and dismissed. Working as a member of a
team has enabled the gender consultant to participate in the ecology of the organisation,
experience some of the pulls and pressures that influence it and understand the
organisational culture - both the individual opinions, as well as the shared values and
norms of its members . These interactions have enabled the identification of "points of
opportunity" within the organisation, where space exists for the personal to become
political for members of the system. It has also enabled the gender consultant to establish
her credentials and explore alliances with gender pioneers within the organisation.
The gender mainstreaming strategy that resulted from this process is somewhat different
from other such instruments, in that it does not provide gender tools and methods. The
7
basic framework is built round the idea that gender equality as part of organisational
practice cannot be separated from the concept of gender equality as an organisational
value.
The document identified three major domains of change - the organisation itself, the
development interventions supported by it and the larger national context. Even though
change in the national context was the ultimate goal, development agencies needed to be
modest about what they could achieve on their own. The document therefore stated that
organisational change and transformation must lie at the core of the gender
mainstreaming strategy.
It was pointed out that changes in the technical aspects of gender mainstreaming developing the human resource capacities, instruments and tools - are generally easier to
bring about and encounter comparatively less resistance than changes in other aspects.
However, the greatest potential for re-alignment of gender-inequitable relationships in all
three domains lies in changing the processes of planning and decision-making within the
organisation.
The suggested strategy was based on the understanding that re-arrangement of
institutional and power relationships in the organisation (the political sub-system), and in
attitudes and behaviour (the cultural sub-system) are necessary to sustain and take
forward changes in the technical sub-system. Changes in the organisational environment
would have long-term impacts on policies and programmes, and therefore on the larger
context which these programmes are designed to influence and change.
The empowerment of women - both in the organisation as well as “out there” - was seen
as the central tenet of gender mainstreaming. It was emphasised that while changes in
women’s condition may conceivably result from external interventions, more lasting and
fundamental transformations in their position could come about only through their own
conscious and active agency. While this was a principle that was reflected in all
programme documents, the document pointed out that this was as true for organisations
as it is for communities.
It was recognised by gender advocates within the organisation, that a critical difference
could be made by the manner in which the strategy was implemented. If it could be
ensured that the process of implementation was congruent with its larger goals, it would
result not only in changes in women’s condition, but would also challenge and change the
structures and systems which create gender inequality within the organisation.
SUGGESTED ACTIONS FOR GENDER MAINSTREAMING


A series of mini-retreats and reflection sessions on “Gender equality : what does it
mean for me?” in small groups, first for men and women separately, and later for
mixed groups.
Setting up a transparent mechanism for hearing and quick action on complaints of
discrimination and harassment including sexual harassment.
8












Initiating exit interviews to focus attention on the reasons why women and men leave
the organisation.
Building women’s competence to participate in ‘public’ spaces by organising mock
meetings, ‘post-mortem’ feedback sessions and women-only discussion groups on
organisational issues.
Workshops on leadership, advocacy, negotiation and overcoming resistance to be held
for small groups of women.
Avoiding and actively discouraging sexist language, jokes and comments.
Individuals within the organisation who are role models, and who have demonstrated
their commitment to gender equality, to be recognised and commended.
Cell to be set up for counselling on career-related and personal issues.
Support to individuals to enhance their skills and capacities and explore new
professional areas.
Setting up a chat site/bulletin board on intranet to share personal experiences,
reactions and feedback on the mainstreaming process.
Reorganising the office seating plan to facilitate horizontal communication.
Using electronic communication as a backup for face-to-face interactions, rather than
as a substitute.
Reviewing and rationalising leave rules and introducing paternity leave for men on
request from their wives.
Introducing flexi-time for all staff and exploring “working from home” as an option
for one-parent families and parents with very young children.
The document has generated some disquiet - the feeling has been expressed that
implementation of the strategy in the manner suggested would amount to interference in
the private domain and an "unprofessional" personalisation of issues. The apprehension
has been expressed that it would lead to conflicts between men and women in the
organisation.
This disquiet has itself created an opportunity to open up some organisational gender
issues with a small informal group of advocates for change within the organisation. At
present, this group does not have either a clear focus on promoting gender equality, or the
specialised knowledge and skills to take up activities on their own. However, there is a
stated commitment to a systematic exploration of issues and problems within the
organisation. The opportunity now exists for the gender consultant to work with this
group and ensure that gender equity becomes a core component of this enquiry and of any
proposals for change, while at the same time guarding against advocating any particular
set of solutions.
This expansion of gender issues into the organisational domain is also an outcome of
support from powerful individuals within the system. Unlike in many other organisations,
key individuals in the top management of UNDP India are gender pioneers - strong
advocates for gender equality who are in a position to relate to both internal and external
advocates, and prepared to take some risks in confronting difficult questions. Their active
support to the gender consultant has given increased legitimacy to gender issues. On the
other hand, these alliances have also sometimes created difficulties with others in the
9
organisation, since special relationships with senior management are seen as a route to
undue influence.
The “insider” position has its own problems. Becoming involved substantively in
programme development, which many see as the “real work” of the organisation, has
certainly created the conditions for the gender consultant to be accepted as an insider, but
has also led to her being identified with one particular section. Given the intense
competition between sections to deliver on programmes, comments on the gender content
of documents produced by other sections initially ran the risk of being interpreted as
attempts to score a point over a rival section. Following up to see whether comments have
been incorporated in documents was also interpreted as policing. With allies within the
system, there is also the constant risk of becoming so empathetic as to be unable to
provide a critical alternative view of difficult situations.
The creation of a pool of internal gender pioneers to identify and exploit emerging spaces
in the process of organisational change, is a critical element of the strategy. The present
“gendered organisation of space and time” cannot change as long as women are in a
minority at decision-making levels. At the global level, UNDP endorses the strategy of
increasing the number of women in senior management positions. However, despite
having a “gender balance in management” policy and clear operating guidelines, the
objective of having at least 40% of senior positions filled by women by the year 2001 is
still far from being achieved.
It would be naive to imagine that parity in numbers alone would change this situation,
given the existence of inequalities other than those based on gender - class or caste-based
inequalities, or inequalities between national and international cadres of staff. However,
it has been repeatedly proved that, without a critical mass of women, mutual support and
collective questioning do not take root. The suggestion made by the gender consultant,
that all vacant posts for the next one year should be reserved for women, has met with
negative reactions, and has been categorised as “unjust to men”, “a way to ensure a fall in
professional standards”, and “legally untenable”. These reactions have come from both
men and women.
There are a large number of women in the organisation, but they are concentrated at the
lower rungs of the hierarchy. At present, there are only a few women at the senior and
middle levels who have proved their credentials as "achievers", all of whom work under
intense personal pressures that encourage conformity to the dominant norm. It is difficult
for these women to espouse the interests of other women in the organisation, when these
interests are clearly in opposition to the organisational goals of upgrading professional
standards. The fact that the majority of women - and men - at lower and middle
management levels do not have technical qualifications and specialised skills, makes it
difficult for them to move up in the system.
The gender strategy document does not see capacity-building for internal gender pioneers
as an isolated activity - in order to enable potential gender pioneers to influence the
system, they also need to upgrade their technical and professional competence and skills.
10
As others have pointed out, it is not enough to have women in place - they have to be the
right women, or they cannot become pioneers.
LESSONS LEARNT
It has been suggested that gender mainstreaming in ideal terms may be a mirage - one
may get closer to it at times, but it may not be a realisable goal (Hirschmann, 1995). If
one accepts the idea that large organisations are complex ecosystems (as opposed to small
organisations, which are likely to be more homogenous communities) it is easy to
understand why gender pioneers need to be prepared for “permanent struggle”.
The potential of complex systems to absorb and adapt innovators and innovations is
usually far greater than the transformatory potential of pioneers - “change agents” can
turn into “changing agents” (Rao and Stewart, 1997). The ability of pioneers to introduce
change initiatives in ways that ensure system-wide impact in such large systems cannot be
taken for granted, even in organisations which, like UNDP, have gender equality woven
into their mandate and mission. The sectoral structure and functioning of such
organisations insulates niches from each other. The fact that gender concerns seem to
have taken root in one part of the organisation does not automatically ensure their spread
into other sectors in the larger system - niches can easily become ghettos.
The “insider” and “outsider” positions both involve dilemmas and contradictions for
gender pioneers. While “outsiders” and their ideas may be rejected as too radical or
irrelevant, “insiders” may be unable to resist pressures to conform. At least in the initial
stages, the “outsider” gender pioneer who is able to become an “honorary insider” is
perhaps the most successful in addressing difficult issues in a manner which is both nonthreatening and effective. If the gender pioneer can establish legitimacy and gain
acceptance as an individual, and establish commonality of interests with other change
agents and processes in the organisation, the pace and direction of change can be
maintained. Some basic changes in the organisational environment can result, making it
more open and receptive to advocacy of gender interests by internal pioneers.
“Honorary insider” status is difficult to achieve and more difficult to maintain. The space
for influencing organisational structures is essentially created by the feeling that the
pioneer has no stakes in becoming a permanent member of the system, and is outside the
hierarchies.
The identification between the issue and the individual may be much stronger in the case
of women gender consultants than for other “technical” consultants. Individuals with
commitment to gender equality, but who lack the conceptual tools to back them up are
unable to intervene effectively, apart from applying a “gender lens” and pointing out the
deficiencies in interventions. These critiques, which are not rooted in any understanding
of the issue in question, are easily trivialised and ridiculed. At their worst, they can
inoculate the organisation against sensitivity to any future gender interventions.
The chances of legitimacy for gender issues outside specialised niches are increased when
the gender pioneer is able to intervene from the starting point of the issue rather than
11
exclusively from a women’s view. Demonstrated experience and expertise in working
with a broad range of issues is a strong element in the success of system-wide
interventions by gender pioneers.
The demands of filling the role of a “cross-sectoral” person advocating a cross-sectoral
issue like gender, can create pressures which need to be handled with maturity. It is easy
to fall into the role of an “expert” - the initial vagueness and lack of definition of gender
mainstreaming goals on the part of the organisation pushes gender pioneers into this role.
Organisations like UNDP live with centrally decided targets and are under constant
pressure to achieve them. In such situations, the willingness on the part of managers to
accept cosmetic solutions that appear “win-win” at least on the surface, is high. In
striving for acceptance and legitimacy, the gender pioneer may well be tempted to suggest
such solutions, rather than measures that are harder to swallow.
Maturity is also needed in making decisions concerning the timing of interventions. The
ability to make a deliberate decision not to intervene is an important component of
pioneering. There are situations where it is wiser to say and do nothing - badly timed
interventions can cause lasting damage, or pre-empt stronger initiatives that would
emerge from a longer consensual process.
The transformatory potential of women within the organisation is limited at present.
Women managers are closely watched - any shortfalls in performance or in meeting work
targets are immediately interpreted as evidence of the irrelevance of the issues they are
raising through their work. Stereotyping of the individual - “one of those feminists”, “an
NGO type”, “a gender policewoman” - also undermines the confidence of women to
confront such situations. Most women in the organisation lack the analytical tools and
concepts to be able to act as change agents either at the strategic level or in their daily
practice. Gender training alone may not suffice - a system of mentoring by senior women
managers and gender pioneers is needed to support other women in using the empowering
opportunities created by the implementation of the strategy
Gender policies may be designed to create a system-wide impact, but they are usually
selectively implemented and can only create limited spaces within different units of the
system. The weakness of mechanisms for monitoring and accountability gives enormous
power to the middle and lower levels of the hierarchy in large and decentralised
organisations - instructions that are not endorsed are seldom directly challenged, but are
not automatically followed. A gender policy developed, monitored and controlled by
headquarters, side by side with the emphasis on concerns such as participation and
transparency, are inherently contradictory. These contradictions, and the pressures of
programm delivery, are the reasons most often cited for selective implementation of
policies.
The global gender policy sees a “care-based, empowering organisation” as a precondition
for gender mainstreaming. It recommends the elimination of disempowering rules and
fearful behaviour, so as to “ensure for all staff the capacity to negotiate effectively and
contribute with full creativity to the dynamism of development”. The paradox of course,
12
is that people can negotiate effectively and fearlessly only in an organisation where they
are already empowered to some extent.
Also, the assumption that because participation, openness and democracy are
preconditions for gender equity, the reverse is equally true, is untenable. Most
participatory interventions in management are essentially technocratic, and the use of the
vocabulary of empowerment is self-deceptive (Cooke, 1996). The commitment to
democracy can easily become a façade behind which managerial control and legitimacy
are reinforced. Like all other technologies, participatory processes are never valueneutral, but they are equally not value-specific. The ongoing process of “change
management” within UNDP is an example - priority is usually given to addressing
present, observable and supposedly “practical” aspects of individual, group and
organisational behaviour. There is far less emphasis on interrogating and understanding
forces of causation, nor is there an appreciation of the fact that these forces are not less
powerful for being invisible and unobservable.
The challenge for gender pioneers is to question this contradiction and make visible its
implications for both men and women within the organisation. The decisions and actions
involved in gender mainstreaming will ultimately affect each person in the organisation.
Decisions to implement global policies, which are taken “by acclamation” and ignore or
overrule dissent, are likely to address the symptoms rather than the real issues. Gender
advocates need to develop the confidence to allow the open expression of dissent and
convert it into an opportunity to deepen the levels of mutual trust and understanding in
the organisational environment. Bringing conflicts out into the open increases the
possibility of building consensus out of a synthesis of views, leading to permanent and
sustainable changes in the organisational environment.
13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Baden, Sally and Anne Marie Goetz. 1997. Who Needs Sex When You Can Have
Gender? Feminist Review No 56
2. Cooke, Bill. 1996. Participation, Process and Management: lessons for Development
in the History of Organisation Development. Human Resources in Development
Group Working Paper No 7
3. Goetz, Anne Marie. 1995. Institutionalising Women's Interests and Accountability to
WID. IDS Bulletin Vol 26 No 3
4. Hirschmann, David. 1995. Democracy, gender and US Foreign Assistance: Guidelines
and Lessons. World Development Vol 23 No 8.
5. Holzner, Brigitte M. 1996. Making Gender Policies Work in Development
Organisations. Vrouenberaad Ontwikkelingssamenwerking
6. IDS BRIDGE No 5. Approaches to Institutionalising Gender.
7. Jahan, Raunaq. 1995. The Elusive Agenda: Mainstreaming Women in Development.
Zed Books
8. Kardam, Nuket. 1993. Development Approaches and the Role of Policy Advocacy:
The Case of the World Bank. World Development Vol 21 No 11.
9. Longwe, Sara Hlupkile. 1995. The Evaporation of Policies for Women’s Advancement
in “A Commitment to the World’s Women. UNIFEM.
10.
Macdonald, Mandy, Ellen Sprenger and Ireen Dubel. 1997. Gender and
Organisational Change. Royal Tropical Institute, The Netherlands
11.
Menon-Sen, Kalyani. 1998. Moving From Policy to Practice: A Gender
Mainstreaming Strategy for UNDP India. UNDP
12.
Rao, Aruna and Rieky Stewart. 1997. Rethinking Organisations: A Feminist
Perspective. Gender and Development Vol 5 No 1
14