Today is a day of heavy reading for my management class. While the class doesn't meet until Thursday, this weekend is the only time I'll have for it, so I'm reading 40+ pages of theory, as well as 30+ pages of case history.
What's refreshing to read is that some of the assumptions about management that I have had are misconceptions. Chiefly, that all institutions are hierarchical, inherently patriarchal, and require being a hard-charging, assertive, bossy jerk. Maybe that comes from being an army brat, or an eighties child; in general that has not been my experience, but then I've always been fortunate enough to be picky about my work environment.
In the case study, the company being scrutinized is a law firm with roots in Philadelphia's Quaker community. The study attributes to this heritage a culture of consensus-based decision-making, collegiality, and thrift. It reminds me of a time, almost ten years ago, when I was dissatisfied with my work environment and changed jobs, ultimately arriving in a small shop where the technicians were collegial and shared knowledge. I would put in a vote for organizations founded on the internal sharing of knowledge.
In the general course reading, there is one chapter that basically says American management theories rarely integrate with the cultures of other nations, especially non-Western nations. The author ascribes to US management theory a focus on assertiveness, hierarchy, and a labor market, where essentially workers are contracting to provide their services. I've always had a quibble with that idea - where's the esprit d'corps? - though I've accepted it as the norm and can see, in hindsight, how it influenced some of my thoughts about my own employment in the past few years.
This is a very mechanical view of the world with no way of accounting for relationships. Perhaps I might continue working for someone even though I could make money working for someone else, based solely on the work relationship. Or, perhaps I might not opt to work for a company that pays more because I know their working conditions are not as nice. Granted, maturity and years of working in NYC have made me a bit jaded on the benefits of always working for the "best fit - I've discovered I will happily put up with circumstances I once imagined to be unbearable - but still, the principle remains - relationships and company culture matter.
I'm interested in today's study materials more for how it accounts for gender. It is generally accepted that women are not as assertive as men (not true, based on some women I've known). I think it's more apt to say that women are assertive in different ways; we compete differently. These different management styles, ascribed mostly to national or geographic location, can be described in gender terms, or more aptly, in terms of regular human diversity.
