Australian Farm Women - Shut out or Fenced in? The Lack of Women in Agricultural Leadership

*Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia

Published by Blackwell Publishers, 1998 European Society for Rural Sociology108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK Sociologia Ruralis Volume 38, No. 3, 1998and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA ISSN 0038–0199

Australian Farm Women – Shut outor Fenced in? The Lack of Women

in Agricultural Leadership

Margaret Alston and Jane Wilkinson*

HE PAUCITY OF WOMEN IN decision-making positions in Australian corpo-rate life is well documented and continually monitored (for example, Korn-

Ferry 1996, 1997). In rural Australia, where women have been described as ‘in-visible’ (Williams 1992), very few women achieve leadership or policy-makingpositions in traditional farm organizations or on statutory agricultural boardsdespite their significant contributions to agricultural production (Alston 1995).Women’s access to power is limited by their position in the gendered hierarchyof agriculture, by their lack of access to the resources associated with farming,by the continuing dominance of agricultural decision-making organizations bymales and by the shaping and exercise of power within these organizations (Al-ston 1995). What is perhaps slightly unusual about the Australian situation is therising crescendo of discontent and exasperation from the farm women’s groupswho have sought their own channels to government through new and moreradical women’s lobby groups (Teather 1996; Alston 1996, 1995a; Broad 1997;Board 1997). In an attempt to understand the exclusion of women in agriculturefrom traditional sources of power, this paper adopts a feminist framework toexamine the relationship between farm women and power. In particular, thepaper seeks to profile those who hold positions of power within Australian ag-ricultural organizations and to understand the way barriers are constructed andnormalized by those with the ability to effect change. What does this powerfulgroup perceive are the constraints on women’s access to high profile farm deci-sion-making positions and why are these not addressed?

In the last fifteen years women’s participation in the Australian agriculturalworkforce has risen from 15 per cent to 32 per cent and women now make up40 per cent of farm business partners (Rowe 1997). Seventy thousand womendefine themselves as farmers (RIRDC and DPIE 1998; Board 1997). Since

T

Alston and Wilkinson392

1968, 54 per cent more women are working full time on farms and 148 per centmore are working part time (Ferguson and Simpson 1995, p. 18). Changes inwork roles have led to readjustments of economic activity and variations to theindividual contributions of farm partners. Recent research reveals that womennow contribute 48 per cent of total Australian real farm income ($14 billion in1995–6) (RIRDC and DPIE 1998). Further, farm women are twice as likely tohold tertiary qualifications as farm men and many more rural women than mencomplete secondary education (Rowe 1997).

Despite their higher rates of education, their evident economic contributionand their commitment, farm women are largely invisible in policy and decisionmaking. Only one woman is on the Australian National Farmers’ FederationExecutive (although four of sixty-four positions on NFF committees are heldby women) (NFF 1997) and women hold only 17 per cent of positions on theFederal Department of Primary Industries and Energy sponsored boards(Board 1997). Further, women make up only 8 per cent of all senior leadershippositions in agriculture (RIRDC and DPIE 1998). This situation is not, how-ever, exclusive to agriculture. An increasing amount of research in the last ten tofifteen years, both within Australia and overseas, has analysed women’s exclu-sion from power at the higher levels of the private and public sectors (Burtonand Ryall 1995; Still 1993, 1997; Sinclair 1994; Roper 1994; Glass Ceiling Com-mission 1995). The Korn/Ferry International 1997 Annual Board of DirectorsStudy surveyed leading companies and government enterprises in Australasiaand found that 6 per cent of directors and 7.3 per cent of non-executive direc-tors on boards were women.

Rural media, which exclude or inferiorize women, foster their invisibility inagriculture. For example, in February 1997, The Australian Farm Journal pub-lished a list of the top 100 people in agriculture. When only three women werefeatured, the outcry from rural women was so intense that the journal quicklyfollowed up in July 1997 with a list of the top 100 women in agriculture. Theirprevious oversight was explained away in an editorial:

It was rewarding to discover such a vast pool of talent. The profiles provide an inter-esting insight into the women who have crashed through the proverbial glass ceiling(Carson 1997).

Despite the activism and contribution of farm women, the apparent normaliza-tion of women’s absence from the public face of agriculture is accepted andperpetuated by Australian rural media, thus facilitating an ideology of farmwomen as secondary or irrelevant. Women are very much viewed as ‘other’ bythose with the power to shape the dominant discourse (Alston 1998). To under-stand the processes at work in their marginalization, the literature relating towomen, power and organizational culture will be examined before the findingsof research conducted with chairs of Australian agricultural boards and com-mittees are presented. One hundred and forty chairs of boards were surveyedby mailed questionnaire to determine their perceptions of the profile of womenin agricultural decision making.

Australian farm women – shut out or fenced in? 393

Farm women and power

Women’s role in the hierarchical family farming arrangement has traditionallybeen shaped by their exclusion from the process of patrilineal inheritance. Theirmost likely point of entry to farming is through marriage thus placing them in aposition which is not only secondary, but which carries the expectation thatthey will accept a gendered division of labour. Whatmore (1991) uses a feministanalysis to demonstrate how women’s role as ‘wives’ and the expropriation oftheir labour empowers men and subordinates women. As Brandth (1994, p.130) suggests, “women can do anything as long as they do it in relative subordi-nation to their men.” The expectation that women will perform the domesticwork associated with the farm household and their limited access to property,shape and restrict all other choices that women make. Whatmore (1991) seesthe patriarchal structures that typify farming, the gendered division of labourand the ideology of ‘wifehood’ as the key factors which affect farm women’ssense of identity, their secondary status and the gender inequalities which arenormalized in rural societies.

By contrast, Shortall (1992) draws on Lukes’ analysis of power to explainwhy women occupy a subservient role in the farm hierarchy and are absentfrom the wider public world of agriculture. She notes that women’s powerlessposition can be assessed through an examination of the obstruction of choice.By noting how much discrepancy exists between what women are doing andwhat they would prefer to do, she demonstrates that women are coerced into asecondary position, a position that allows their partners freedom to hold morepowerful positions within the agricultural landscape. Shortall demonstrates howorganizations can exclude the powerless group (in this case farm women) andrender them silent because they have no forum in which to express their views.Consequently, their very silence is taken to justify their exclusion and lack ofinterest thus legitimizing an inequitable domination of power by the elite group.Those who try to break into the power structures may be ostracized not only bymembers of the dominant group but also by their peers (in this case other farmwomen). Further, the subservient group may actually collude in their exclusionthrough their acceptance of their powerless position and their constructed ‘self-knowledge’ which sees them participate in the perpetuation of the view thatwomen are somehow not capable or worthy of power (Shortall 1992, p. 434;Mackenzie 1994). Mackenzie (1994, p. 102) sees women as having ‘subjugatedknowledge’ which is not recognized or valued by the dominant discourse. InFoucauldian terms, she views the relationship between power and knowledge ascrucial to an understanding of women’s exclusion and as a potential site forwomen’s resistance. Breaking into the agricultural discourse, and hence key de-cision-making forums, is essential to women’s advancement.

In Australia, women’s virtual absence from these key bodies has seen themturn to newer women’s organizations for a public forum in which to expresstheir views. Teather (1996, p. 6) argues that these organizations allow women to


combat their sense of powerlessness and their ‘psychological alienation’ whichresult from their virtual exclusion from traditional organizations. Women’s or-ganizations have provided a powerful voice for Australian farm women result-ing in their access to the federal government through regular funded women’sforums and their representation on several key committees of inquiry into ruralconditions. Having found an avenue to the policy makers, women are organiz-ing and insisting on recognition of their own efforts and attention to women’sissues and declining rural communities (Alston 1995a; SCARM 1997b). AsShortall (1994) notes, such organizations provide women with a sense of self-worth and empowerment and are sites where women can address farm policy ina social as well as an economic context. They are also important to develop fe-male-centred agricultural knowledge and, therefore, a focus from which to de-velop resistance to the dominant discourse (Grosz 1986). Yet, despite their ob-vious presence in the national arena, it is arguable that the very nature of theirseparatist movement allows women to be sidelined by key agricultural decisionmakers and power brokers. Women’s alternative structures reduce their abilityto control the agricultural agenda. Male control of the dominant discourse al-lows them to shape the creation of knowledge to their own interests and aroundtheir own subjectivities, ignoring female subjectivities and experience. The waythis process is facilitated will be discussed in the next two sections.

Farm women and the state

The unique position of Australian women in relation to the state has beenforged by the entry of feminist women to high-level advisory positions since the1970s. These women, colloquially known as ‘femocrats’ (Eisenstein 1996; Wat-son 1992; Franzway et al. 1989) have allowed a feminist voice to infiltrate policyand to shape and transform the national psyche. Their presence has not beenwithout problems, however. They have, for example, been accused of ‘sellingout’ and betraying the feminist cause through their association with government(Watson 1992). They have also had to reconstruct the feminist message in theirattempts to convince an overwhelmingly male-dominated bureaucracy of itsworth. In so doing, despite their visibility, they and their message have oftenbeen marginalized in policy arenas and their position is always tenuous.

Several changes in government at the federal level over the last fifteen yearshave seen the pendulum swing towards and away from a recognition ofwomen’s issues and of the femocrats who champion them. The current ultra-conservative Liberal/National Party government, elected in 1996, is committedto an ideology of economic rationalism and is intent on winding back the wel-fare state and, it would appear, gains made by women and other disadvantagedgroups (Rayner 1997). Under Prime Minister John Howard’s government,women are losing ground – child care services have been drastically cut andwomen’s services restructured. The Federal Office of the Status of Women, thekey site of femocratic activity, has had its staff cut by up to half, funding cuts of


38 per cent and its activities refocused around a commitment to a very conser-vative, traditional, family-centred perspective (Australian NGO Report toCEDAW 1997). The Minister assisting the Prime Minister for the Status ofWomen has been moved into the outer Cabinet, thus restricting access to policypapers and removing her from critical discussions relating to the way policymight impact on women.

Rural electoral support has so far seen the farm women’s femocratic repre-sentatives retained. The previous Labour government responded to farmwomen’s organizing by setting up a Rural Women’s Unit in the Department ofPrimary Industries and Energy. This unit, and similar state government instru-mentalities, have seen women’s networks facilitated and funded and women’sviews given prominence. Since 1986, when the first Rural Women’s NetworkOffice was established by the Victorian State Labour government, ruralwomen’s political activism, facilitated by the femocrats, has intensified and fo-cused around the central issues of their invisibility and rural decline (Alston1996). At national and international forums, farm women have called for recog-nition of their efforts, representation in decision-making arenas and a commit-ment by government to support declining rural communities (IWAC 1994; Al-ston 1995a; Rural Women’s Unit 1996; Rural women meet the Prime Minister1996; SCARM 1997b). Government responses, both Labour and Liberal, to thepolitical activism of rural women have evidenced varying degrees of exaspera-tion at the traditional farm organizations for limiting women’s access, for failingto foster the talents of women and for continuing to nominate a predominanceof men for key board positions. The previous federal Labor government an-nounced a target of 50 per cent female representation on decision-making bod-ies to be achieved by the year 2000 (IWAC 1994). This commitment appears tohave been retracted by the Liberal/National Party government, leading tominimal increases in the poor numbers of women at senior decision-makinglevels (DPIE 1997).

Yet, National Forums have been held in 1995 and 1997, and regular govern-ment consultations with women have been established through the NationalRural Women’s Advisory Committee.1 The federal government has also com-mitted funds for rural women’s leadership development in the recently releasedAgriculture – advancing Australia rural policy package (DPIE 1997). In 1997, theNational Forum on Women in Agriculture and Resource Management, organ-ized by the Rural Women’s Unit and sponsored by the state and Common-wealth Agriculture and Resource Management (SCARM) agencies, resulted inthe development of a National Action Plan and State and Territory ActionPlans for the advancement of women (SCARM 1997a; NSW Agriculture 1998).All of these plans include a commitment to increase women’s participation indecision making. The influence of femocrats in focusing attention on ruralwomen’s issues is critical. However, their continued survival and their ability tocritique and influence the masculinist culture is dependent on governmentcommitment and continued support and pressure from farm women.


At a more global level, the federal government, in its Implementation Plan tothe Fourth UN World Conference on Women, is committed to reviewing

The criteria for recruitment and appointment to advisory and decision-making bodiesand promotion to senior positions to ensure that such criteria are relevant and do notdiscriminate against women (Commonwealth of Australia 1997, p. 278)

and toencouraging efforts by non-governmental organizations, trade unions and the privatesector to achieve equality between women and men in their ranks, including equalparticipation in their decision-making bodies and in negotiations in all areas and at alllevels (Commonwealth of Australia 1997, p. 278)

and to

have transparent criteria for decision-making positions and ensure that the selectingbodies have a gender-balanced composition (Commonwealth of Australia 1997, p.283).

Yet, despite government rhetoric and women’s activism, the lack of commit-ment of the government to gender equity, their diminishing support forwomen’s causes and the intractability of farm organizations have resulted inlimited success for rural women in their access to power.

Women and organizational culture

To understand the intransigence of many farm bodies in the face of concertedcriticism by women and urging by governments, it is imperative that we exam-ine the literature on organizational culture. Savage and Witz (1992) and Gher-ardi (1995) note that organizations are gendered yet, there has been insufficientattention given to analysing the way they reproduce gender inequality. Savageand Witz (1992, p. 18) see these organizations as sites of negotiation, contesta-tion and struggle shaped by “the struggles waged by diverse social groups toobtain and resist power.” Women are marginal to organizations because theyare a ‘submerged voice’ outside the dominant discourse. Pringle (1989, p. 88)argues that apparently gender-neutral organizations are, in fact, patriarchalstructures which disguise the class and gender interests they serve. Women areexcluded from participating as equals by the patriarchal processes at work. Still(1993) and Sinclair (1994) agree that some of the chief obstacles to womenachieving positions of leadership within companies lie, not with women them-selves, but with the gendered workplace culture in which they are forced to op-erate. Gherardi (1995) notes that masculinist organizational cultures may appearto invite women in, but express their distrust of equality and implicitly threatenthose who seek to change the rules. Amanda Sinclair, in her 1994 report Trials atthe top, a study of Australian executive culture, found it to be a masculine do-main “dominated by values, norms, symbols and ways of operating that are ori-ented to men” (1994, p. 6) and that these processes are essential to the way menconstruct their identity as leaders. Therefore, she argues, the exclusion of


women is essential to the construction of masculine identity and, thus, will bemaintained unless those in power are forced to do otherwise. In relation to farmorganizations, and to paraphrase Pringle and Watson (1990, p. 234) farm or-ganizations do not necessarily represent men’s interests as against women’s in-terests, but conduct their business as if men’s interests are the only ones thatexist.

Foucauldian theorizing allows us to view organizations as sites of discursiverelationships, rather than fixed structures, where the forging of the embeddedgendered messages are ongoing and fluid. Thus, the gendered power of farmorganizations is maintained through the discourses created to ensure the domi-nance of male interests but is not without challenge. Grosz’s (1986) suggestionthat women work to develop female-centred knowledge is important. Thepower wielded through these organizations inevitably creates the possibilitiesfor resistance.

In describing the transitional nature of organizations in the 1990s, Sinclairidentifies “four types or stages in the evolution of executive thinking on thesubject of women and women’s absence” (1994, p. ix). These stages are outlinedhere in some detail, as we would contend that in representing a particular atti-tude or perspective on women in organizations, it provides an extremely usefulframework around which attitudes to women’s presence on boards or lack of it,may be conceptualized.

The first stage Sinclair identifies is Denial: The exclusion of women is not a businessissue. This phase is characterized by a dismissal of the relevance of discussionsabout women. Executive cultures in this phase place great store by the mythol-ogy of meritocracy, and firmly believe that they always pick ‘the best person forthe job’ (Sinclair 1994). The second stage is Recognition of the problem: The problem iswomen. Organizations in this phase acknowledge a problem but point to reme-dies which involve women learning to adapt or change in some way to fit theorganization. The existing culture is unexamined or requires minimal or nochange (Sinclair 1994). A third approach or stage is Management by experimentationwith company solutions where companies actively seek to address women’s exclu-sion. However, most initiatives are still women-focused and tend to be reactive.As Sinclair notes, organizations in this phase focus on remedies outside theircontrol such as the absence of a ‘bigger pool of women’ (Sinclair 1994). The fi-nal phase is Leadership: Top-driven and self-focused change in which “the ‘problem’ isrecast not as women but as the very culture itself” and in which there is a rec-ognition that change “requires dramatic personal change for executives” (Sin-clair 1994, pp. 9–11).

The four ‘waves’ identified by Sinclair as the ways in which executives thinkabout women and their presence within organizations, encompass both themore traditional, exclusionary thinking about women (phases one and two), andthe newer, more inclusive identity (phases three and four). It is through thelenses of these four ‘waves’ that the agricultural boards’ research findings will beviewed.


A distinct and critical strand running through the Agricultural Boards’ surveyfindings includes a strong adherence to the ‘mythology of meritocracy,’ identi-fied by Sinclair as part of the more traditional, exclusionary, first phase ofthinking about women within organizations. Clare Burton (1989), former Di-rector of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment for NSW, uses the phrase‘the politics of merit’ to refer to the power some people have to define its di-mensions and to value (or undervalue) the qualifications of others. The crucialpoint she makes is who has the power to define what merit is and how it is tobe judged? Whose experiences are being encompassed by the notion of meritand on what basis are criteria constructed? Do these criteria serve to in-clude/exclude certain skills/experiences which are not valued/seen as impor-tant by the dominant culture? According to Ramsay and Parker (1992), merit isnegotiated and culturally mediated around a need for predictability in candidatechoice. Thus, to include women introduces risk and uncertainty into the previ-ously untroubled and secure organizational structure. By their very interest inthese organizations, Teather (1996) argues, women are challenging their legiti-macy and authority.

The study

This study is being funded through the Australian Research Council and in-volves several stages including interviews with key women in government or-ganizations and farm women’s groups, focus discussion groups with farmwomen across Australia, a survey of women who are on agricultural boards andcommittees and a survey of board chairs. The two-year study has been fundedto ascertain the constraints prohibiting women from achieving leadership posi-tions in agriculture. This paper will focus only on the mailed survey of chairs of140 boards associated with Australian agriculture undertaken in mid-1997. Thelist of boards was generated through co-operation with the Rural Women’s Unitin the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, the National Farmers’Federation and the Affirmative Action Agency. The boards include statutoryand non-statutory bodies, and industry and agribusiness concerns. Chairs werecontacted by telephone prior to the survey being sent and were given the op-portunity to ask questions about the research. As a result of the survey, follow-up qualitative interviews were conducted with ten chairs selected to provide across section of opinions to clarify issues raised in the survey. The survey re-sponse rate was 36 per cent. The quantitative data was analysed using SPSS.

Findings

Boards associated with agriculture are overwhelmingly male dominated. Themale chair is most likely to be over fifty, married with children and to havesome tertiary education in science or agriculture. Board chairs appreciate thereare some problems relating to gender composition, but most are happy with the


current numbers as, they argue, these appointments are likely to be the result of‘merit’ based appointments. As a result, only a very small number have affirma-tive action strategies, mentoring programmes or diversity incentives. Most feelthat the problems relating to under-representation are women’s problems and,hence, most are situated in Sinclair’s stages one and two.

Board type and composition Boards surveyed were chosen because of their associa-tion with agriculture and 50 per cent of the chairs who responded were fromstatutory (government regulated) bodies. Forty-five per cent of boards had oneor no women (26 per cent had no women), while only one had more than threewomen and no boards had less than three men. Chi-square tests of significancereveal that statutory boards were more likely to have women than other types ofboards (p< 0.05) indicating that, while government policies have had some ef-fect in the public sector, in the unregulated private sector resistance to womenremains very real. Yet, only one board had more than 30 per cent of womenmembers so women’s influence on agricultural policy is minimal indeed. Per-haps illustrating the perceived male dominance of agriculture, 78 per cent ofboard chairs feel that their client base is predominantly male and this may helpto explain some lack of focus on gender equity.

Board chair characteristics The overwhelmingly male face of agriculture is revealedin the chair characteristics and, surprisingly, the chairs also have a number ofother similar characteristics. Ninety-two per cent of chairs are male, 65 per centare over fifty, 98 per cent are married and 96 per cent have children. Statutorychairs are likely to be older and, unlike others, to have science or agriculturalqualifications. This profile reveals that chairs are not so much representative ofthe community as of those who have power within it.

One third (33 per cent) of the chairs had high school education only. Ofthose who had achieved tertiary qualifications, 44 per cent held science or agri-culture based degrees, 16 per cent had accounting qualifications, 8 per cent hadbusiness qualifications and 8 per cent law.

Board process In terms of the time commitment involved in board representa-tion, 42 per cent of chairs felt that the executive members of the board mustdevote more than forty hours per week to board business and 53 per cent feltthat ordinary members need less than five hours per week. Hence, for ordinaryboard members at least, time constraints and board commitments are not ardu-ous and should not present a barrier for time-pressed women aspiring to leader-ship positions.

Selection of members is mostly by election or nomination by male-dominated member organizations (46 per cent) and/or Ministerial appointment(56 per cent). Only 15 per cent of boards rely on advertisement. Yet, 81 percent of chairs felt that women would be nominated through existing processes.Chairs were not ignorant of gender disparity, 95 per cent wishing for an increasein women, with the proviso by 43 per cent that this be on ‘merit.’


Fifty-five per cent of chairs were happy with the balance on the board with27 per cent stipulating that this had been achieved on ‘merit.’ However, 42 percent felt that it could be more representative. Seventy per cent also felt thattheir clients would welcome greater balance and equity on the board. Of thosewho had women on their boards, 62 per cent felt that these women had madethe boards more effective.

Gender equity strategies Seventy-six per cent of boards had no incentives to in-crease diversity, 57 per cent had no management training, 88 per cent had novoluntary targets, 83 per cent had no mentoring programme, 79 per cent had noaffirmative action strategies and 98 per cent did not provide child care.

Board attitudes

In order to test chair perceptions of the constraints on women and the way thedominance of men is conceptualized, several attitudinal questions were asked ofthe survey respondents. In response to the question What makes a good board? 18per cent nominated knowledge, 14.5 per cent experience, 7 per cent diversityand 6.5 per cent commitment or enthusiasm. What is surprising, given that se-lection criteria for many boards relate almost exclusively to qualifications andexperience, is that only 6 per cent of answers referred to qualifications (eco-nomic, specialist, business), yet 48 per cent of responses related to desirablepersonal characteristics of board members. These included the ability to maketough decisions, respect, innovation, vision, integrity, professionalism, concernfor staff welfare, intelligence, understanding, willingness to contribute, being ateam player, leadership, flexibility, accountability and judgement.

When asked What qualities do you value in a board member? 13 per cent nomi-nated knowledge or skill, 11 per cent the ability to contribute, and 8 per centexperience. Again a low 7 per cent referred to qualifications (financial knowl-edge, policy development, evaluation of policy, ongoing learning, analytical abil-ity, management), while a majority of responses (56 per cent) related to personalcharacteristics (communication, vision, being a team player, honesty, humour,commitment, objectivity, network, confidentiality, commonsense, integrity, con-sistency, ability to see the big picture, ability to manage change, leadership, per-ception, intellect, listening skills, hard work, willingness to change position,positive thinking, strategic thinking, accountability).

Where relevant, respondents were asked why women are not nominated throughcurrent selection processes. Most responses focused on problems relating to womenrather than organizational or selection constraints. For example, 15 per centstated no women were nominated, 15 per cent felt there were not many womenin the industry, 15 per cent suggested there were too few women on executivesearch books, 8 per cent acknowledged a gender impediment, 8 per cent felt in-dustries were not nominating women, 8 per cent felt women were not suffi-ciently aggressive, 8 per cent stated that women were not members, 8 per centfelt there were too few women in key positions, 8 per cent suggested that


women have other priorities and only 8 per cent acknowledged a flawed selec-tion process.

When asked What experiences do women bring? 39 per cent stated that there wereno differences between men and women, 12 per cent that women had moreholistic views, 8 per cent that they were more perceptive, 8 per cent that theyhad a broader range of skills, 6 per cent that they were better communicatorsand 4 per cent that they were more concerned with social issues. Twenty-threeper cent of respondents noted a variety of other perceptions about women(women try harder, are more focussed, have a better consumer appreciation,have an eye for detail, are more caring etc).

Chairs were asked What are the obstacles to women achieving board representation?Given the educational profile of the chairs, it was noteworthy that the most of-ten stated response referred to women’s inadequate qualifications or experience(17 per cent). Again a focus on women’s inadequacies was reflected in other re-sponses. For example, 12 per cent suggested that women were not puttingthemselves forward, 9 per cent that women lacked a public profile/industrysupport, 9 per cent that women lacked time to devote to board representation,7 per cent that women lacked self confidence, 7 per cent that women’s familycommitments prevented them from achieving representation, and 6 per centthat they lacked interest or had different priorities. By comparison, few re-sponses focussed on problems unrelated to women’s perceived inadequacies.Eight per cent referred to poor selection processes and 8 per cent to the maleculture of boards. A further 4 per cent felt there were no obstacles at all.

When asked What organizational constraints exist to women’s advancement? 36 percent felt there were none not shared by men. Despite the clear emphasis in thequestion on impediments within organizations, many respondents still focussedon women’s inadequacies when answering this question. For example, 9 per centreferred to women’s lack of interest or different priorities, 7 per cent towomen’s family commitments, 5 per cent to lack of child care, 5 per cent towomen’s lack of time, 5 per cent to travel problems, 4 per cent to women’swork commitments, 3 per cent to the financial cost and 3 per cent to women’slack of procedural knowledge. Only 9 per cent of respondents made referenceto the male culture of boards which may turn women away.

When asked for Any further comments? respondents reinforced the perceptionthat they saw few problems in the organizations themselves and immenseproblems with women. Nine per cent noted a lack of willing women, 5 per centa lack of qualified women, 5 per cent too much emphasis on gender, 5 per centno real barriers, 5 per cent women’s lack of experience, 5 per cent the maledominance of industries (and therefore leadership) and 13 per cent other inade-quacies in women. A further 13 per cent noted the need to continue to makeappointments on ‘merit.’ Some insight into structural constraints was demon-strated by 23 per cent of respondents who nominated organizational, industryor government inadequacies as causes of concern ( for example, the need to tar-get women, to address the Office of the Status of Women register, to address


selection process, to provide training, to hold women’s forums and a need forcommitment from government). A further 9 per cent noted that their organiza-tions had a motivation to move to gender equity.

Discussion

This research is important for an understanding of power as it is shaped aroundmale subjectivities and wielded through Australian agricultural boards by amale-dominated, aged elite. It demonstrates that agricultural policy is fashionedwith little or no input from women and with little understanding of women’ssubjectivities or of the value of their input to the decision-making process. Inparticular, it gives critical insights into the way those in powerful positions canjustify a gendered organizational structure and act to resist the input of womenby negating their value and by locating the reasons for their under-representation in their own circumstances. The research findings suggest thatthe predominantly male chairs accept as given that women will be located inand responsible for the domestic labour sphere, and that this then explains theirabsence from the decision-making sphere. There is little understanding ex-pressed about the gendered, hierarchical and patriarchal farming sphere, whichso limits women’s choices and which is apparently replicated in the organiza-tions themselves. The overwhelming tendency is to blame the victim. Women areseen as less qualified, less confident, more constrained by family obligations andlacking motivation or interest. Very little insight into organizational and gen-dered constraints is demonstrated. The findings support Shortall’s (1992) pointthat the powerful will exclude the powerless and then take their silence as le-gitimation of their exclusion.

What is striking about this survey is not only that there are few women inboard chair positions but that chairs have such a similar profile. Older men whoare married with children are over-represented in these positions and out ofproportion to their profile in the general community. Power in the agriculturalcommunity appears confined to a very narrow group. It would seem that oldermarried men are more successful at achieving leadership. In interviews con-ducted with the select group of chairs following the survey, this point was fur-ther clarified. Many felt that having their wife and/or children at home carryingon the farming business allowed them time to pursue their ambitions. By con-trast, women at a similar stage have great difficulty achieving the same freedomto leave home for regular periods, a view expressed by many women in focusgroups and interviews. “A family increases men’s work experiences and reduceswomen’s” (Burton and Ryall 1995, p. 12).

The educational profile of the board chairs was also surprising given the of-ten-stated problem of women’s lack of qualifications. The most postulated rea-son for women’s lack of representation by respondents in this survey was their‘inadequate qualifications or experience’ (17 per cent). Yet, one third of respon-dents to this survey had high school qualifications only and this would suggest


that lack of qualifications is not a constraint for men. Twice as many Australianfarm women as farm men hold tertiary qualifications (Gooday 1995) and yetthis educational advantage is not translating into access to decision making. Itcould be argued that the high number of chairs with little education is repre-sentative of rural male educational disadvantage (Rowe 1997; Gooday 1995).Equally it can be seen that this is not an impediment for men achieving signifi-cant leadership positions. “Overall, education and work experience, ‘humancapital investments,’ appear to advantage men’s managerial advancement morethan women’s” (Burton and Ryall 1995, p. 12). It would seem that women’s su-perior qualifications are not being valued in the agricultural sector. More im-portant may be the perception that women’s lack of experience as a result oftheir entry point to farming is to be held against them as a reason for their ex-clusion.

Many chairs supported the virtue of appointment on the grounds of ‘merit.’Yet merit is not defined or analysed by respondents. There is apparent supportfor Ramsay and Parker’s (1992) assertion that merit is culturally mediated sothat predictable candidates emerge. This is particularly evident in the processesused to select candidates, a vast majority of whom are nominated through ex-isting male-dominated channels and selected by (usually) male-dominated selec-tion committees. Some chairs, when interviewed later, conceded that there islittle chance for women to prove themselves in such circumstances and that fewwomen are progressed or nominated. It would appear therefore, that the proc-esses are structured to prevent diversity or to challenge existing uniformity. As aresult, many eligible women are not being appointed.

Few boards rely on advertisement (15 per cent) and so the restricted avenuesof organizational nomination and/or appointment by the Minister (on advicefrom organizations) will ensure maintenance of gender inequity. The currentselection process is seriously flawed and, if the current government is to adhereto its UN commitments as outlined in this paper, then these must be completelyoverhauled. The likelihood of this government taking on such a commitment is,however, remote given its record on commitment to women’s issues. It would,therefore, appear essential for the femocrats within the federal and state gov-ernment departmental structures to maintain their focus on women’s invisibilityin the dominant masculinist hierarchy and discourse surrounding agriculture. Inconjunction with farm women, they must place pressure on government tohonour their international commitments, and on industry and farmer organiza-tions to acknowledge the constraints within their organizations which disad-vantage women. Meanwhile, women must keep the issue a key focus of futureforums through their alternative channels.

This survey reveals that despite women’s activism and calls for inclusive rep-resentation, despite their increasingly evident contributions to agricultural pro-duction and despite government rhetoric in support of a higher profile forwomen, there will be little change to the composition of decision-makingboards if the present system is allowed to continue. Attitudes reflected in the


survey responses suggest that current boards appear to be clustered in Sinclair’sstages 1 and 2 in terms of their responses to the lack of women. Predominantly,respondents suggest either that the lack of women is not a problem and rely onthe defence of meritocracy or they intimate that it is a problem and the problemis women. Women are viewed as lacking qualifications or experience, as havingfamily commitments, as having other priorities, as lacking confidence or net-works or profiles, as not ‘putting themselves forward’ and so on.

There is no apparent soul-searching about the possible organizational impedi-ments to women’s advancement with the focus being deflected back on to defi-ciencies in women by many of the respondents. For example, the practices ofsome farmer bodies who allow members to hold leadership positions for an un-limited period leading to a restriction of new ideas or new faces is not presentedas an impediment. In organizations like the Cattleman’s Union of Australia,which has a strict three-year limit on leadership and which has a policy of ac-tively encouraging women, women are more prominent.

Board chairs did not focus on organizational practices such as the lack oftransparent selection processes; the way decisions are made in relation to selec-tion criteria; the narrow selection criteria which exclude and/or devalue alterna-tive experiences; the ‘old boys’ networks used to select candidates in some or-ganizations; the reliance of some organizations on seniority as a key selectioncriteria; that some boards rely on member organizations to nominate candidatesand that these nominations are overwhelmingly or exclusively male; the locationand timing of meetings; the lack of equal opportunity/affirmative action poli-cies and incentives to encourage diversity; or the lack of commitment from thetop. The constraints on women’s access to high profile positions are viewed asunproblematic or as a problem for women and so there is little motivation toact on the issues.

The lack of women being put forward for nomination indicates that womenare not being nurtured throughout the layers of organizational structures. Theoverwhelming lack of gender equity strategies (mentoring, affirmative action,voluntary targets, diversity incentives or child care) suggests that the organiza-tional culture is exclusionary and gender blind. The negative attitudes about af-firmative action expressed by some respondents on their survey forms belie theappalling record of these bodies to foster gender diversity. Where the govern-ment has taken some action to address the issue by appointing a female chair ofselection panel for statutory boards, improvements do occur. It is also evidentthat the comparatively better gender profile on statutory boards is a strong ar-gument for regulation. However, change in the unregulated industry bodies willbe far more difficult as they are more likely to see the lack of women as un-problematic.

Strategies which raise or maintain awareness of the need for gender diversityare crucial. Hence goals or targets to enable gender balance on boards are es-sential and powerful tools which force boards to begin seeking out and groom-ing suitable women and nurturing them once they are on the board. Little at-


tempt is being made to move into Sinclair’s stage three – management by experi-mentation with company solutions – or into stage four – leadership: top-driven and self fo-cused change. Why, for example, are the successful candidates for the AustralianRural Woman of the Year Award not being groomed for leadership roles?

The tragedy of course is that agricultural policy development is missing outon the perspectives and intellectual contribution of a segment of the agriculturalwork force who contribute 48 per cent of its income (RIRDC and DPIE 1998).Women have shown in their own conferences that they are not shy of address-ing the need for a clean, green agricultural image, of being acutely conscious ofthe need for ecological sustainability and of challenging chemical overuse andother practices that may be impacting on the health of Australians (IWAC 1994;Alston 1995a; Rural Women’s Unit 1996; Rural Women Meet the Prime Minis-ter 1996; SCARM 1997b). The introduction of women into leadership in agri-culture may well see a change in emphasis away from commodity issues to agreater emphasis on environmental sustainability. We should also note thatthere is a positive connection between productivity and diversity management(Burton and Ryall 1995) and that the sector is, therefore, financially disadvan-taged by its current management profile.

In the meantime, the place of women’s organizations continues to be im-portant. Women should work to strengthen their own organizations to ensurethat there are viable alternatives for women seeking leadership opportunitiesand for the development of women-centred knowledge. These groups provide afocus from which to place pressure on traditional organizations. AustralianWomen in Agriculture (AWiA) for example now has observer rights at the Na-tional Farmers’ Federation. While this is an admirable move, it does not includevoting rights or access to the nomination processes. Women’s organizationsneed to be prepared to move further in their quest for entry to the policy-making arena if the traditional organizations continue to ignore or overlookwomen. They must express their outrage at their exclusion and question theirsilencing. They should demand that boards and selection committees seeknominations from national women’s organizations. Despite the prevailing viewthat there are no women out there or that they have inadequate qualifications orexperience, women’s groups know that this is not the case and must say so.

This paper reveals that the significant constraints facing women seeking agri-cultural leadership are not being addressed by those with the power to influencethem. Karpin (1995) warns us that organizational change will only occurthrough top down leadership support. In the current Australian context, despitethe National Action Plan, the possibility of continued support from govern-ment is not assured. In the short term, women need to publicize and giveprominence to the National and State Action Plans, they need to focus pressureon the government through the National Women’s Advisory Council and keepthe issue on the agenda in industry and farmer bodies. Women must strengthentheir resistance to the male-dominated discourse and break down the attitudethat women’s exclusion is somehow their fault. They need to commit them-


selves to female solidarity and to note Watson’s (1995) warning that we takeheed of the shifting discourses and the subjectivities being produced within so-cial policy. The challenge is on to promote a women-centred agricultural knowl-edge from a women’s perspective and not from a reference defined by menthrough masculine-constructed knowledge and processes.

Note

1. Principal author Margaret Alston has been an appointed member of this committeesince its inception in 1995. It meets regularly with the Head of the Department ofPrimary Industries and Energy and with the Minister.

References

Alston, M. (1995) Women on the land: The hidden heart of rural Australia (Kensington:UNSW Press)

Alston, M. (1995a) National Rural Women’s Forum. A report to the Department of PrimaryIndustries and Energy (Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles SturtUniversity)

Alston, M. (1996) Backs to the wall: Australian farm women make formidable activists.Pp. 77–84 in G. Lawrence et al. eds, Social change in rural Australia (Rockhampton: Ru-ral Social and Economic Research Centre, Central Queensland University)

Alston, M. (1998) The othering of rural women. Pp. 31–36 in M. Alston ed., Rural Aus-tralia towards 2000. Conference proceedings, rural women’s section (Wagga Wagga:Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University)

Australian NGO Report to CEDAW (1997) Coalition of Australian participating or-ganizations of women – Report to the UN. July (www.isis.aust.com/capow)

Board, H. (1997) Rural women, policy and the process of change in Australian agricul-ture. Pp. 37–46 in M. Alston ed., Rural Australia towards 2000. Conference proceed-ings, rural women’s section (Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research, CharlesSturt University)

Brandth, B. (1994) Changing feminity. The social construction of women farmers inNorway. Sociologia Ruralis 34 (2/3) pp. 127–149

Broad, L. (1997) The untapped resource. Pp. 61–66 in M. Alston ed., Rural Australia to-wards 2000. Conference proceedings, rural women’s section (Wagga Wagga: Centrefor Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University)

Burton, C. and C. Ryall (1995) Enterprising nation: Managing for diversity. Research for the taskforce on leadership and management skills (Canberra: Australian Government PublishingService, Commonwealth of Australia)

Burton, C. (1989) Politics of ‘merit.’ Australian Teacher 22 (April) pp. 15–18Carson, J. (1997) Rural women offer new perspective. Australian Farm Journal 7 (5)Commonwealth of Australia (1997) Fourth world conference on women: Platform for action.

Australia’s implementation report (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service)DPIE – Department of Primary Industries and Energy (1997) Women on boards. Report to

the rural women’s advisory committee (Canberra: Rural Women’s Unit, DPIE)DPIE – Department of Primary Industries and Energy (1997) Agriculture – advancing

Australia (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia)


Eisenstein, H. (1996) Inside agitators: Australian femocrats and the state (St Leonards: Allen &Unwin)

Ferguson, J. and R. Simpson (1995) The Australian rural labour market. Vol. 9. A NationalFarmers Federation discussion paper (Barton ACT: National Farmers Federation)

Franzway, S., D. Court and R. Connell (1989) Staking a claim (Oxford: Polity)Gherardi, S. (1995) Gender, symbolism and organizational cultures (London: Sage)Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) A solid investment: making full use of the nation’s human

capital. Recommendations of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (Washington DC: GlassCeiling Commission)

Gooday, J. (1995) Women on farms. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Eco-nomics (ABARE) research report 95.10 (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia)

Grosz, E. (1986) Conclusion. What is feminist theory? Pp. 190–204 in C. Pateman andE. Grosz eds, Feminist challenges (St Leonards: Allen & Unwin)

IWAC – International Women in Agriculture Committee Inc (1994) Farming for our future:International Women in Agriculture Conference Proceedings (Melbourne: University of Mel-bourne)

Karpin, D. (1995) Enterprising nation: managing for diversity (Canberra: Australian Govern-ment Publishing Service, Commonwealth of Australia)

Karpin, D. (1997) Diversity: The key to competitive leverage. Pp. 31–4 in StandingCommittee on Agriculture and Resource Management, Proceedings National Forum onWomen in Agriculture and Resource Management (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia,Department of Primary Industries and Energy)

Korn-Ferry International (1996) Board meeting in session. Board of directors in Australia. Fif-teenth study (Sydney: Goldfields House)

Korn-Ferry International (1997) Board Meeting in session. Board of directors in Australasia(Sydney: Goldfields House)

MacKenzie, F. (1994) Is where I sit, where I stand? The Ontario Farm Women’s Net-work, politics and difference Journal of Rural Studies 10 (2) pp.101–115

NFF – National Farmers’ Federation (1997) National Farmers’ Federation handbook (Bar-ton, ACT: National Farmers’ Federation)

NSW Agriculture (1998) NSW action plan for women in agriculture & resource management (Or-ange: Rural Women’s Network, NSW Agriculture)

Pringle, R. (1989) Secretaries talk: Sexuality, power and work (London and New York: Verso)Pringle, R. and S. Watson (1990) Fathers, brothers, mates: the fraternal state in Australia.

In S. Watson ed., Playing the state: Australian feminist interventions (London: Verso)Ramsay, K. and M. Parker (1992) Gender, bureaucracy and organizational culture. Pp.

253–76 in M. Savage and A. Witz eds, Gender and bureaucracy (Oxford: Blackwell)Rayner, M. (1997) The wedge gets thicker. Eureka Street 7 (9)RIRDC and DPIE (1998) Missed opportunities project report (Canberra: Rural Women’s Unit,

Department of Primary Industries and Energy)Roper, M. (1994) Masculinity and the British organization man since 1945 (New York: Oxford

University Press)Rowe, F. (1997) Women contributing to agriculture and resource management. Pp. 41–

45 in Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management. Proceedings Na-tional Forum on Women in Agriculture and Resource Management (Canberra: Common-wealth of Australia, Department of Primary Industries and Energy)

Rural Women’s Unit, DPIE (1996) Women in rural Australia: A Report from a National Ru-ral Women’s Stakeholders Meeting (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia)


Rural Women meet the Prime Minister (1996) World rural women’s day 15 October 1996.Parliament House, Canberra (Canberra: Rural Women’s Unit, Department of PrimaryIndustries and Energy)

Savage, M. and A. Witz eds (1992) Gender and bureaucracy (London: Blackwell Publishers)Shortall, S. (1994) Farm women’s groups: Feminist or farming or community groups, or

new social movements? Sociology 28 (1) pp. 279 – 91Shortall, S. (1992) Power analysis and farm wives: An empirical study of the power rela-

tionships affecting women on Irish farms. Sociologia Ruralis 32 (4) pp. 431–451Sinclair, A. (1994) Trials at the top (Melbourne: The Australian Centre, University of Mel-

bourne)SCARM – Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management (1997a) A

Vision for change: National Action Plan for Women in Agriculture and Resource Management(Canberra: Department of Primary Industries and Energy)

SCARM – Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management (1997b) Pro-ceedings National Forum on Women in Agriculture and Resource Management (Canberra:Commonwealth of Australia)

Still, L. (1993) Where to from here? The managerial woman in transition (Chatswood: Businessand Professional Publishing)

Still, L. (1997) Glass ceilings, glass walls and sticky floors: Barriers to career progress forwomen in the finance industry. Women and leadership working paper series (Perth: DeputyVice Chancellery, Edith Cowan University)

Teather, E. (1996) Farm women in Canada, New Zealand and Australia redefine theirrurality. Journal of Rural Studies 12 (1) pp. 1–14

Watson, S. (1995) Reclaiming social policy. Pp. 164–71 in B. Caine and R. Pringle eds,Transitions: New Australian feminisms (St Leonards: Allen & Unwin)

Watson, S. (1992) Femocratic feminisms. Pp. 186–204 in M. Savage and A. Witz eds,Gender and bureaucracy (London: Blackwell Publishers)

Whatmore, S. (1991) Farming women: Gender, work and family enterprise (London: Macmillan)Williams, J. (1992) The invisible farmer: A Report on Australian farm women (Canberra: De-

partment of Primary Industries and Energy)

Australian Farm Women - Shut out or Fenced in? The Lack of Women in Agricultural Leadership

Documents

Transcript of Australian Farm Women - Shut out or Fenced in? The Lack of Women in Agricultural Leadership