The discursive construction of gendered managerial identities: a critical discursive psychological analysis

What the paper says

Purpose A significant gender gap persists in senior managerial positions, yet little is known about how managerial identities are discursively constructed and how gender becomes relevant in these contexts. This study addresses two key aims: first, to examine the interpretative repertoires employed by female and male managers when discussing managerial identity, and second, to explore how managers navigate, construct, and resist gendered expectations. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 12 middle-level managers (6 females and 6 males) employed in the information technology (IT) sector. A critical discursive psychological framework was adopted. Findings Analysis revealed three dominant interpretative repertoires: to be or not to be and do as I bid thee, predominantly associated with female and male managers, respectively, and in care of thee, dominant in the discourses of both genders. Additionally, three subject positions were identified: gender conformist, ambivalent striver, and gender non-conformist. Originality/value The originality of this study lies in its use of a critical discursive psychological approach to examine the gendered construction of managerial identities. The findings are analyzed within the context of organizational structures as well as broader societal norms in countries like India. These insights contribute to understanding the discursive processes that sustain or challenge gendered expectations in managerial roles in male-dominated work contexts.