It Is Not My Place! Psychological Standing and Men's Voice and Participation in Gender-Parity Initiatives

Elad N. Sherf, S. Tangirala, K. Weber
{"title":"It Is Not My Place! Psychological Standing and Men's Voice and Participation in Gender-Parity Initiatives","authors":"Elad N. Sherf, S. Tangirala, K. Weber","doi":"10.1287/orsc.2017.1118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Attempts to improve gender parity at workplaces are more effective when organizations mobilize their entire workforce, including men, to participate (i.e., speak up with ideas, volunteer, or serve as champions) in gender-parity initiatives. Yet, frequently, men are hesitant to participate in such initiatives. We explicate one reason for such hesitation on the part of men and suggest ways organizations can address this challenge. Using four studies (correlational as well as experimental), we demonstrate that men experience lower psychological standing (i.e., a subjective judgment of legitimacy to perform an action) with respect to gender-parity initiatives that leads them to participate less in such initiatives. We explain how psychological standing provides a complementary explanation to the current narrative in the literature suggesting that men’s poor participation results from sexist or discriminatory attitudes toward gender parity. We also establish that psychological standing influences participation...","PeriodicalId":93599,"journal":{"name":"Organization science (Providence, R.I.)","volume":"1 1","pages":"193-210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization science (Providence, R.I.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

Abstract

Attempts to improve gender parity at workplaces are more effective when organizations mobilize their entire workforce, including men, to participate (i.e., speak up with ideas, volunteer, or serve as champions) in gender-parity initiatives. Yet, frequently, men are hesitant to participate in such initiatives. We explicate one reason for such hesitation on the part of men and suggest ways organizations can address this challenge. Using four studies (correlational as well as experimental), we demonstrate that men experience lower psychological standing (i.e., a subjective judgment of legitimacy to perform an action) with respect to gender-parity initiatives that leads them to participate less in such initiatives. We explain how psychological standing provides a complementary explanation to the current narrative in the literature suggesting that men’s poor participation results from sexist or discriminatory attitudes toward gender parity. We also establish that psychological standing influences participation...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
这不是我的地盘!心理地位、男性的声音和参与性别平等倡议
当组织动员包括男性在内的全体员工参与(即畅所欲言、志愿服务或作为拥护者)性别平等倡议时,改善工作场所性别平等的努力将更加有效。然而,通常情况下,男性对参与此类活动犹豫不决。我们解释了男性犹豫不决的一个原因,并提出了组织应对这一挑战的方法。通过四项研究(相关研究和实验研究),我们证明,男性在性别平等倡议方面的心理地位较低(即,对执行行动合法性的主观判断),导致他们较少参与此类倡议。我们解释了心理地位如何为当前文献中认为男性参与率低是性别歧视或对性别平等的歧视态度的叙述提供了补充解释。我们还确定心理地位影响参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Organizational and Perceived Learning in the Workplace: A Multilevel Perspective on Employees' Problem Solving Call for Papers-Special Issue on Experiments in Organizational Theory The Lasting Benefits of Teams: Tie Vitality After Teams Disband Falling Not Far from the Tree: Entrepreneurs and Organizational Heritage Blurred Lines: How the Collectivism Norm Operates Through Perceived Group Diversity to Boost or Harm Group Performance in Himalayan Mountain Climbing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1